NationStates Jolt Archive

As a loyal Democrat, I think that we must return to the Clinton-Gore approach--nominate young, southern or midwestern moderates from red states, who will appeal to voters across the board. As much as I like "Massachusetts liberals", the rightward shift in American politics brought on by Reagan has made it almost impossible to get one elected. Who should run in '08? I say either Evan Bayh (Senator, Indiana), Bill Nelson (Senator, Florida), or Mark Warner (Governor, Virginia). DON'T SAY HILLARY!

Who?
Who?
Who?

HILLARY!

Who?
Who?
Who?

HILLARY!
That annoying, divisive lady

But even with Edwards on the ticket, they still didn't do very well in the south. I mean, if they could have won Arkansas, maybe. But I do agree, Clinton-Gore type ticket is the way to go.

But even with Edwards on the ticket, they still didn't do very well in the south. I mean, if they could have won Arkansas, maybe. But I do agree, Clinton-Gore type ticket is the way to go.
Edwards is a southerner but there's that word again--"liberal" :eek:

I just refuse to nominate a Southern candidate(Repug clone...., Repug-lite) just so we can appease the South. I think this approach is the reason we have been losing, save Clinton. I think we need to "demonize" conservatives as much as they have "demonized" liberals.

Anyway, I like to see Bill Richardson(popular Democratic Governor) up there, or maybe Obama(just because he is a genius in using faith to his advantage...no more conservative monopoly!). Populists.

I just refuse to nominate a Southern candidate(Repug clone...., Repug-lite) just so we can appease the South. I think this approach is the reason we have been losing, save Clinton. I think we need to "demonize" conservatives as much as they have "demonized" liberals.

Anyway, I like to see Bill Richardson(popular Democratic Governor) up there, or maybe Obama(just because he is a genius in using faith to his advantage...no more conservative monopoly!). Populists.
Richardson wouldn't be a bad choice, either

I would love Obama, but much of America doesn't seem ready for a black President

I just refuse to nominate a Southern candidate(Repug clone...., Repug-lite) just so we can appease the South. I think this approach is the reason we have been losing, save Clinton. I think we need to "demonize" conservatives as much as they have "demonized" liberals.

Anyway, I like to see Bill Richardson(popular Democratic Governor) up there, or maybe Obama(just because he is a genius in using faith to his advantage...no more conservative monopoly!). Populists.

Very shortsighted considering the last Democrat to be elected to the Presidency who was not from the south was Kennedy in 1960. But then again, i vote with the GOP, so by all means, keep up that policy :D

Jesse Ventura. :)

Don't say Hillary (sp?)? Are you nuts? Her husband is one of the best presidents we've ever had, and if she's anything like him, I'll vote for her.

I would love Obama, but much of America doesn't seem ready for a black President
I'm a staunch conservative, but even I have been impressed with Obama's persuasive rhetoric. I voted for Mark Warner in the poll, because legislators always have a hard time running for President, due to the fact that their Congressional votes, which are often contrary to logic due to attaching unrelated bills to Omnibus bills, can always be picked apart. Bill Richardson has always seemed reasonable to me, as well. However, whoever the candidate is, they have to get thru the primaries, which means they have to appeal to the hard-core Democrats, which are far more liberal than the party as a whole (witness Liebermann's troubles).

What we need is Richardson (Arizona) and somebody from Ohio. :)

The best choice, I think, would be Hillary Clinton. A lot of dems were pushing for her for THIS election even though she said she wasn't gonna run for it.

What we need is Richardson (Arizona) and somebody from Ohio. :)

The best choice, I think, would be Hillary Clinton. A lot of dems were pushing for her for THIS election even though she said she wasn't gonna run for it.


He is from New Mexico, btw. Yeah, I would like to see a staunch Democrat like Hillary run. Force our values as much as the republicans have tried to force thiers. We can't let them "herd" us to where they want to go.

What we need is Richardson (Arizona) and somebody from Ohio. :)

The best choice, I think, would be Hillary Clinton. A lot of dems were pushing for her for THIS election even though she said she wasn't gonna run for it.
Hillary is a formidable politician, and could win, but she does inspire people on both sides of the aisle to vote for/against her. She would be the choice if the party wants to keep moving further left, and I don't think that will play very well with the electorate.

Howard Dean. We Republicans can slaughter him with one arm tied behind our backs. :)

I think we need to "demonize" conservatives as much as they have "demonized" liberals.
Yeah thats what we need more partisianship.

Yeah thats what we need more partisianship.
Why not? The last thing we need is a homogenous US.


Republicans. Republican-lites.

As a loyal Democrat, I think that we must return to the Clinton-Gore approach--nominate young, southern or midwestern moderates from red states, who will appeal to voters across the board. As much as I like "Massachusetts liberals", the rightward shift in American politics brought on by Reagan has made it almost impossible to get one elected. Who should run in '08? I say either Evan Bayh (Senator, Indiana), Bill Nelson (Senator, Florida), or Mark Warner (Governor, Virginia). DON'T SAY HILLARY!
The dems need to pull their shit together THEN find a viable candidate that can win votes. The days of an anarchaic 'free for all' are as over as the 1970's that spawned it. They need to get disciplined and organized along the lines of a military campaign. They need the heart of the working class on their team and a whole lot less of the image of elitist intellectuals which doesn't sell well.

Very shortsighted considering the last Democrat to be elected to the Presidency who was not from the south was Kennedy in 1960. But then again, i vote with the GOP, so by all means, keep up that policy :D

but on the other other hand, all democratic wins since kennedy have happened under special circumstances. lbj won because he was facing goldwater, which is a special case all on his own. carter sneaks in because ford issued a blanket pardon for anything nixon might have done...ever. and clinton won because of the perot factor.

but on the other other hand, all democratic wins since kennedy have happened under special circumstances. lbj won because he was facing goldwater, which is a special case all on his own. carter sneaks in because ford issued a blanket pardon for anything nixon might have done...ever. and clinton won because of the perot factor.
Actually Kennedy's win was against Nixon. Although a major upset in the EC vote gave Kennedy 303 to Nixon's 219 with 15 spoiled by a third party candidate, it was extremely close in the popular vote. 34,226,731/34,108,157 or 50.09%/49.91%. Kennedy had what is lacking today. A disciplined organization.

Johnson's landslide victory in 1964 was in part due to the high emotion stemming from the Kennedy asassination as much as a rejection of Goldwater's perceived extremism. As you point out, the Carter vote was a tossing about for a clean restart devoid of the Nixon mess.

Clinton won on two points: His charisma and the fact that GHW Bush's arrogance in thinking he would skate into a second term based on his Gulf War I popularity. The man never really campaigned at all and never took Clinton seriously. In effect Clinton was the only one running for office.

clinton won because of the perot factor.
Clinton won because trickle-down economics and Savings and Loans from the 80's were creating massive deficits and were slowing down the economy

A good point was made earlier in that Dems shouldn't be afraid to sling mud the way the GOP does. It works!

In the 1992 election, there were four states (or districts) that either candidate got 50% or more in : Mississippi (For GHWB), and New York, Delaware, Arkansas, and Washington DC for Clinton. He won, no one's disputing that, but compare that to John Kerry's performance and its obvious that it was a large 3rd party vote - taking away from both, but more so from Bush Sr. - that, more than anything, put Clinton in office.

Dean. I'd like a Republican to sweep 49 states again.

In the 1992 election, there were four states (or districts) that either candidate got 50% or more in : Mississippi (For GHWB), and New York, Delaware, Arkansas, and Washington DC for Clinton. He won, no one's disputing that, but compare that to John Kerry's performance and its obvious that it was a large 3rd party vote - taking away from both, but more so from Bush Sr. - that, more than anything, put Clinton in office.
It was less Perot's presence on the ballot that made a difference, it was more his attacks on Bush prior to the election that helped turn voters towards Clinton. But I think Clinton would have won anyway

For those Republicans that said Dean, vote as if you somehow became a Democrat and would vote according to what would help the party most

For those Republicans that said Dean, vote as if you somehow became a Democrat and would vote according to what would help the party most
Actually, I think Dean would be a good party Whip, and excellent at getting out the base. I think putting him in Terry McAuliffe's place would be a mistake. McAuliffe was very polarizing, and I think Dean would be even more so.

In the 1992 election, there were four states (or districts) that either candidate got 50% or more in : Mississippi (For GHWB), and New York, Delaware, Arkansas, and Washington DC for Clinton. He won, no one's disputing that, but compare that to John Kerry's performance and its obvious that it was a large 3rd party vote - taking away from both, but more so from Bush Sr. - that, more than anything, put Clinton in office.
That is based on a couple faulty assumptions. First that those who voted for Mr. Pie Chart would have voted for Bush in their candidate's absence. Second, that this disaffected element would have voted at all. Sure that is what Brokaw, et.al. said. But was that more than blather to fill air time space?

It was less Perot's presence on the ballot that made a difference, it was more his attacks on Bush prior to the election that helped turn voters towards Clinton. But I think Clinton would have won anyway
On point & outstanding! Let's not forget that Bush never ran a campaign. He ran on arrogance, a nasty family trait.

On point & outstanding! Let's not forget that Bush never ran a campaign. He ran on arrogance, a nasty family trait.
Actually, arrogance was one thing Bush Sr was never accused of. If you will recall, he actually had to fight the perception "the wimp factor". Dan Rather helped him out of that by trying to trap him in national television, and Bush faced him down, until Dan walked off. What probably did it for him was the incident of him not being familiar with a supermarket scanner, therefore branding him as being out of touch.

Edwards won't get the nomination after running on a losing ticket; that is highly unlikely. If Dean becomes the Chairman of the Democratic Party as he intends, he'll be out of the running. I think it is pretty obvious that we'll be looking at Hillary in 2008; God save America from that.
Obama is too inexperienced as of now; the man just entered federal politics. Colin Powell could have been the first black president (and a great one he would have been. He appeals to both sides on the centrist line), but America wouldn't let that fly; it's sad.

Edwards won't get the nomination after running on a losing ticket; that is highly unlikely. If Dean becomes the Chairman of the Democratic Party as he intends, he'll be out of the running. I think it is pretty obvious that we'll be looking at Hillary in 2008; God save America from that.
Obama is too inexperienced as of now; the man just entered federal politics. Colin Powell could have been the first black president (and a great one he would have been. He appeals to both sides on the centrist line), but America wouldn't let that fly; it's sad.
Why would America not let that fly?

That is based on a couple faulty assumptions. First that those who voted for Mr. Pie Chart would have voted for Bush in their candidate's absence. Second, that this disaffected element would have voted at all. Sure that is what Brokaw, et.al. said. But was that more than blather to fill air time space?

turnout in 92 wasn't up 19%, so clearly most of perot's voters typically vote for one of the main parties. also, most of the states where perot did best are states that are republican, and those that bush still carried were at much closer margins than has been typical. clinton carried montana, which is just unheard of. which says to me that a very significant percentage of perot's support came from people who typically vote republican.

Why would America not let that fly?A great question. Ask America!

which says to me that a very significant percentage of perot's support came from people who typically vote republican.
That just doesn't make sense. Perot was a lot closer politically to Clinton than Bush, and he was a fierce critic of Bush.

That just doesn't make sense. Perot was a lot closer politically to Clinton than Bush, and he was a fierce critic of Bush.

yeah, but we live in a country where people will vote for a member of the old money new england elite because they believe that he represents the common man. it doesn't have to make sense.

yeah, but we live in a country where people will vote for a member of the old money new england elite because they believe that he represents the common man. it doesn't have to make sense.
John Kerry may be as rich as God, but at least he cares about wage earners

Obama for 2012!!!!

A great question. Ask America!
I'm in America, and am wondering why you think we would not let that fly.

John Kerry may be as rich as God, but at least he cares about wage earners

i was actually talking about gee dub

i was actually talking about gee dub
That may be true of Bush Sr, but Jr spent most of his life down in Midland, Texas, trying to get an oil business off the ground, before becoming a 2% stakeholder in the Texas Rangers.

I'm in America, and am wondering why you think we would not let that fly.
Because since reconstruction in 1876, there have been only 3 black senators, Obama being one

Bill Richardson/Obama ticket. But hate to say it, the rupukes will win again in 08, but it won't be that bad, because I believe McCain will run in 08 and I don't believe any one can beat him. But hey, given Bush, I think the world can live with McCain. :)

Actually, arrogance was one thing Bush Sr was never accused of. If you will recall, he actually had to fight the perception "the wimp factor". Dan Rather helped him out of that by trying to trap him in national television, and Bush faced him down, until Dan walked off. What probably did it for him was the incident of him not being familiar with a supermarket scanner, therefore branding him as being out of touch.
I was not speaking necessarily of his public personna. Perhaps a patrician detachment would have been a better way of putting it. Still, it was an arrogance not to actualy run for reelection. That was my point.

Here is the way I see this :

Hillary is going to run in 08 against McCain and lose. Then In 2012 I want to see Obama as a vice presidential canidate. He is our best shot at getting some control.

I would love to see dean as a whip, because he unites the base like none other. But However, a more moderate canadait with obama as vp would make a very good team from a political stratagy and also would be very, very, good for america.

As for those of you talking about "keep it up guys, The GOP wins if you do." Thats not a productive additude. You can't unite america if you keep looking at polotics as a sport and not as one of the most important things in the worlds life(some of us, god is more important, but not I).

Actually, arrogance was one thing Bush Sr was never accused of. If you will recall, he actually had to fight the perception "the wimp factor". Dan Rather helped him out of that by trying to trap him in national television, and Bush faced him down, until Dan walked off. What probably did it for him was the incident of him not being familiar with a supermarket scanner, therefore branding him as being out of touch.
I wasn't speaking of the public personna he projected, but the patrician complacence of being above the fray. He never even ran for reelection. If that isn't arrogance then what is?

It amuses me when the media and so many Democrats all talk about the need for the party to get healthy in the south, and yet they never talk about how the Republican party has basically given up on the northeast and the pacific west parts of the country, which are far more populous.

So no--we don't need to nominate a southerner, and we don't need to nominate someone from the mushy middle. We're in deep shit as a party because the Republican noise machine has succeeded--with our help--in casting us as nothing more than the anti-Republicans. We have to get back to being pro-active in espousing our values.

Now personally, I think that future events will help us get our message out. We can't keep on our present course, either militarily or economically, without facing a serious crash in the near future--before 2008, I'm willing to bet--and when it happens, we'll be seen as the obvious alternative, but that's bad for two reasons. One, it's only a stopgap measure, and if we haven't found ourselves by then, our advantage will be temporary at best. Americans have horrendously short memories, after all. Two, it means our resurgence would come at tremendous pain to the country as a whole, and that's something we should seek to head off if at all possible.

As to the nominee, part of the choosing will depend on who becomes the next chair of the DNC. The DNC chair holds office for four years, so whoever takes it is pretty much ruling out a 2008 run. The early names being bandied about include Howard Dean and John Edwards. Dean has expressed at least some interest (much to the dismay of many in the DLC), while Edwards hasn't. To be fair, he's probably more concerned with his wife's breast cancer treatment right now.

Hillary may run, but I think she'll be a Lieberman-esque candidate--she'll have the money and name recognition early on, but not much else. Warner has been talked about for the DNC job, but he's not interested--probably more interested in the Presidency in 2008 or the Virginia Senate in 2006. Back to Edwards--in order to be a serious candidate, he has to do something for the next four years other than campaign and his prospects don't look good. The DNC job might be a good move, since he'll have a hard time running for the Presidency in 2008 anyway.

And if Dean either doesn't get the DNC job or turns it down, he's got to be considered for the job. Think of him as Reagan in 1976--not quite ready for primetime, but with four years to smooth out the edges and prove he can be a statesman, he could be the strongest candidate in 2008. I hope so anyway.

As a conservative (and therefore reluctant Republican), I say: Hillary-Dean '08! And let her recite how she's going to nationalize the healt care at every campaign stop while Dean should list the states they are going to win in. Heck, forget about Hillary - just let him list the states!

So no--we don't need to nominate a southerner, and we don't need to nominate someone from the mushy middle. We're in deep shit as a party because the Republican noise machine has succeeded--with our help--in casting us as nothing more than the anti-Republicans. We have to get back to being pro-active in espousing our values.

I'll let you in on a secret - most Americans actually do not care for your Socialist values.

What about Hilary? That poll is ridiculous without her.

Some think it's going to be Guiliani v. Hilary which would mean two "minorities" (as far as politics goes) against each other

An Italian Catholic v. A Woman

I would love to see a Clinton-Obama ticket

I don't understand the obsession with going after the deep south. Democrats won't win there. And we don't need a Republican-lite, either. Look, the Republican party right now is further right than most Americans, but they have done a great job framing their message. And Bush won, not on the strength of gay marriage, but on 9/11. A majority of Americans disapproved of his job performance as of election day, but Kerry was not able to convince voters afraid of terrorism that he could do a better job than Bush.

Instead of trying in vain to win states in the deep south, the Democrats need to re-frame their message to win over the border states (MO, WV, VA, OH) and try to pick up some states out west (AZ, NM, NV, CO). These are all winnable states for the Democrats if they get their act together and adopt the Republican strategy of crafting a simple message and repeating it over and over again.

Oh, and Hillary Clinton is a loser for the Democrats. As much as the Democratic base may love her, she'll also fire up the Republican base.

It amuses me when the media and so many Democrats all talk about the need for the party to get healthy in the south, and yet they never talk about how the Republican party has basically given up on the northeast and the pacific west parts of the country, which are far more populous.

So no--we don't need to nominate a southerner, and we don't need to nominate someone from the mushy middle. We're in deep shit as a party because the Republican noise machine has succeeded--with our help--in casting us as nothing more than the anti-Republicans. We have to get back to being pro-active in espousing our values.

Now personally, I think that future events will help us get our message out. We can't keep on our present course, either militarily or economically, without facing a serious crash in the near future--before 2008, I'm willing to bet--and when it happens, we'll be seen as the obvious alternative, but that's bad for two reasons. One, it's only a stopgap measure, and if we haven't found ourselves by then, our advantage will be temporary at best. Americans have horrendously short memories, after all. Two, it means our resurgence would come at tremendous pain to the country as a whole, and that's something we should seek to head off if at all possible.

As to the nominee, part of the choosing will depend on who becomes the next chair of the DNC. The DNC chair holds office for four years, so whoever takes it is pretty much ruling out a 2008 run. The early names being bandied about include Howard Dean and John Edwards. Dean has expressed at least some interest (much to the dismay of many in the DLC), while Edwards hasn't. To be fair, he's probably more concerned with his wife's breast cancer treatment right now.

Hillary may run, but I think she'll be a Lieberman-esque candidate--she'll have the money and name recognition early on, but not much else. Warner has been talked about for the DNC job, but he's not interested--probably more interested in the Presidency in 2008 or the Virginia Senate in 2006. Back to Edwards--in order to be a serious candidate, he has to do something for the next four years other than campaign and his prospects don't look good. The DNC job might be a good move, since he'll have a hard time running for the Presidency in 2008 anyway.

And if Dean either doesn't get the DNC job or turns it down, he's got to be considered for the job. Think of him as Reagan in 1976--not quite ready for primetime, but with four years to smooth out the edges and prove he can be a statesman, he could be the strongest candidate in 2008. I hope so anyway.
Dean now has the image of a bipolar with manic episodes and Edwards that of a trial lawyer. The Dems will have to dig deeper than them for leadership. They need an operator - not a name. They desperately need someone of Rove's caliber. BTW - Hillary will kill any chance of a win. She is exactly what turns the middle off.

I'll let you in on a secret - most Americans actually do not care for your Socialist values.
I'll let you in on a secret--any time polls are conducted on individual issues that deal with what you might call Socialist values, issues like universal health care, like social security, like the right to organize, the American people overwhelmingly support them. Even gay rights is pretty much a 50-50 split, so you might want to be careful with your generalizations.

Dean now has the image of a bipolar with manic episodes and Edwards that of a trial lawyer. The Dems will have to dig deeper than them for leadership. They need an operator - not a name. They desperately need someone of Rove's caliber. BTW - Hillary will kill any chance of a win. She is exactly what turns the middle off.
It's amazing to me how so many people have this image of Hillary as some uber-liberal. Let me tell you--the liberal side of the party is far less comfortable with Hillary than the centrist side is. She's got the tag because of her work on the national health care system--that's not enough to make her liberal. She's basically a centrist, just like her husband.

As far as Dean is concerned, four years is more than enough to rehab an image that wasn't too badly damaged to begin with, but I tend to think--even though I would love to have him as President--that he'd do more good rebuilding the party from the grassroots as DNC chair. And Edwards' biggest problem for 2008 isn't the trial lawyer problem--it's inexperience, and the fact that he's not in a position to get any more experience any time soon.

It's amazing to me how so many people have this image of Hillary as some uber-liberal. Let me tell you--the liberal side of the party is far less comfortable with Hillary than the centrist side is. She's got the tag because of her work on the national health care system--that's not enough to make her liberal. She's basically a centrist, just like her husband.

As far as Dean is concerned, four years is more than enough to rehab an image that wasn't too badly damaged to begin with, but I tend to think--even though I would love to have him as President--that he'd do more good rebuilding the party from the grassroots as DNC chair. And Edwards' biggest problem for 2008 isn't the trial lawyer problem--it's inexperience, and the fact that he's not in a position to get any more experience any time soon.
You may well be right on Hillary, but only if the Dems take a disciplined "on message" stance and get the message out. The fact is that over the next 2-3 years they will have to convert enough of the middle to break them away from the conservatism that has captivated them since 9-11. Hillary is extremely capable but she has to be made a standard bearer for centerist common sense politics. As senator from NY, who has dealt very well in representing the people of NY, she can counter the 9-11 mystique that Bush wrapped himself in. Here, in LMDC territory of all places, Bush is considered a dangerous chump.

Dean? I'm sorry but he is too easy a target. They need a stronger, less compromised, operator.

Edwards? The trial lawyer thing is all he really has going. What has he accomplished otherwise? What does he bring to the table to solidify and strengthen the ticket?

I'll let you in on a secret--any time polls are conducted on individual issues that deal with what you might call Socialist values, issues like universal health care, like social security, like the right to organize, the American people overwhelmingly support them. Even gay rights is pretty much a 50-50 split, so you might want to be careful with your generalizations.


which is why somebody could do quite well in the states that democrats have pretty much written off completely if they were willing to do the whole cultural reactionary thing on abortion and shoving jeebus into the science textbooks and came out swinging in favor of guns, but also held out social democratic policies (or even democratic socialist policies, as long as they didn't call them that)

Very shortsighted considering the last Democrat to be elected to the Presidency who was not from the south was Kennedy in 1960. But then again, i vote with the GOP, so by all means, keep up that policy :D

Reagan was born in Illinois, and moved to California, although his running mate, George H.W. Bush was a Texas Represenative, he was originally from Massachusetts.

About the 2008 Democratic nomination...I have no clue. It depends on how the Democrats go. If they go more to the right, then we'll see candidates idealogically like -gulp- Zell Miller (although I serriously doubt he would run.)

If the Democrats go to the left and become a true opposition party, John Edwards and Bill Richardson have a good chance. However, Hillary must be factored in. If Hillary were to run, she would be a strong primary candidate and a strong ticket.

If the Democrats go more centrist, it's a toss up.

However, a new candidate can come up in the next 4 years, we'll just have to wait and see.

Edwards is done. He has no political life left in him.

which is why somebody could do quite well in the states that democrats have pretty much written off completely if they were willing to do the whole cultural reactionary thing on abortion and shoving jeebus into the science textbooks and came out swinging in favor of guns, but also held out social democratic policies (or even democratic socialist policies, as long as they didn't call them that)
If they do that, then why would there even be a need for two parties any more? I'm sorry, but if the party moves in that direction, then we'll be seeing the death of the party as a national power, because there are too many of us who won't stand for it.

Is Dennis Kucinich still around?

Amazing ...

The going view seems to be that if a Republican wins the White House, it's because he's popular and the best choice. However, if a Democrat wins, it's because of "special circumstances".

Incidently, Howard Dean will most likely be replacing Terry McAuliffe as chairman of the DNC and, therefore, will not be able to run for President in 2008.

Is Dennis Kucinich still around?

Yes. He's still a congressman.

That annoying, divisive lady

How many people know nothing of Senator Hillary Clinton, but are willing to follow the trail of partisan mud thrown at her by the wacko right? Do they know her actual record as a senator from New York? Why not ask the people, Republican and Democrat, who serve with her?

"I think Hillary Clinton has really worked hard to do her job and not create a lot of attention…" (Sen. Bob Smith, R-N.H., staunch conservative)

“She has never gone out of her way to be acerbic or rub people the wrong way. She has used her charm, which no one necessarily identified that attribute with her." (Marshall Wittman, a conservative Republican analyst close to Senate Republicans)

"She aggressively avoids the spotlight and intentionally holds back, while most of us try to do the opposite." (Senator John B. Breaux, Democrat of Louisiana)

"In fact, she has been very hard-working, diligent and well-prepared." (Senator Bob Graham, Democrat of Florida)

Sens. Sam Brownback, R-Kan., James Inhofe, R-Okla., and John Ensign, R-Nev., have all co-sponsored legislation with her.

She and Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, chaired a charity fundraiser together.

Deputy Republican leader Don Nickles of Oklahoma studies the Bible with her.

She has also worked with some of the Republicans who voted to impeach her husband to pass amendments that helped shape such key legislation as bankruptcy reform.

In the past two years Sen. Clinton has sponsored 319 items in the senate and has been co-sponsor on 990 items.

Hillary Clinton has campaigned, or held fund-raisers, on behalf of more than 30 Democratic candidates for the House and Senate who are in close races, as well as for three Washington-based Democratic campaign committees. She has donated $1 million from her own political action committee, out of the $2.5 million she has raised, to candidates of her choice across the nation.

The truth is Senator Clinton has proven to be a hard working Senator focused on the concerns of the people of New York who has reached across the political isle and who has been a diligent foot soldier within her party.

How about giving her a break?

The truth is Senator Clinton has proven to be a hard working Senator focused on the concerns of the people of New York who has reached across the political isle and who has been a diligent foot soldier within her party.

How about giving her a break?
She is a very hardworking lady, but she's from a blue state and she energizes the GOP base, two big problems for Dems. Go Bill Nelson!

If they do that, then why would there even be a need for two parties any more? I'm sorry, but if the party moves in that direction, then we'll be seeing the death of the party as a national power, because there are too many of us who won't stand for it.

nah, i'm thinking in terms of a regional third party for areas where the democrats aren't competitive at all. they could even make up some deal with the democrats that would make them a coalition in congress on most proceedural issues. not that i'm advocating this (after all, i'm an anarchist), but it seems to me that if you are losing because of a couple of issues anyway, it'd be better to not lose on all of them just because tactical voting makes a bunch of people vote fascist. so you get some people to form a new party and break up the republican stranglehold on large sections of the country. i mean, jeebus h. w. christ, dubya got 92% of the vote in a couple of counties. those are like numbers you'd see from a fake election in a dictatorship. and we know that most republican voters don't actually agree with them on many issues at all - so if somebody else took over the few issues that these people are actually voting on, it would force them to have to think about more than one issue. it'd be good for 'em.

She is a very hardworking lady, but she's from a blue state and she energizes the GOP base, two big problems for Dems. Go Bill Nelson!
So she is a bad idea because she makes the republicans not be lazy?
I would think you want some competition. So she is a viable choice. I know many women who would vote for her. (Could be because she is a women lol>)

mean, jeebus h. w. christ, dubya got 92% of the vote in a couple of counties.
So? Kerry got 90% of DC

So? Kerry got 90% of DC

yes, but we don't have studies which say that more than half of kerry's supporters don't know crap about his positions and actually disagree with them. unlike supporters of a certain other political party/candidate.

The irrational people who hate Hillary as a knee jerk reaction also believe all Democrats are traitors and all liberals are immoral, so it isn't as if the Democrats loose anyone by nominating Hillary.

As a loyal ....!ahh....are you from Alamogordo? I did my Pilot training and other stuff at HAFB

The irrational people who hate Hillary as a knee jerk reaction also believe all Democrats are traitors and all liberals are immoral, so it isn't as if the Democrats loose anyone by nominating Hillary.
Like the emergency responce workers who booed her off the stage in 02.

If they do that, then why would there even be a need for two parties any more? I'm sorry, but if the party moves in that direction, then we'll be seeing the death of the party as a national power, because there are too many of us who won't stand for it.
The democrat party died a long time ago. Now it is just a useless corpse propped up now and then by the Clintons and Mcauliff. God, they really screwed this electionup didn't they.

Yeaaaaaaag!

I vote Howard Dean.

God, they really screwed this electionup didn't they.

Ummmm .... no they didn't. John Kerry got more votes than any other Presidential candidate in the history of the US and we did it without having to resort to "the icky gays are gonna get married" tactics.

I'd call that a pretty reasonable success.

I'm rooting for Warner. I live in VA and he's governor here. A damned good one too. Being a democrat governor in a Republican state means something. He's a moderate, so he could win. But, he is funny looking.

The Dems should back Nadar for president in 2008. If Nadar was allowed into the debates he would win by a landslide. If Nadar refuses to be on the Dem ballot then the Dems should get Obama, Oprah or Howard Dean to run.

Go Hillary!

Of course, I am only a member of the Dutch Democratic party, not the United States Democratic Party :P

Is Dennis Kucinich still around?

If he runs again he will definitely be my choice.

Ummmm .... no they didn't. John Kerry got more votes than any other Presidential candidate in the history of the US and we did it without having to resort to "the icky gays are gonna get married" tactics.

I'd call that a pretty reasonable success.
Ummmm....No, he didn't. Bush got over 60 million votes. Kerry did not.

I don't think Hilery will run, to be honest. She's practicly started her election campaign and there's still four years left. She hasn't even been assured of winning her senate seat back. To have started so early is to run out of momentum.

The Dems will nominate one of two people, it will all depend on who's running the party.

If the Michael Moore Dems are in charge, then we'll likely see Howard Dean, or perhaps a return of John Kerry.

If the Millar Dems start a comeback, we'll see Joe Lieberman.

While I don't agree with Lieberman, he is an honerable man, and I'd rather see the party go in his direction, but I assume the party will just get further left and loose in a landslide. We'll see.

I don't think Hilery will run, to be honest. She's practicly started her election campaign and there's still four years left. She hasn't even been assured of winning her senate seat back. To have started so early is to run out of momentum.

The Dems will nominate one of two people, it will all depend on who's running the party.

If the Michael Moore Dems are in charge, then we'll likely see Howard Dean, or perhaps a return of John Kerry.

If the Millar Dems start a comeback, we'll see Joe Lieberman.

While I don't agree with Lieberman, he is an honerable man, and I'd rather see the party go in his direction, but I assume the party will just get further left and loose in a landslide. We'll see.
I heard on the sunday news an opinion that when a person starts their campaign four years out, they never win the nomination. I think the arrogance of assuming it is all yours is a bad minset. I still have a hard time believing that Hillary could swing any red states, when kerry had the advantage of 4 years of Bush hatred to help him, and he couldn't do it. Of course, he didn't have a lot of supporters himself to add to the Bush haters.

Ummmm....No, he didn't. Bush got over 60 million votes. Kerry did not.

Read what I said again. Yes, Kerry did. Then Bush crawled over him. Both candidates this election got more votes than any other candidates in history ... top 10, in order:

1. George W Bush 59,108,773 (2004)**
2. John F Kerry 55,554,359 (2004)**
3. Ronald Reagan 54,455,075 (1984)
4. Albert A Gore 50,999,897 (2000)
5. George H Bush 48,886,097 (1988)
6. William J Clinton 47,402,357 (1996)
7. Richard M Nixon 47,169,911 (1972)
8. Willian J Clinton 44,909,889 (1992)
9. Ronald Reagan 43,899,248 (1980)
10. Lyndon B Johnson 43,129,484 (1964)

**Keep in mind that the Senate has not canvassed the 2004 election yet, hence the numbers may change.

Seeing a pattern? Rep, Dem, Rep, Dem, Rep, Dem, Rep, Dem, Rep, Dem ....

Guess who's next to break the votes record? It's the Dem's turn. Watch 2008.

I would love Obama, but much of America doesn't seem ready for a black President
Why do people say this? Are you ready? Do you know anyone who would refuse to vote for a candidate based on their skin colour? Such people are a tiny minority.

howard Dean!!!!!

yeeeeaaarrggh!!!!!

Is Dennis Kucinich still around?
A president Kucinich would be ... wonderful. But I think he is way too progressive for most of you Americraps. ;)

John Kerry may be as rich as God, but at least he cares about wage earners
How do you know that he wasn't talking about George W. Bush of Connecticut?

I'll let you in on a secret - most Americans actually do not care for your Socialist values.
Obviously Americans do care, otherwise the Democrats wouldn't have dominated US politics between about 1932 and 1994. Have Americans been getting brain transplants since then?

Read what I said again. Yes, Kerry did. Then Bush crawled over him. Both candidates this election got more votes than any other candidates in history ... top 10, in order:

You said John Kerry got more votes than any other candidate. The above is a complete lie. You said....
Ummmm .... no they didn't. John Kerry got more votes than any other Presidential candidate in the history of the US and we did it without having to resort to "the icky gays are gonna get married" tactics.

I'd call that a pretty reasonable success.


John Kerry only got that many votes because of the "Hate Bush" mentality pushed by the left for the last four years. Not because he was popular, or even qualified.

Democrats are barking up the wrong tree here. It wasn't your candidate that was rejected by the American electorate on November 2, it was your ideology and your arrogance. As long as you keep screaming that anyone with conservative values is an ignorant redneck, you'll never win another election.

That being said, keep up the push for someone even more liberal in 2008. I'll have a blast watching you get slaughtered again. :D

Democrats are barking up the wrong tree here. It wasn't your candidate that was rejected by the American electorate on November 2, it was your ideology and your arrogance. As long as you keep screaming that anyone with conservative values is an ignorant redneck, you'll never win another election.

That being said, keep up the push for someone even more liberal in 2008. I'll have a blast watching you get slaughtered again. :D
Arrogance? :p

John Kerry only got that many votes because of the "Hate Bush" mentality pushed by the left for the last four years. Not because he was popular, or even qualified.
So you agree that 48.1% of the people who voted in America hate Bush? Or...what point were you trying to make?

Why do people say this? Are you ready? Do you know anyone who would refuse to vote for a candidate based on their skin colour? Such people are a tiny minority.
As has already been said, anyone who would refuse to vote for a black candidate is already beyond hope of voting for a Democrat.

This "America isn't ready" bs gets on my nerves.

To the person that nominated Obama....please get over it. America is ready for Black President... Powel would have won by alot but decided not to run. Im sorry but he is new and not qualified to be President.

Arrogance? :p
Yes, arrogance!

"The act or habit of arrogating, or making undue claims in an overbearing manner; that species of pride which consists in exorbitant claims of rank, dignity, estimation, or power, or which exalts the worth or importance of the person to an undue degree; proud contempt of others; lordliness; haughtiness; self-assumption; presumption."

A president Kucinich would be ... wonderful. But I think he is way too progressive for most of you Americraps. ;)

Kucinich is a raving loon. He is my local congressman, well, not mine persay, I voted against him. He is a former mayor of my hometown, Cleveland. He was the worst mayor in our history and put Cleveland in the gutter, until Geroge Voinovich, now Senator, came in and fixed Cleveland. Though now Jane Campbell has ruined it again.

But bottomline, Kucinich = not presidential material

To the person that nominated Obama....please get over it. America is ready for Black President... Powel would have won by alot but decided not to run. Im sorry but he is new and not qualified to be President.

Yes, Powell would make a good president.

As much as I like "Massachusetts liberals", the rightward shift in American politics brought on by Reagan has made it almost impossible to get one elected.

There, I disagree. The Democrats would be best served by someone who can look the Republican political machine in the face and fight back hard against every charge. If Kerry had acted as Truman did in his time ("Do-nothing, good for nothing Republicans!") I think he would have won a convincing victory.

Bill Richardson would be nice

To the person that nominated Obama....please get over it. America is ready for Black President... Powel would have won by alot but decided not to run. Im sorry but he is new and not qualified to be President.
Yea, either of them could carry a ticket but they'd get shot if they won. I'm sure that's part of the reason Mrs. Powell threatened to leave her husband if he ran. It was also part of the reason many African Americans didn't support Jackson back in, what was that, 84?

And I'm glad somebody else said Oprah. I thought I was the only one who thinks, if she wanted to, she could be a great candidate.

If they do that, then why would there even be a need for two parties any more? I'm sorry, but if the party moves in that direction, then we'll be seeing the death of the party as a national power, because there are too many of us who won't stand for it.
Damned if they do, damned if they don't... That sinking feeling you have is reality finally sinking in....