I have been wondering if Hillary should run as an INDEPENDENT, What do you think?

After yesterday's fiasco and todays substantial electoral victory, I keep finding myself thinking that Hillary Rodham Clinton should PERHAPS consider mounting an independent candidacy.

I know that she has said that she would not run, but I think that if the current situation does not resolve itself satisfatorily, she should seriously reconsider the possibility of running as a TRULY PROGRESSIVE INDEPENDENT for President of the USA.

When all is said and done, looking at the trends and events of the last few months, I think that IN A NATIONAL ELECTION, HILLARY may well be the candidate who would garner THE LARGEST NUMBER OF VOTES, as well as THE LARGEST NUMBER OF ELECTORAL VOTES of the three.

I think polling companies might want to explore the numbers that would result from a three way race between Hillary, Obama and McCain.

As I said, I am not saying that I think this is the solution, obviously, it runs the risk of splitting the electorate and/or perhaps changing the landscape of Presidential politics forever (the first would be a bad thing, but the second might be great)  

After yesterday, I actually think that a lot of people would see her candidacy for what it would be, an attempt to break away from the vicious circle of coercion that has poisoned the last few elections, by running as an independent - Independent of the corrupt Washington system.

This is an open thread to discuss the PROS and CONS of this...

Please, no flames. No obamabotting

Tags: fairness, Hillary, independent candidacy, responsibility (all tags)

Comments

110 Comments

Re: I have been wondering if Hillary should run as

This is a democratic party blog.

Support our party 100% or leave. No independent party will get any support here!

by Cheebs 2008-06-01 12:25PM | 0 recs
Re: I have been wondering if Hillary should run as

We support the democratic party.

The Clintons ARE the democratic party.

YOU need to start being a team player.

by rankles 2008-06-01 01:02PM | 0 recs
Hey it is rankles

BTW I really really really hate Switching Sides and lemon714.

by Student Guy 2008-06-01 01:10PM | 0 recs
The irony, it burns!

by semiquaver 2008-06-01 01:32PM | 0 recs
Re: I have been wondering if Hillary should run as

"The Clintons ARE the Democratic party"?

For real?

by TL 2008-06-01 01:44PM | 0 recs
Re: I have been wondering if Hillary should run as

The majority of the democratic party disagrees with you.

by Okamifujutsu 2008-06-01 02:37PM | 0 recs
Great idea

Two liberal candidates! One conservative candidate! She'd definitely win in that situation!

by Lance Bryce 2008-06-01 12:25PM | 0 recs
the idea would be to break away from that system

..

as a real progressive...

by architek 2008-06-01 12:27PM | 0 recs
and as her running mate

Joe Lieberman!

Clinton/Lieberman: Experience Iran Will Fear!

by BlueinColorado 2008-06-01 12:32PM | 0 recs
It can be...

the USA for Clinton party.

by tonedevil 2008-06-01 12:39PM | 0 recs
Re: It can be...

Ultra Stupid of America?  That works.

by gchaucer2 2008-06-01 12:45PM | 0 recs
Re: and as her running mate

Phantom props.  Can't seem to rate today - I think/hope it's a browser issue...

by TL 2008-06-01 01:45PM | 0 recs
Re: Is this snark?

I had hoped you were gone.  I understand the civil disobedience and the message you are trying to convey but please, please go away.  You only widen the divide between two groups that need to come together.

by CAchemist 2008-06-01 12:57PM | 0 recs
Coming together?

We're waaaay past that now.

by rankles 2008-06-01 01:03PM | 0 recs
I this will not work because...

"by running as an independent - Independent of the corrupt Washington system."

It's going to be hard to run that way.---My gosh,LOL, Hillary is a big part of the corrupt Washington system.

by GeeMan 2008-06-01 01:27PM | 0 recs
I just don't see it that way.

BTW, I was the vote saying she should wait and see..  I think just that, she should wait and see.

Not rule it out, not jump into something that right now, would be premature.

Look, I just watched Obama and I think he's a great speaker and an engaging personality. Obviously, the media loves him. But does he have what it takes to pull our economy out of this mess, honestly, I DON'T THINK SO. Does he present a solution to the healthcare crisis that will work for most Americans, NO. Look, he just spoke at the Corn Palace, and again, he uses his loopholes on healthcare. Here were two that I remember.

1.) A fair price for an insurance company, IS NOT NECESSARILY AFFORDABLE, IT IS BASED ON COST AND RISK. What people can afford MAY NOT BUY MUCH INSURANCE AT ALL UNDER OABAMA. (If he prevents insurance companies from charging by risk, the price for everybody WILL GO UP A LOT. The only way around that is a mandate. ONLY a mandate.)

2.) The insurance that he has as a member of the Senate is likely QUITE expensive, maybe some of us would be able to spend what the USA spends on each Senator, I DOUBT if most of us could afford the two or three thousand dollars a month that THEY (the US government, their employer) pay for THAT plan, EVEN IF WE COULD..

Most Federal employees select much cheaper plans. Those plans have the same drawbacks commerical plans have, often they dont cover a lot. That leaves people - even Federal employees, alsthough I suspect its less likely for them than for most others, (a plus) sometimes holding the bag for huge bills.

by architek 2008-06-01 01:41PM | 0 recs
Re: the idea would be to break away from that syst

And this exactly is the problem.  Neither Democratic candidate has the credentials to run as a true progressive, to represent the Farm & Labor alliance that Wellstone stood for, to pronounce a populist rhetoric that both challenges us to be better people and tears down the feudal tendencies of wealthiest amongst us.  The Clintons governed a Red state, and the Clinton Presidency was largely a series of attempts to work with a hostile Republican Caucus.  If Clinton leaves the Party, a thorough examination of the compromises and preemptive compromises of her experience would be on the table, and that would hurt us all more than anything has so far.

by Endymion 2008-06-01 02:41PM | 0 recs
Bill Clinton governed the USA, for eight years..

I find it telling how the Obama folk try to cover that up. As well as cover up Hillary's popularity. What I see is this nation being forced to accept Obama as a nominee, when the truth is that they are pretty much running neck and neck. The anomalies in the delegate totals are symptomatic of issues that we need to be working on. Actually, I think that the delegate system, the electoral college, etc, are vestiges of a system that was designed to maintain democracy when it took days to weeks for news and people to travel from one area to another. Now with the Internet, I dont see any excuse to filter everything the way we do, what is happening is inexcusable.

The person who said Hillary's continued candidacy was 'civil disobedience' - I actually see the DNC's actions yesterday as civil disobedience. Sorry, your spin doesn't impress me.

The people legitimize governments, NOT the other way around.

by architek 2008-06-01 03:21PM | 0 recs
Re: Bill Clinton governed the USA, for eight years
No President serves every constituent.  And I am not willing to fall into the tarpit of discussing Hillary Clinton's record and popularity.  In many cases, it is not the people who fail to love her that are the problem, it is the people who outright hate her, a group that is not large enough anymore to automatically shut her out, but which does have enough funding power to cripple her severely.  The delegate system is a vestige of a time when parties were expected to pick their candidates themselves, a time when absolute democracy was not expected to be a part of the process, a rather naive time when people trusted that those with the time and expertise to appraise the candidates would take care of the vetting of candidates and pay heed to the mood of the public in doing so.  There has been a stark change in public perception in this cycle;  take Florida for example...this is a state that has been more enfranchised in this primary season than ever before, and all anyone can talk about is how Florida's getting disenfranchised.  But I digress.  A fully electronic election, internet based, would be spectacular, but only from a comedy or criminal standpoint.  I take it you've completely ignored the LiveJournal Advisory Board election that just ended--total farce.  
(Meta:  posting a response to some other comment in your response to me is probably not effective.  I think there is an all-around failure to understand the meaning of 'civil disobedience.')
One last point.  Referring to Candidate Clinton exclusively in the familiar mode, that is, as 'Hillary', especially when not referring to Candidate Obama in the same mode, i.e. Barack or Barry, is more than presumptive, it is sexist.  Please refer to Clinton in a way that respects her stature as a person.
by Endymion 2008-06-01 06:59PM | 0 recs
by souvarine 2008-06-01 12:26PM | 0 recs
Re: I have been wondering if Hillary should run as

She won't run as an independent. It would be a betrayal to everything she believes and more importantly it would guarantee a John McCain victory in November.

by VAAlex 2008-06-01 12:26PM | 0 recs
Re: I have been wondering if Hillary should run as

It would gurantee an issue based election. Not just Democrat v Republican

by Wiseprince 2008-06-01 01:19PM | 0 recs
Yes, that is exactly what we need.

Barack Obama has done everything one could possibly imagine to avoid discussing the issues in any detail and he has been largely successful.

by architek 2008-06-01 01:44PM | 0 recs
Re: I have been wondering if Hillary should run as
Not at all.  Clinton's support, like Obama's is dependent on a fanatical core who identify personally with their candidate.  A three way race in the General would only result in the same sort of 'Hilbot'vs.'Obamatard' tomfoolery we've been seeing right here for the past year, only on a national, omnimedial scale.  
I mean, Jeezus, why can't you kids pack up your toys and start taking this seriously?  We! Need! To! Beat! McCain!  If all of you goons who put candidate over Party can get behind that goal, there is nothing short of a well-funded spoiler candidate that will keep us from victory.
by Endymion 2008-06-01 02:51PM | 0 recs
I don't 'identify' with her at all.

I just think she is light years ahead of Obama in intelligence and maturity.

Obama is clearly very good at what he does and says, but it doesn't make up for the fact that he is spinning everything he says.


His deceptive language on health care totally makes me angry, because he is deceiving poor people who are depending on him.

by architek 2008-06-01 03:24PM | 0 recs
I do not believe it would

mean a McCain win.  I think she would win. Obama is a gaffe machine.

by Teacher1956 2008-06-01 01:32PM | 0 recs
Re: I do not believe it would

You DO realize that 2 members of the same ideology vs. 1 member of the opposite ideology guarantees a victory for the opposite ideology right?

by VAAlex 2008-06-01 01:36PM | 0 recs
Re: I do not believe it would

You do realize that Hillary wins no matter what, right?

by proseandpromise 2008-06-01 02:49PM | 0 recs
No

No

by LandStander 2008-06-01 12:27PM | 0 recs
I list some cons

a McCain presidency

by cardboard 1 2008-06-01 12:27PM | 0 recs
Re: I have been wondering if Hillary should run as

I think no.  Clinton thinks no.

Next.

by ihaveseenenough 2008-06-01 12:27PM | 0 recs
Re: I have been wondering if Hillary should run as

TROLL

eom

by neonplaque 2008-06-01 12:28PM | 0 recs
This is a troll

And ought to be removed.  This serves no purpose on this web site.  Things like this are what Limbaugh listeners will be doing on web sites like this now that they can't tamper with elections any longer.

by SpanishFly 2008-06-01 12:30PM | 0 recs
Re: This is a troll

This author isn't a troll - he has written a lot of diaries on a wide variety of subjects and a troll he is not.  He may be disillusioned with our party, unenthused by our candidate, but he isn't a troll.  He is asking a legit question of Clinton Supporters.  Take it easy, there are lots of sore feelings out there right now.

by RockvilleLiberal2 2008-06-01 12:49PM | 0 recs
Re: This is a troll

Boo fucking hoo.  This is a diary that proposes a third party run.  This is a Democratic blog.  As such, this is a troll diary.  Therefore, the diarist is a troll.

by reconad 2008-06-01 12:59PM | 0 recs
Look at what happened yesterday and then tell me

that this is not a legitimate question to be asking right now.

Also, on CNN, they just said that by 2 out of 3 measures, Hillary is ahead in popular votes.

Now, to me, that says she is the legitimate leader. It wouldnt be so galling if they said they were tied, but for them to say so INSISTENTLY Obama is SO far ahead, instead of saying that the delegate count is making him ahead of where he should be, bluntly makes me think the whole system is fixed and a FRAUD.

by architek 2008-06-01 03:27PM | 0 recs
Re: This is a troll

I wouldn't go as far as reconab, but this diarist has made a lot of ad hominem attacks on Obama and his supporters, and very rarely responds well to reasoned disagreements.  All the good's on his side, all the evil's on the other.

There's plenty of room for passion short of this - I don't have patience for jibes at "shrillary," and there should be no more room for screaming all-cap sig lines criticizing the "O-drama" campaign.

by TL 2008-06-01 01:52PM | 0 recs
Re: This is a troll

Obviously this is a troll diary, but I think there's some value to having this out in front to be stomped all over.  

by Endymion 2008-06-01 02:56PM | 0 recs
Bwaaaahaaaaa

You clearly have zero respect for Senator Clinton.  Good thing she has real supporters with integrity.  Soon, you and your little nasty friends will be sidelined here and then disappear back into your holes.  

Cheers for Clinton supporters -- all 99%+ of you who reflect the best of the Democratic Party and Progressive ideas -- that doesn't include the diarist.

by gchaucer2 2008-06-01 12:30PM | 0 recs
Re: Bwaaaahaaaaa

hey knock it off.

Are you suggesting that us Clinton supporters at mydd are merely just a few dozen people who don't speak for ninety-nine percent of Hillary's actual supporters?

You are obviously an Obamabot.

And a misogynist too!

by HillsMyGirl 2008-06-01 12:48PM | 0 recs
Re: Bwaaaahaaaaa

Listen up (alegre parody) I gotta say, you are my favorite parody troll.  

by gchaucer2 2008-06-01 12:56PM | 0 recs
Re: I have been wondering if Hillary should run as

an intriguing possibility

I always thought one great mistake Gore made was to not push to include Nader and Buchanan in the 2000 debates. It would've made Bush be more explicitly right wing, and Gore would've looked more moderate.

I wonder if having Clinton in would establish Obama as the choice of moderates, independents (as opposed to die hard, dead-end Clintonites), disaffected Republicans, war opponents, and Democrats (those who put the party and what it stands for ahead of identity politics and cults of personality).

Could be interesting.

by BlueinColorado 2008-06-01 12:31PM | 0 recs
Re: I have been wondering if Hillary should run as

No, Clinton--as it stands--appears to be the more moderate of the two democrats. You can just look at the Demographics and her ability to carry those same states (i.e., Florida, WV, Kentucky, Arkansas, and North Carolina).

by Check077 2008-06-01 12:44PM | 0 recs
Re: I have been wondering if Hillary should run as

No one's been campaigning against her, and she's been running in a primary.

The whole premise is absurd, of course.

by BlueinColorado 2008-06-01 12:46PM | 0 recs
No.

If she did that, she wouldn't be the wonderful person I know she is. I wouldn't vote for her.

by sricki 2008-06-01 12:31PM | 0 recs
She would be a democratic ross perot

Bill Clinton won in 1992 solely due to the existence of Ross Perot on the ballot.  Perot won just enough support to flip red states to Blue for Clinton.  People seem to forget that Clinton won with less than 50% of the vote.

This is exactly what would happen in November for McCain.  Obama and Clinton would split the democratic party supporters and McCain would turn lots of blue states red.  He would clinch the white house probable with about 45% of the vote.

by CAchemist 2008-06-01 12:32PM | 0 recs
Wrong

There have been multiple studies on this and Clinton would've won without Perot's help.  However, in this case, Hillary would kill the Democratic Party if she ran as a third party candidate.  She won't.

Once again, this diary is a TROLL.  The mods ought to have removed it already.

by SpanishFly 2008-06-01 12:35PM | 0 recs
Re: Wrong

Really?  I actually didn't know that.  Good for Bill.  I had always thought his first win was thanks to the man with a million graphs.  

Do you have any links to those studies?  It would be an interesting read and I would love to re-educate myself.

And yes he is a troll but sometimes I just can't help responding.

by CAchemist 2008-06-01 12:38PM | 0 recs
Perot stopped Clinton from getting 50+% and a

mandate. He hurt Clinton badly by limiting his political capital. Perot is a big reason the Republicans did so well in the 1994 congressional races.

Clinton lost a lot of Democrats in congress but not before he reversed course on Reaganomics and helped usher in the longest economic expansion is our nation's history. That is one major reason why the public trusts Dem's with the economy now.

Obama has yet to send Bill a thank you note.

by mmorang 2008-06-01 01:28PM | 0 recs
Re: I have been wondering if Hillary should run
I think that it is a fantastic idea, and would do wonders for Hillary's career. Go for it, dead-enders!
by Cochrane 2008-06-01 12:33PM | 0 recs
do you know who you are quoting?

deadender=cheney and rumsfeld.  well done!

by canadian gal 2008-06-01 12:43PM | 0 recs
Re: do you know who you are quoting?
Yes, you got me. I am a Republican troll, and have given myself away by using a fairly common term that Dick Cheney may have also uttered at one point. Curses!
by Cochrane 2008-06-01 01:08PM | 0 recs
i am not saying that....

and i am aware that this word is thrown around a lot by BO supporters, especially on KOS.  but you should just understand who you are quoting.  if you are fine borrowing a cheney/rumsfeld talking point - feel free.

by canadian gal 2008-06-01 01:11PM | 0 recs
Re: i am not saying that....
It is not a talking point, it is a word. Unless Dick & Don were talking about Hillary supporters, which I doubt they were.
by Cochrane 2008-06-01 01:22PM | 0 recs
um - okay.

cheney and rumsfeld used it to describe the last insurgents in iraq.  good company for ya?!

by canadian gal 2008-06-01 01:28PM | 0 recs
Re: um - okay.
All right, fine. YOU WIN.
by Cochrane 2008-06-01 04:53PM | 0 recs
You talkin' to me?

by 79blondini 2008-06-01 01:07PM | 0 recs
Re: You talkin' to me?

Yow.  I hadn't seen that before.  Politics does bring out some interesting people.

by TL 2008-06-01 02:02PM | 0 recs
Re: I have been wondering if Hillary should run as

Unity is easy to achieve....

If Obama is the nominee - he MUST make Hillary his VP.

If Hillary is the nominee - she MUST make obama her VP.

The democrats will achieve unity and win the white house.

If this does not happen....

Then I'm ALL FOR Hillary running as an Independent and I would happily support her and contribute to her campaign.

I have always thought that Wesley Clark would follow her (he has indicated that he WANTS her to fight to the convention)

She could easily bring him on has her VP as an Indepdent candidate and it would be a GREAT ticket.

She would TROUNCE both McCain and Obama at EVERY debate.....

I think she would actually WIN.

by nikkid 2008-06-01 12:34PM | 0 recs
Re: I have been wondering if Hillary should run as

Madness.

by Reaper0Bot0 2008-06-01 12:37PM | 0 recs
Re: I have been wondering

why not go to CUIP to see what indys think.......no time ok i'll tell you:
they prefer obama to hillary.

(but go there anyway. the clintons have done nothing to further the causes of progressive indys)

by citizendave 2008-06-01 12:35PM | 0 recs
Is this crap really necessary?
I'm not referring to the content of your diary which is perfectly well debatable.  No it is this obamabotting. Are you at all capable of expressing yourself in this matter with out resorting to the  juvenile practice of ad-hominem?  
   
by tonedevil 2008-06-01 12:37PM | 0 recs
Re: Is this crap really necessary?

I troll rated you for the irony of you talking about ad-homiems while calling us Obamabots.

What the diarist has proposed is:

1. A piss poor idea on a good day.
2. Against the very essence of this blog

This is a blog for supporting Democrats and electing Democrats.  Urging a Democrat to go independent to act as a spoiler is, frankly, trollish in the extreme and the diary should be removed.

by Sychotic1 2008-06-01 12:48PM | 0 recs
Re: Is this crap really necessary?

S/He wasn't calling us "Obamabots". S/he is one of us. S/he was pointing out the irony of this troll diary using troll language to call other people, essentially, trolls

by BlueinColorado 2008-06-01 12:50PM | 0 recs
Re: Is this crap really necessary?

Fine, I will remove my troll rating, but the essence of this diary is crap...not debatable.

by Sychotic1 2008-06-01 01:00PM | 0 recs
Re: Is this crap really necessary?

Not wanting to debate seems to be a character of Obamatons.

by rankles 2008-06-01 01:07PM | 0 recs
Re: Is this crap really necessary?

You do realize that when you call people names, you're pushing their buttons and making it much more likely they're going to respond in kind, right?

If you want a reasoned conversation, you have to hold up your end.

by TL 2008-06-01 02:06PM | 0 recs
Re: Is this crap really necessary?

Yeah, there is no way this post is worthy of a troll rating

by minnesotaryan 2008-06-01 12:59PM | 0 recs
re

Hillary will not run as an independent

by rossinatl 2008-06-01 12:46PM | 0 recs
We shoud listen

This community has spoken.

The main diarist, the wonderful Alegre, posted a diary with Harriet Christian saying that if not Hillary then McCain.

So I'm not sure if this person is a troll.

by HillsMyGirl 2008-06-01 12:46PM | 0 recs
Re: We shoud listen

The main diarist, the wonderful Alegre,

I wasn't aware Armstrong had given her official status, though it's not surprising. Just a recognition of the fact, I suppose.

As for Alegre and Harriet Christian, water does find its own level.

by BlueinColorado 2008-06-01 12:49PM | 0 recs
Re: We shoud listen

Hillsmygirl came to this site a week ago after having been a part of other wonderful sites.

I've never seen a diarist as logical, honest, and rational as this Alegre.

She is truly inspiring and convincing.

by HillsMyGirl 2008-06-01 12:55PM | 0 recs
You have persuaded me

and I wish to become Of The Body.

In my former life as an Obamabot, I could no longer distinguish snark from hero worship on MyDD.

Now the scales have fallen from my eyes, and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter, The Alegre Is Wonderful Report

by BlueinColorado 2008-06-01 12:58PM | 0 recs
Oh my

you are almost as good as Is This Snark (not to be confused with IsThisSnark)

by Student Guy 2008-06-01 01:04PM | 0 recs
Re: Oh my

Well I thank you for your kind words regardless of your motives.

For that I give you a mojo.

by HillsMyGirl 2008-06-01 02:06PM | 0 recs
Your kids and grandkids will thank you for...

... the ultra-right Supreme Court, I'm sure.

by 0td 2008-06-01 12:46PM | 0 recs
Re: Your kids and grandkids will thank you for...

That didn't seem to bother all the Nader voters who gave us the ultra-right Supreme Court we have right now.

by LakersFan 2008-06-01 12:52PM | 0 recs
Re: Your kids and grandkids will thank you for...

Well there's a good lesson there for you "supporters" of an independent Clinton candidacy (which she will never do).

I'd imagine that plenty of Nadar voters in Florida have felt pretty fucking stupid the last 8 years, if you'll pardon my french.

by minnesotaryan 2008-06-01 01:01PM | 0 recs
Re: Your kids and grandkids will thank you for...

While I agree that Clinton would never do it, voting for Clinton as and independent wouldn't be nearly as stupid as voting for Nader. She would have at least a slight chance of winning, whereas voting for Nader was never about winning, and always about a "protest" vote.

by LakersFan 2008-06-01 01:10PM | 0 recs
The fact that you think yesterday was anything

but a positive for Sen. Clinton shows that you aren't thinking clearly.

Sen. Clinton wouldn't destroy her legacy by running as an independent.

by heresjohnny 2008-06-01 12:48PM | 0 recs
Beg to differ

The immediate effect is that it would end her influence (and Bill Clinton's, and Harold Ickes, and so forth) in the Democratic party, forever.

The effect on this election would be McCain in the White House and the Democrats losing the US Senate.

There's no upside to this for Clinton.

by maxomai 2008-06-01 02:06PM | 0 recs
Bah

Crap, sorry. Wrong comment.

by maxomai 2008-06-01 02:07PM | 0 recs
Re: Bah

Ha. Thanks for clearing that up.

by heresjohnny 2008-06-01 03:37PM | 0 recs
What's the difference?

If Obama takes this nomination from Hillary why should I support him?

The fact that Obama is pro choice, supports SCHIP, supports equal rights for women, and would improve the health care rights of every woman in America should not factor into my decision even though Hillary agrees with him on all these issues.

I will vote for McCain because I am angry and pissed and didn't get my way.  This is far more important than 3 Supreme Court appointments for the next 30 years.

by HillsMyGirl 2008-06-01 12:53PM | 0 recs
How about I will not vote for Obama because I

don't support racebating from anyone and I think it's far to divisive of a tactic to use against the Republicans let alone a good and fine Democrats like Hillary and Bill.

Maybe there are lines that shouldn't be crossed and ignored when they are. I believe Obama crossed that line intentionally and with a purpose.

In short, he rode her dirty.

by mmorang 2008-06-01 01:36PM | 0 recs
You are so right

Obama called Hillary an inadequate white woman and the media didn't report it.

Obama repeatedly used phrases like hard working black Americans thus racistly implying that white people like me were somehow not hard working.

And Obama played the race card in Vermont, Maine, South Dakota, Idaho, Utah, Wyoming, Washington, and all these other states he won that had these heavy African American populations.

And the only reason Barack Obama decided to run for President in 2008 was because Hillary was the only other candidate running and he wanted to steal her job.

Shame on you Barack Obama.

Go Hillary.  Denver baby.

by HillsMyGirl 2008-06-01 02:10PM | 0 recs
Re: You are so right

"hard working white people" implies their class and their race, as in blue-collar. It is not racists in any way. You cannot describe the demographics of your support without saying white, black, hispanic, seniors, people making $50K a year, ect. Again, there wasn't a thing wrong with what she said.

Sending out a memo with examples of things said by the Clinton campaign that could be twisted and taken out of context to look racists, as the Obama campaign did is race-bating...and that's exactly what Obama did.

Bill Clinton didn't say one thing that is remotely race-bating.

Anyway, I won't be supporting Obama for his race-bating tactics.

by mmorang 2008-06-01 02:37PM | 0 recs
dude,

before railing about supposed "race-baiting", learn to spell the fucking term.

by Slim Tyranny 2008-06-01 02:56PM | 0 recs
Re: You are so right

And that's why the Potomac primaries shouldn't count.

Besides, the first half ended on Super Tuesday
and the second half began March 4th.

by HillsMyGirl 2008-06-01 03:21PM | 0 recs
bad idea.

and she would never do it.

by canadian gal 2008-06-01 01:08PM | 0 recs
Hillary is already toast in the Democratic party

If Obama loses, very possible, and looking probable to me, Hillary will be blamed.

She should put up $50M of her own money and Bloomberg should put up $50M and they should run together with the understanding that she will only be president to 4 years (a bigger incentive for him).

They could move this country forward in a big way and yes they could and should win.

by mmorang 2008-06-01 01:32PM | 0 recs
Classic..

>If Obama loses, very possible, and looking probable to me, Hillary will be blamed.

Wouldn't it make more sense to nominate someone who will WIN? Who would run the country as what it needs to be, an inclusive nation, for EVERYBODY?

Obama seems so eager to write off millions of us with one fell swoop here, one dismissive snipe there..

Plus, there is the healthcare issue.

There goes our retirements.

by architek 2008-06-01 01:51PM | 0 recs
There is one reason and one reason only that

the SD's will not give the nomination to Hillary: Obama's not too subtle message early on that if the SD's don't give the nom to him he and his supporters will walk.

Hillary said from the beginning and often that she would support the nominee. Bill has always said the same thing. Not Obama or Michelle.

They and their supporters should not be surprised in the least when Hillary supporters don't support them. It's a two-way street.

Hillary recieved 21% in a 5-way race with Obama, McCAin, Nader and Barr. She could easily grow that number and win with the right running-mate.

by mmorang 2008-06-01 01:57PM | 0 recs
Re: There is one reason and one reason only that

Who are you kidding?  Check the polls about Clinton voters who will support Obama compared to Obama supporters who will support Clinton...Clinton "supporters" jump ship in higher numbers...

by hootie4170 2008-06-01 02:33PM | 0 recs
Re: There is one reason and one reason only that

of course they do and should.

If you're old enough and smart enough to know that the Clinton's have worked hard for decades and supported AA's and taken heat for it, it might offend your sensibilities to see them cynically portrayed as race-bators when they are most definately not.

But I can only speak for myself and I will not support Obama because I watched him play the race-card on the Clinton's. That goes too far for me. So I'm forced to sit this one out and I certainly hope many others will do the same for moral reasons.

by mmorang 2008-06-01 02:42PM | 0 recs
Re: There is one reason and one reason only that

No politician is above using questionable tactics and phrases in order to improve their chances in an election.  To think otherwise is quite naive IMO.

Wit that said, I commend the Clintons for the service and Bill's fine presidency.  I do not think they are racists or prejudiced.  However everything they say is said for a reason, they are politically intelligent and calculating.

Both campaigns have engaged in questionable behavior, but that's par for the course in an intense and hard fought campaign.

by hootie4170 2008-06-01 03:27PM | 0 recs
If Obama loses...

...he'll have no one to blame but himself.  He apparently thinks a weak resume and 2 years in the US Senate are enough to win the American presidency -- we'll see if his judgement there is any better than his judgement in picking spiritual mentors.....

by KathleenM1 2008-06-01 05:06PM | 0 recs
Independent, or Codependent?

by benmasel 2008-06-01 02:01PM | 0 recs
Re: Independent, or Codependent?

wish i had thought of that one

by citizendave 2008-06-01 02:20PM | 0 recs
if Hillary should run as an INDEPENDENT

Clinton couldn't win as an indie--not even close.  First, she'd probably only get the votes of 1/3 of the Democratic party (that's her real base, and it's not shabby, but it's about 14-15% of the electorate).  Second, Clinton's appeal among indies doesn't match that of Obama and McCain (that shows up in all polls, though, in fairness, the difference between her and Obama now isn't huge).  The best she could probably do is match the 18% Perot got in '92 (and by doing this she'd burn her bridges to the Democratic party).  She could probably throw the election to McCain, but realistically she doesn't have to run to do that (though she'd pay some of the same costs).

So what would she gain?  At one time there was a National Woman's Party (which played an important role in the passage of the 19th amendment).  She could be the standard bearer for women's issues.  She'd be giving up her place in the Democratic party, though, to join the Libertarians, Greens, etc.  Not a good trade if you ask me.

by IncognitoErgoSum 2008-06-01 02:25PM | 0 recs
I don't think marginalizing her is appropriate

the fact is, she is ahead in popular votes. Not Pundit Votes, popular votes.

The pundit votes, should follow the popular votes..

"Of the people by the people and for the people", remember?

by architek 2008-06-01 03:31PM | 0 recs
All she did was ask
Before yesterday, many long-time Democrats, who happen to be Hillary supporters, believed that at least 17 members of the Rules and By-Laws Committee would have a greater sense of the larger issues at stake in this election and that they would value the Party's constitution and long-held values of fair reflection and full voter enfranchisement over a set of rules that I'm sure they thought would never have to be invoked. What a mess the Democratic National Committee has made of this entire candidate selection process! It has become quite clear that "unity" means "Obama's in charge" and there are a good 17 million Democrats in this country who said they would prefer not to have this happen. Today it is much clearer that a case could be made for an executive branch and leader who is neither the voice of the far-left (where we're headed) nor the voice of the far-right (where we've been). Great Britain formed such a party (Social Democratic Party) in the 1980's. The German nation has had a Social Democratic Party for nearly 30 years. These parties are CENTER-LEFT. I for one, think that Hillary Clinton should continue her campaign for President of the United States. - Let the old guard go (funny-that's what the Obama camp is saying!)play with their internet and fancy populist mind schemes. Oh - and if push came to shove -- I agree with the statement above -- the Clintons are the REAL Jefferson-Jackson Democrats. Maybe it's Obama and his hopey-changey party that need to split.
by pan230oh 2008-06-01 02:30PM | 0 recs
Re: All she did was ask

This RBC issue is just another "excuse" for you to not vote for Obama...Even if FL and MI was settled the way you wanted you still would have never voted for Obama..

by hootie4170 2008-06-01 02:35PM | 0 recs
Re: All she did was ask

You don't think Clinton is the old guard?  Her political career has another 10-20 years left, maximum, and the same could be said for a majority of those who support her.  Not saying that to be unkind, but it's just the truth.

by IncognitoErgoSum 2008-06-01 02:43PM | 0 recs
Hillary run as Independent?

You could say goodbye to her legacy if she were to choose that path.  No joke.

by venavena 2008-06-01 02:33PM | 0 recs
Terrible idea

Thank God Clinton is too smart and too progressive to take the advice of know-nothing internet ranters hell-bent on handing the November election to McCain.

by Slim Tyranny 2008-06-01 02:57PM | 0 recs
I found it!

"know-nothing internet ranters" <---Unity!

Actually, the only thing I found was negative rhetoric. In this campaign, "unity" is a slogan and it sounds very nice. Hooray for "just words."

by soyousay 2008-06-01 05:05PM | 0 recs
hahahahaha

Yea, like we're supposed to "unite" with people who want a Clinton third party run.

Riiiiiiiiiiiight.

by Slim Tyranny 2008-06-02 03:27AM | 0 recs
If Teddy Roosevelt couldnt win

as a 3rd party, then HRC has a lesser chance.

She needs to make history, if not as president, then as VP within the Democratic party

by dcrolg 2008-06-01 04:05PM | 0 recs
What do you think?

That's her call and I doubt she would go that route...but if she did, I would vote for her.

IMO, she's the best candidate to run the country.

by soyousay 2008-06-01 04:57PM | 0 recs

Diaries

Advertise Blogads