She's In... But Can Hillary Win?

She's loved. She's hated. She's brilliant. She's misunderstood. She's stylish. She's shrewd. She's whatever we want to see out of her. Like it or not, she's Hillary. And she's in... To win.

Early on, Hillary Clinton was the unconquerable front runner for the Democratic nomination in 2008. However, no one expected her to win the general election...
Until she began pulling even, or even ahead, of the possible Republican nominees in the polls. However in the meantime, it seems like Hillary's lock on states like California is being called into question as old issues from the past continue to haunt her.

So what can Hillary do? What can she do to stop Edwards or Obama from taking the grand prize of California next February, along with the Democratic nomination? Follow me after the flip for more...

(This is another article in my occasional series on the 2008 Presidential Primary in California. Take a look at my last article on Barack Obama. And no, I am not endorsing Hillary. I'm just taking an unbiased look at her campaign, and what she can do better.)

(Cross-posted at Calitics)

Ever since the last Presidential Election, everyone had pretty much seen Hillary Clinton as the likely Democratic nominee in 2008. After all, she has the name. And yes, she has the money. And oh yes, she probably has the best political adviser right at her fingertips. Everything seemed to be so right...

Until it all went wrong. For one, Hillary still cannot put her vote for the Iraq War behind her. As long as she continues to avoid explaining and/or apologizing for her vote to put America at war, she will probably only continue to suffer for that vote. But of course, that is not her only problem. In fact, one of her greatest assets may also be one of her greatest liabilities. As the David Geffen incident reminded us all, there's still all that old controversy that the "vast right wing conspiracy" continues to salivate over. I guess if anything, David Geffen's doubts about Hillary only serve to remind us all about her very real vulnerabilities as a Presidential Candidate.

So what can Hillary do? Well, she still seems to have many friends here in the Golden State. Last week, she seemed to do a good job at appealing to Silicon Valley techies. She talked about health care,recruiting more math and science teachers, and investing in alternative energy because it's "good for the planet but it can also be good for the economy"... And Silicon Valley seems to be listening. Perhaps she can win the same "tech support" that her husband could count on. And despite "Geffengate", Hillary still seems to enjoy plenty of support in Hollywood. After all, Liz Taylor did say, "I like the way she thinks. She is very savvy and a smart leader with years of experience in government, diplomacy and politics." And Liz Taylor is probably not the only one who appreciates Hillary's experience.

So perhaps, this is how Hillary can come back. Perhaps if she finally deals with her Iraq vote while she still has time to do so, she can quell much of the antiwar fervor working against her. And perhaps if she can bring to the table new, fresh ideas on issues like climate change, health care, and the "new economy", then perhaps we in California will give her a fresh start. After all, Californians care about these issues... And Californians seem to like fresh, innovative solutions to tough problems. And as for all the old crap from Bill's years in the White House, she will always have the "vast right wing conspiracy" against her. However if she can break through her Iraq conundrum and take the lead on Iraq, climate change, health care, etc., she can perhaps break through that "vast right wing conspiracy" in the same manner that her husband did with the impeachment debacle.

Perhaps we were all wrong in considering Hillary to be "inevitable". But still, we may also be wrong in counting her out now. Like it or not, she's in...
And she's in it to win.

Tags: 2008 Presidential Primary, Barack Obama, California, California primary, Climate change, Election 2008, entertainment industry, Global Warming, Health care, Hillary Clinton, Hollywood, Iraq War, John Edwards, Silicon Valley, Technology (all tags)



the polls say yes

that is her actual campaign talking points for surrogates when asked about her polarizing nature --- talk about her poll numbers.

(of course at this point Dick Morris' swift boat movie hasn't been released yet)

by TarHeel 2007-02-25 11:02AM | 0 recs
Re: the polls say yes

Well, that's another problem for Hillary. Are the poll numbers for real, or are they just a name recognition contest? And what happens when folks become more familiar with Obama and Edwards and Richardson and everyone else? Will she still be able to avoid the tough questions surrounding her and her campaign?

We'll see. : )

by atdleft 2007-02-25 11:18AM | 0 recs
Re: the polls say yes

Are you suggesting Edwards does not have name recognition?  Maybe not the 98% variety Clinton has, but darn close.  He is NOT Gravel or Kucinich.  And, Obama?  He has been written about all over the place.  His name recognition must be way up there as well.  

We dissected detailed polls in the past and it has been surprising to see, but Obama's and Edwards' support is actually softer (those who "definitely" would vote for the candidate) even though it is lower than Clinton's.

by georgep 2007-02-25 11:24AM | 0 recs
on the front page

Edwards is at 80% name rec
Obama 73%..
Hillary 99% 26/887

which really gets to the idiocy of polls when 20% of those polled don't realize Edwards was the VP nominee..

by TarHeel 2007-02-25 11:40AM | 0 recs
Re: on the front page

80% is pretty high, I would imagine Greavel is at 10% right now.  

Also, if you are referring to the Pew poll listed by C. Bowers, isn;t it interesting that just like a previous poll that we discussed once again Clinton's "would not vote for" number amongst Democrats is at 15%, Obama's is at 19% and Edwards' is at 24% (very similar alignment as the other poll that showed "would not vote for" numbers)   That has to be considered a problem zone at this point, no?

by georgep 2007-02-25 11:46AM | 0 recs
Re: on the front page

if you think some voters vote based on name recognition (as though they are taking a test) the bigger the gap right now the better for the rest of the field.

a 19% name rec difference between Edwards and Hillary is pretty significant.. certainly only 7% between Edwards and obama

by TarHeel 2007-02-25 11:50AM | 0 recs
Re: on the front page

At what point do people learn to recognise a candidate that came 2nd in the 2004 primaries and was the democratic nominee for VP?

If you don't know John Edwards by now, I am really struggling to think of a scenario in which you might discover him.  

by kundalini 2007-02-25 01:50PM | 0 recs
if he's the father

of Anna Nicole's daughter the other 19% will know him

by TarHeel 2007-02-26 03:09AM | 0 recs
I hope all of you

have seen Jay Leno's bit where he finds average people on the street and asks them to name the first president or the state capitol of California (of CA residents).

probably only 50% of the respondents get both answers correct.

by TarHeel 2007-02-26 03:11AM | 0 recs
Re: She's In... But Can Hillary Win?

Whoever "was" or "is" counting Clinton out is a fool.  Every poll I have seen has her leading California.  Maybe we should wait until we see a poll that puts CA in Obama's hands before claiming she is "in trouble" there?   Many believe "Geffengate" was a net loss for Obama, after all.

Personal opinion is great, but to ascertain whether a candidate is "in trouble" the only thing we have to go by is polls.  I have read on here for 2 weeks "Wait for the next polls" (because Clinton said something that was supposedly going to hurt her badly,) and instead we have seen a bunch of polls where she actually added to her appeal in many states and added to her national numbers (Gallup, Siena, Marist, Cook, Elon, ARG, etc.)  

by georgep 2007-02-25 11:31AM | 0 recs
Re: She's In... But Can Hillary Win?

Only recently I have begun to think that the strength of Hillary's support, and her apparent competence as a campaigner and potential to win in the general election against the GOP, all themes of her campaign, actually create an opportunity for the Democratic party.  It is therefore possible, in this long campaign cycle to do some experimenting in the electorate with insurgent candidacies and novel approaches without harming the chances of the main objective, which has to be winning in 2008 no matter what.

In this context a populist candidacy, like Edwards, or a new politics campaign, like Obama's can be tested in the electorate without really damaging the Party's chances of defeating the GOP in the general.  This seems like a promising position for the Democrats.  

If Edwards can energise the unions and the working class enough to take the nomination, and he will have to have some pretty convincing primary wins to do this, it will add substance to the Democratic base in these areas.  He is the chance for the party to test the 'Two Americas' theme and economic inequity as a potential winner.  This has always been a core value of the Party which has been overlooked in past campaigns.

Similarly if Obama runs a significantly popular campaign that mobilises youth and the 'disenfranchised' voters, with his approach to a top-down renewal of the political process, to come out on top, he has brought new demographics to the party and we have another possible winning strategy.  A novel and interesting option which is worth a shot.

However if neither of these approaches succeeds in toppling Hillary, and she has set the bar high enough to make this test a genuine one, then her 'inevitable' and more traditional centrist candidacy becomes the fall-back platform and whatever support Edwards or Obama have gained will hopefully fall in behind her in the general.  It seems to me that if the candidates can avoid flame wars on each other damaging enough to actually provide the GOP with attack points that Hillary's strong position at this time is a terrific asset to the Party in any of the above scenarios.  Win/win/win.  Hillary's strength is the party's strength, but that doesn't mean she has to be the candidate, and her strength enables the chance to test the very best platform for a Democratic Party that will lead the nation for a generation.  Thanks Hillary, and you too Bill, and good luck to everyone!

by Shaun Appleby 2007-02-25 01:09PM | 0 recs
Re: She's In... But Can Hillary Win?

I tend to agree. With three strong candidates the winner should be a worthy one. I guess it is possible that campaigns will implode thus gifting the nomination to the last man (or woman) standing, but that seems less likely.

by kundalini 2007-02-25 01:54PM | 0 recs
Re: She's In... But Can Hillary Win?

Yeah, it took me awhile to come around to this view but it contrasts starkly with the Republican campaign, although they seem to be off to a slower start.  With an untested Rudy as front-runner dividing support with the declining McCain they have to make a bigger gamble and can't prototype new platforms or constituencies.

I think we are in pretty good shape and hope the candidates keep pushing the their positives.  I think having Hillary there justifies some riskier strategies on Edwards' and Obama's part.

by Shaun Appleby 2007-02-25 02:01PM | 0 recs
Re: She's In... But Can Hillary Win?

That is a good comment, valid.  I DO beleive that Clinton does incorporate some of the strengths you describe (i.e. she stresses economic inequity, health care for the poor, youth issues via college grant proposals.)  I agree, though, that the others could make some headway with a more "specialized" approach.  

I think Edwards has the biggest problem in the long run, because his primary message (unfortunately for him) would appeal strongest to minorities, and he has a tough go at that, facing not one, but two candidates who are particularly strong with that demographic.

by georgep 2007-02-25 03:05PM | 0 recs
Re: She's In... But Can Hillary Win?

Sure, and it is good she is for all our sakes.  But as you acknowledge having some specialist innovators can't hurt.

We are all in this together.  I see Edwards as the banner carrier for the traditional Democratic constituencies of labour and working class.  The middle-class has lots of advocacy and perhaps Edwards is reaching a bit deeper below that demographic to those who haven't had their say, a worthy cause, for the constituency, the candidate and the party.  And if that movement gathers support like thunder then let it rain.

And Obama, well if he isn't bringing energy and hope and new voters into the party I am missing something.  I think we need these debates.  Personally he seems to be addressing a lot of issues that need to be addressed, and soon.  But what I think hardly matters.  It is the thousands who are attending his rallies, who are taking a break from TV and their Game-boys who are the hope for the party.  And good luck to him too.  If he can create a tsunami of popular support we can all ride the wave with him and take the purple states too.

And Hillary, bless her.  Well she is facilitating this process by keeping our party strong.  And we are leaning on her, and Bill, as we make these experiments.

There was a union, once.  The Industrial Workers of the World, One Big Union as they were called, and they were anarcho-syndacalist and socialist and they were at the forefront of the union movement before WWI.  Some of them died for rights we, and the unions of the US, enjoy today.  And their motto was An injury to one is an injury to all.  And on reflection that is how I would like to see this primary campaign run by the Democratic Party and it's supporters, progressives, moderates and all.  This is our chance to take this country back into the light for the next generation.  Let's get the next generation involved and registered to vote, as Democrats, and let's listen to what they have to say, and close ranks and get on with it.

by Shaun Appleby 2007-02-25 04:11PM | 0 recs
Re: She's In... But Can Hillary Win?
I saw a poll a few months back that young people (18-30) were much more open to and supportive of unions than the previous generation, the 30-45s, who grew up in the 70s and 80s.  I think the Employee Free Choice Act will allow us to mobilize a whole new generation, as well as organizing the estimated tens of millions of workers who say they would join a union if they could.
Here in Oregon, AFSCME Council 75 is king.  About 93% of their member voted in 2004, most of them, by far, for the AFSCME-approved candidates.  I just talked to people from Council 75 (one was Edwards/Obama, the other Obama/Edwards), who said that a Hillary candidacy would be rough.  They said that many of their usually reliable members have said they can't vote for Hillary.  It would be very tough to keep their members happy.
But it isn't all about unions.  I don't support John Edwards because of his work with unions, or his support of their issues.  This is about economics in general.  I want someone who will lead not just on fighting poverty and supporting unions, but on renegotiating our trade relationships, changing the way we pay for health care and college, making America sustainably energy-independent.  I want someone who will talk about issues with a vision of how we can do it as a community, with a broadly defined sense of equality, and talk about how we can get things done, and live better lives, if only we will work together.
Edwards does the best job overall.  Barack satisfies me somewhat, but his lack of definition on economics troubles me.  Hillary gave me "It takes a Village", but nothing else.  I've never heard her make a point of discussing any of the issues I've discussed here, despite what georgep says.  Don't worry, she'll have my vote in the general, and I may work for her, but I won't be happy about it.
by jallen 2007-02-25 04:41PM | 0 recs
Re: She's In... But Can Hillary Win?

Fair enough.  I think the impact Edwards has had in the area of economic policy is very healthy for the party.  I am a bit surprised it hasn't caught the public imagination more strongly but it is really early days yet.

I agree economic policy is connected and that no one aspect can be dealt with in isolation.  To me it seems that Edwards has best understood the It's the economy, stupid theme that was so strong in Bill Clinton's presidency and I would like to see him sell this a bit harder.  IMHO it took the Clinton administration awhile to get this concept but it became their greatest achievement.

I haven't heard much from Hillary on this but I guess the assumption is that she would continue the Clinton presidency policies with which we are already familiar.  If Edwards can innovate on that he will force her to stretch out a bit and give it more oxygen in the campaign, which I think would be great.

by Shaun Appleby 2007-02-25 05:03PM | 0 recs
Re: She's In... But Can Hillary Win?

Regardless of the bickering, we DO have three progressive candidates who make up the top-tier.  That is a testament to what extent the country has experienced a lurch to the left over the last 4 years, or so.  We have to hold the candidate's feet to the fire to fight for the little guy, the one shortchanged dramatically in this administration, the worst debacle of a political movement I have seen in my 45 years of life.   But not just the poverty-stricken and disadvantaged, but also the vast middle-class which in the lower layers of it has almost been  squeezed into poverty by the policies of the "dark side."

I agree that the party is better for having strong advocates, I wish Al Gore could be part of the party structure to highlight global warming, but he is apparently doing quite well in his private advocacy role.  :-)

 We are blessed with some great talent and strong leaders.  The other side?   Not so much.    

by georgep 2007-02-25 07:54PM | 0 recs
Re: She's In... But Can Hillary Win?

And not only that, our candidates are positioned to take the best of whatever policies are perceived as important in the primaries and these can follow the eventual triumphant nominee into the general election where the Republicans will probably still be arguing among themselves about Republican social issues and wondering which of their constituents will be sitting out the election in protest.  

If we can manage rise above the politics of political destruction in our primary season I reckon we are looking pretty good.

by Shaun Appleby 2007-02-25 08:13PM | 0 recs
Re: She's In... But Can Hillary Win?

Well, Giuliani's high popularity across the land kind of scares me.  I know he has a lot of negatives, but my worst nightmare would be that many will just go "So?"   He has the folksy thing going on, just like Bush did.  He may actually benefit with the general population from his more mainstream social views, not just because they reflect what the majority of the country believes, but also because it makes him more of an instant "maverick" than John McCain was seen as, someone who goes against his party structure is sometimes a sentimental "underdog" favorite.   Of course, there will be many who see him in a different light when they get to know some of the more bizarre stories, but he will be a tough opponent to battle, IMHO.   McCain would be a cakewalk, another Dole, IMO.  Romney, fahgettaboutit.

by georgep 2007-02-25 08:40PM | 0 recs
Re: She's In... But Can Hillary Win?

I agree.  There's not going to be too much ruction over his social conservative problems if the old Rudy emerges as a strong hand.  Hard to say.  He seems to have softened a little over the years.  The evangelical Right won't be too happy about it.

I don't think the Republicans are in any hurry really.  We will probably see a long, slow decline of McCain.  Huckabee is my pick for the social conservative trickster of the piece but if he doesn't start to break free I can't see him getting the money.  They are more inclined to take there time.  There is bound to be a social conservative player and I don't see Romney in that role.

by Shaun Appleby 2007-02-25 10:00PM | 0 recs
She's Bush Jr.

Of course she can win.  She is the same as Bush.

A name that will be a puppet for Cheney.

She sure loved the Iraq war, at least until she ran.  Then she flip-flopped, and flip-flopped, and flip-flopped again.  Is there a record for most time changing your mind.

Of course she thinks she was lied to.  Well dimwit.  I knew Bush was lying, and so did everyone else. Have Chelsea teach you how to use Google.  You would have seen the evidence as well.

So what makes you think she wouldn't fall for the same lies again.

You elect Hillary, and you got George Bush with a dress.

Think she could win if her name were, Smith.

Don't make me laugh.

by rapallos 2007-02-25 01:59PM | 0 recs
Re: She's In... But Can Hillary Win?

Well, right now its almost hers to lose. A big question is whether in a year ppl are going to be drawn towards her or get tired of her. She is trying to create the aura of inevitability and one year is a long time to hold that.

by okamichan13 2007-02-25 02:50PM | 0 recs
Workers of the World....

Unite!  Us too!

I was very happy when i saw the logo of the IWW above.  Stirs my blood. Those folks believed and fought for rights that we take for granted every day.  Shaun was right, many of them died in that struggle.  Hell, many were murdered in that struggle.  This fight to win back this government is too important to allow it to turn into a High School popularity contest, a kinda bitter version of American Idol - supersized.

We as Democrats are brothers and sisters in this quest.  We must stay focused and Together.  As this primary season slowly builds and runs through I have only one wish.  That we can fight like brothers and sisters.  You know...we can fight with passion, with fervor, we can battle with the concept that we're right - theyre wrong, we can fight with mischief, we can fight with each other cause we're mad, we can fight cause we think our sibling gets too much credit, too much praise, we can fight cause we think we havent been appreciatted, because we dont like our siblings friends, hell we can fight just cause we wanna...but we should also fight remembering that we are a family.  A family that has fought many, many battles...together.  A family that Knows and Understands just who our real enemies our.  A family who knows, understands and respects its history and the immense sacrifices of those that have come before us. (Dont forget that in the olden days many of the people posting on this site woulda been hunted down like Dogs by the Pinkertons just for expressing their lefty views)
We, as supporters of the different candidates, have to fight for our candidates to win, but this can't be allowed to turn into a fight to the death.  No matter what, we will have to come together after the primaries, to beat the beast of the combined forces of the right wingers, the GOP and the privledged aloof members of the MSM.  The last are the ones who are prodding the campaigns to use nuclear weapons on each other.  They are the ones who created or promoted the scripts about our candidates in 2000 and 2004 that left our standard bearers unable to compete against false and phony conventional wisdom.  (Gore is a liar and Kerry shot himself in the butt to get a medal.)  We can fight like lions with each other, but when this all over, we are going to have to come together as a family.  Maybe it will be awkward (thanksgiving in my mind - gives an image) but after all, we are family.

I have seen very little response in the media about Gov. Richardson's request for all the candidates to pledge not to use personal attacks against each other.  I have seen people on this site say that is impossible.  I say it is not.  (I worked on a campaign as a teen for mayor of wilmington where the 2 candidates got into fisticuffs on TV during the debate, afterwards,they were so ashamed of their antics that they took that pledge and our party was able to come together and win after the primary.)  Lets fight like family and forgive like family.  Please.

I will happily support any candidate who wins our party's nomination.  

I honestly like all the candidates.  I produce political comedy shows that oftimes features members of congress and politicos and I have met everyone of them.  I like everyone of them.  They would all be good leaders and fun Presidents.  Even Dennis Kucinich.  Dennis does a mean impersonation of Donal Duck that I would LUV to see performed by him sitting behind that big desk in the oval office.  That would lighten things up considerably!

by timlhowe 2007-02-25 05:51PM | 0 recs
Re: Workers of the World....

I am just curious why this unity wasnt shown by the side you support right after 2006 elections? People like Rahm and Carville showed no love for Dean in public. Rahm did not hide his disdain for Dean and he is one of Hillary's key supporters. Why was Bill undermining Lamont, the Dem party candidate in CT when he went on Larry King?
Why is this guilt trip laid on only one side of the party? Why wasn't Hillary trying to bring about peace when everyone in the DEm party was ganging up unfairly with malicious attacks on Dean with that ridiculous Osama ad? Why was she content to see one of the outspoken critics of Bush go down? She was unwilling to fight the Republicans when we needed her in 2004. Now she is profiting from 8years of Bush incompetence that any DEm has a great chance of winning. What kind of leadership is that?  I can rattle off more examples. DLC types who were saying it was the national security stupid 4 years ago when CW wason their side, but now want us to not crucify Hillary on this same topic. I just see a lot of double standards.

I assume you have some involvement with that  Will Rogers stuff. Good luck in that. We all need humor.

by Pravin 2007-02-26 04:34AM | 0 recs
Re: Workers of the World....

thanks Pravin bud on the Will Rogers shout out, we will be doing gigs during the primary season and all the candidates and their possies will be invited  (along with the comic stylings of David Corn and Matt Cooper Im sure).  By then we sure as hell will need some giggles...

I dont have a side.  I view myself as a Democrat.  I have also always viewed myself as a lefty Democrat. (I was raised by a Catholic worker Dorothy Day labor Dem and those are the beliefs that I personally possess.  None of the candidates subscribe to my personal philosophy.  I believe that Rich folk should be taxed to the gills, now who is that popular with? How would my philosophy go over with Greenwich Dems I wonder?)
I will support whoever the Dems nominate because I wanna win back the Executive branch.  (not just the WH)  I want all those Asst. Sec. in all the departments changed back to how they were in the Clinton Administration.  Working to affect real change for the American people.

Rahm Emmanuel can be one mean son of a gun.  A real badger.  I was oftimes on the other side of fights with him during the Clinton Days, but that sure as hell doesnt mean that I dont think is a big boon to the Demas as a Congress Critter.  He is smart and terribly tenacious.  There is no way the Dems woulda won back the House without his efforts.  But he disagrees with Gov. Dean on $.  I see both sides of that fight.  I totally believe in a 50 state philosophy.  (If only so Dems dont feel abandoned or alone in the reddest of states.) If rahm attacked Dean personally he was wrong, I never read that, but he would be wrong.  Gov Dean is a good and nice man.

I have read a few times on this site about the Osama ad.  The one that Obamas Comm Director delivered.  It was vile and unfair and destroyed the Dean canadacy.  I do believe that Dean would have done better than Kerry.  Ipso facto, see how important I think that ad was since we only lost to Bush by 60,000 votes in Ohio.  Buttttttt....
I KNOW that there is no evidence (or I believe truth) to the accusation that president Clinton had Anything to do with that ad.  Jerome in his post the other day wrote about who organized that 527.  I know that fellow quite well.  For reasons that have Nothing to do with politics, I actually really like him (and I dont like fundraisers in general, but they are a burden we have to bear.) If you read Jerome's post (and a few other things on the Net) you can track that ad down to its origin.  Who did it benefit? If youd say Kerry AND Gephardt, Id agree.  Did you know that their fundraisers shared offices together in DC for years?

I know that Senator Clinton and President Clinton really like Governor Dean.  I have heard this many times.  Nuevo Libreal pointed out to me that Clinton has been quoted as saying that Dean couldnt win because of the gay marriage law in VT. I know that president Clinton feels that the dozens of statewide initatives on that issue lost us the election in 2004.  The President may have chosen to support Kerry because he saw this potential danger many months in advance.  He may have acted on this belief on the QT.  But, we all know, he never came out in public and said that anyone should go against the Governor and vote for Kerry.  

There is no way that the President had any involvment with that and you shouldnt say he did if you have no proof that its true.  (the guys who did this - wouldnt even consider calling the Prez on this - they are layers down)

My view is that we should all fight together and with each other - but only on the facts (maam, please).  We shouldnt `hate' each other, we shouldnt say our opponents `did, do or know' nothing.  We shouldnt give ammunition to our enemies.

Years ago in NH (2000) we were putting on one of these silly comedy shows during primary week.  I was driving to downtown Manchester (to drink some tasty Catamount Beers!) listening to the Dem Primary debate on the radio when I heard candidate Bradley ask this question, "If Al Gore is going to LIE to you as a candidate - what will keep him from LYING to you as a President?"  YIKES!  I almost drove off the road!  I couldnt believe it, I had speant the last 4 years battling daily (I was producing labor funded radio at the time) the right wing- GOP- MSM junta of spin and attack and knew that they had never DARED using that LIE.  But when I heard Bradley say that I about freaked - cause I KNEW what was coming next.  The repubs now had the right to use that word,  And they did and did and did and that is why we have Dubya in the WH and why Al cannot and will not run sad as that is to me personally.  I liked Bradley before that and spent a lot of time in his campaign cause I had real good friends there.  But after that, he was dead to me.  (and look what a good Dem he's been since 20000....Not! He disappeared to the multi millionaires club)  I  dont want us to cut our throats again.

Hang together or Hang seperately...

I suggest you read my favorite blogging comic about this topic, Bob Somerby at

by timlhowe 2007-02-26 05:24AM | 0 recs
Re: Workers of the World....

Well, Tim, when you first came down here, all your posts seemed to be Hillary related. So we weren't sure what you were about. Now I am seeing a more indepth side of your involvement, such as your thoughts on people other than Hillary in a positive light. So you do seem to know a lot of stuff what is going on. We probably will disagree on what it means to us as a citizen. For me, standing up for the good in your party is just as important as a senate voting scorecard because it can help reinfornce or debunk political narratives in the MSM.

Since you seemed to meet a lot of people there, can you give me some insight on why a guy like Wes Clark is getting very little traction? I understand why he is getting little in the mainstream as  a lot of the stuff he does is not readily apparent to your average voter. But what about inside the party? Since you have a different perspective(not necessarily different side), what is your take on this? Are pepole still nervous about his rushed 2004 showing? Just curious.

by Pravin 2007-02-26 12:01PM | 0 recs
Re: Workers of the World....

I believe those media fools rule the world.  Let me change that, I think the fools in the media rule the world.  Its a secret, but thats the whole reason for the Will Rogers show,  To get all them folk together, get em lickered up, laughing and then hit em with a little ridicule right there when they are expecting just another in a series of Clinton dick jokes or whatever. (You know the kinda jokes youd imagine Chris Matthews telling Russert up at their swim club in Nantucket)

I do like all of the candidates.  Seriously.  Obama. Fucking Biden, I love that guy! (I worked for him when I was 15!) Richardson is such an impresive man.  Edwards two nations speech makes me wanna head to the barricades.  Dodd...well Dodd is funny and I really dig that of course.  As to Clark, of course I like him too.  But in my opinion there are two things going on there.  First, its the fault, again, of the MSM.  They are only drawn to shiny objects and hence this election has become about one big celeb, Hillary and Obama, against the other.  They dont respect Clark I believe.  I think they see him as a guest on their talk shows.  Too sincere and insistant to bother with.  Remember, he had the audacity to disagree with them back when 93% of the reporting on the cables was pro `regime change'. Secondly, I know that Clark is quite good friends with President and Senator Clinton. Arkansans Roads Scholars stick together.  Im sure you know that good friends of the Clintons worked with the General in 2004.  I would never expect him to run against the Clintons.  I would expect that if there is another Clinton administration, (which is btw, the way I look at it, a reformation after the 5-4 coup in 2000) he would be named Sec of Defense.

I am pro Hillary for two reasons.  One I know her and I like her.  Two, I think that the Clinton administration is as good as its gonna get in the era that we live in.  And it did more good things than people remember.  Also, they can win it. They did it before.  This election, the real one, far away, is gonna be a million times harder than many people here seem to think. The right is mean and the media is dumb.  A bad combo for us.

If she wasnt running I really don't know who I would be with.  Probally, I'd still be watching and being nice to them all.

But my main efforts, for a decade now, have been to fight the lies, mythos, narrative, novelization, meme making and scripting of our political discource. This is made up by the right wingers and delivered to us by the MSM.  They want to do it all again and if they are allowed to, we will lose.  Again.  I have spent lots of time with these folks, (our shows after all are often sponsored by the Hotline) they want to talk about silly, sexy things.  We have to be united against them trivializing this election as they have the last two. On our side, I have seen many people who, without knowing it, buy into and start reciting these false presentations.  I can only wish we  wouldnt pollute our own dialogue as this campaign continues.  If we don't, pardon me, we're fucked.  Again.

by timlhowe 2007-02-26 01:26PM | 0 recs
Re: Workers of the World....

Gibbs was the creator of that Osama-Dean ad.  He is now communications director for the Obama campaign.  Instead of going after Hillary for "being silent" when Dean was attacked with that filth, why not go after the creator of the slimy, vile ad?  The guy who is now not only Obama's communication director, but obviously his spokesman.   There is a blame disconnect here.  Why go after those who were "silent" when the ad came out (HRC wasn't even a candidate) but absolve those who actually knowingly surround themselves with the likes of the creator of that vilest of ads.   That slimy, punkish ad should have disqualified Gibbs for the job with the Obama campaign from the outset, let alone be hired.   I get upset every time I view that crappy piece of garbage.  Instead of being shunned and vilified for the rest of his professional life the guy actually gets a high-level position in a presidential campaign.   And Obama supporters simply accept that as part of being "realistic" about the nature of campaigns.    

by georgep 2007-02-26 05:39AM | 0 recs
Re: Workers of the World....

He also introduced into this campaign the rightwing-GOP-Chriss Matthews-MSM hate speech meme about the 'Lincoln Bedroom'.  This myth was used to attack ALL Democrats as sleazy and untrustworthy.  Since the times that phrase entered the parlance of our adversaries it has been shown that the numbers of guests (and their make up) is consistant with the record of the Bush administration.  (The daily Howler has even pointed out that the washington Post used Chelsea's HS girlfriends who stayed over to build up the count they had of donors who stayed overnight.  Gibb's use of that disproved canard was disgraceful, we should all be outraged and he should be forced to resign.

We cannot allow the myths and the lies that we fought so hard to disprove to be used by the campaigns just to get a momentary gain or to `win' an argument.  That hurts us all and allows the press to pretend that these lies are acceptable topics for their endless amusements.  Please read the Daily Howler and understand how dangeous this will be to us all in the long run.

These lies, not the Clintons or Al Gore, cost us the election in 2000.  New lies cost us the WH in 2004.  Lets not enable the media and GOP to use this rehashed BS in 2008.  Please.

by timlhowe 2007-02-26 06:13AM | 0 recs
Re: She's In... But Can Hillary Win?

I'm mystified by anyone who asks the question "Can Hillary win?"

Anyone who believes that Hillary "can't" win should not be taken seriously.

by Steve M 2007-02-26 06:32AM | 0 recs
Re: She's In... But Can Hillary Win?

Since this diary deals specifically with California, this latest poll from Datamar regarding the California Democratic primary should be helpful: ocrats021507.pdf

Sample size: 865 "likely" Democratic voters
MoE: 3.3%

Clinton at 34.3%

Obama at 23.6%

Edwards at 16.2%

Richardson brings in a respectable 7.2%

Gore and Clark were not considered in this poll, as it should be.

Interesting also that in follow-up questioning Obama is seen as the most conservative of the trio, Edwards second, Clinton the "least conservative."

Very conservative:  Obama 2.1%, Edwards 2%, Clinton 1.3%

Somewhat conservative:  Obama 19%, Edwards 15%, Clinton 12.5%.

So, in the aggregate, a full 21.1% of California Democratic primary voters believe Obama to be conservative, 17% believe that about Edwards, 13.8% about Clinton.

Also, Clinton is considered more "liberal" than both Obama and Edwards in the aggregate.  "Liberal" or "Somewhat liberal" was checked by 81.8% for her, 80.0% for Edwards and 76.5% for Obama.

by georgep 2007-02-26 07:00AM | 0 recs


Advertise Blogads