Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement

Say No to Hillary In '08

By Stephen Pizzo, News for Real. Posted June 3, 2005.


Instead of wasting time on Hillary Clinton, the Democratic Party, or what's left of it, should be searching right now for inspirational candidates to run for president.

Share and save this post:

      

      

Share on Facebook       

AlterNet Social Networks:
follow us on twitter
find us on Facebook

More stories by Stephen Pizzo

Advertisement
Upcoming AlterNet stories on Digg

I heard two jaw-droppingly silly things over the weekend. They were:

  1. Laura Bush for President
  2. Hillary Clinton for President

While neither suggestion is silly because both are women, they are nonetheless both silly, though for very different reasons.

The Laura Bush endorsement came from the venomous lips of Dick Cheney's wife, Lynn.

"If we are talking about a Bush dynasty, then let's have Laura run for President," Lynn Cheney said on Larry King. Her husband nodded in agreement.

Right. A Stepford Wife becomes leader of the free world and Commander-in-Chief of the world's only superpower. Not likely.

Even the most delusional, power-drunk Republicans wouldn't do something that dumb. Laura ain't exactly Margaret Thatcher. Hell, she isn't even an Eva Peron or Imelda Marcos. She's a librarian.

Lynn Cheney's remark was simply part of an orchestrated effort by Bushites to elevate Laura to the level of Nancy Reagan. There's a history here. Those not familiar with the Reagan/Bush clan feud may find this hard to understand. But these two political dynasties have hated each other from the get-go.

The Bushes were considered and treated as second-class nobles by the Reagans. For example, in eight years in office VP George H.W. Bush and Second Lady Barbara were never once invited to dinner at the White House with Ronny and Nancy. Not once.

Now with their days at the White House ticking down, the Bushites are working feverously to remake Laura. They sent her to the Middle East to soothe growing hatred of America and to be seen making nice to Muslims. The world has not seen anything that silly and condescending since Ronald Reagan flew a chocolate cake and a signed Christian Bible to the Ayatollah Khomeini.

Remember when Nancy Reagan took on drugs? ("Just say no to drugs"). Well, Laura is one-upping Nancy. Laura is America's new "anti-street gang tsar." ("Just say no to joining a street gang.") Laura is getting down in the 'hood with the homeboys and talking straight shit about street gangs. Oh, you betcha.

Enough about Laura. She is no Nancy Reagan, and for that alone she should be feel fulfilled.

Hillary for President?

Jesus H. Christ -- what the hell are top Dems doing playing footsy with Hillary? Do Democrats have a secret death pact we don't know about? If they want to lose a third general election in a row, go ahead, run Hillary for President of the United States of America.

The reasons not to do such a thing are obvious to anyone not drinking the Clintonite Kool-Aid. Let me list just the ones that roll off the top of my not-so-bright head:

  • Hillary Moonies cite recent polls showing that likely Democrat voters would vote for Hillary if she ran. Yes, this is true -- but why? The answer is not reassuring. It is because the less voters see and hear of Hillary the more they like her. Which means the converse is true as well. Just get her out on the national campaign trail, on the news every night, in dozens of ads on TV, and in nationally televised debates and watch those poll numbers plummet. I will bet my firstborn on it. Hillary grates on people. Maybe that's unfair. But it's still true.

  • Hillary has triangulated herself into irrelevance with her hawkish support for the war in Iraq. She did this in order to show she could be tough, just like a man. All she really proved was that she could be a conniving politician, just like men.

  • All's fair in love, war and politics. So expect all that Kenneth Starr variety crap about the Clintons to make a big comeback. I know that Starr and his Dark Side minions failed to prove most of the allegations against the Clintons. But the Clintons' own sloppy ethics provided the very fuel on which the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy ran. If Hillary runs for president the Swift Boat Veterans will be back in a new form, but in full form. They will pound her relentlessly. Unfair? You bet. Go tell it to John Kerry.

  • Finally, there's Bill. Imagine Bill as First Husband, rambling around the East Wing of the White House with nothing but time on his hands. How long would it be -- days, weeks, a month? -- before the stories about White House maids getting made began? That's not just a possibility, or even a probability. It's a certainty. Then the nation and the world will be again treated to four years of "Live From the White House -- The Jerry Springer Show!"

Digg!    Share on facebook   submit to reddit    Bookmark on Delicious   Stumble This  

Stephen Pizzo is the author of numerous books, including "Inside Job: The Looting of America's Savings and Loans," which was nominated for a Pulitzer.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »

Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Feinstein? Only Leibermann is more Republican lite than her
Posted by: truthtopower on Jun 3, 2005 3:46 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
RFK Jr. and Mike Papantonio have singled her out as one of the wusses in our party (go here: http://www.ringoffireradio.com/shows.asp , then scroll down to Saturday, April 30, 2005, click on The Pap Attack, and then scroll down and click on Democrats Are The Schoolyard Sissys). I'm glad they caught on. She's pro-Iraq war (her husband is a war profiteer), she is pro the exploitation of our medicare with Bushes big pharma bill, she is pro patriot act, pro Real ID, pro Bushes bankruptcy bill, pro Bushes tax cuts, the class action bill was HER IDEA. If you're going with Feinstein, you might as well go with Hillary. Hillary is far more liberal.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Forget the Democrats. Period.
Posted by: gopbarfbag on Jun 3, 2005 4:03 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I agree with Izzo, the Clintons are like chicken soup in a plastic container that got shuffled to the back of the fridge and left there for a few weeks until it got weaseled out and opend to reveal how foul a substance once so tempteing can become. But, his choices of - NUNN? Feinstein? Gimme a friggin break! The whole Democrat party should get flushed. We need real change, not just reshuffling of the same old Benedict Arnolds. Gary Hartpence, wow! What a gift he would make to Krazy Khristians and Neo-con mafia. Let Howard Dean make the king, no one else has had any success.
How about Obama?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Forget the Democrats. Period. Posted by: truthtopower
» RE: Forget the Democrats. Period. Posted by: gopbarfbag
» Then what? Posted by: Shakti
Say No to Hillary In '08
Posted by: sbartram on Jun 3, 2005 5:26 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I am not a Bill or Hillary fan, but I would rather Bush got head in the oval office hallway than torture children and burn babies.

The problem I saw with this essay was that it wreaked of right wing propaganda. The general tarring of Bill and Hillary with a malaise of "untruthfulness and dishonesty" rather than specific charges of high crimes and misdemeanors all of which were found - by legal authorities - to be baseless. However, a broad stroke of implied guilt simply because a right-wing prosecutor accused them of misdeeds is propaganda - PURE and SIMPLE.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The Right Stuff
Posted by: silkreed on Jun 3, 2005 5:56 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Barack Obama has the right stuff -- the rare kind which must be guarded like a precious jewel, not squandered or trotted out before the time is right...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: The Right Stuff Posted by: maxpayne
» RE: The Right Stuff Posted by: rebekah.horowitz
» RE: The Right Stuff Posted by: davidt
FLUSH THE DEMOCRATS (Whew, don't go in there!)
Posted by: LMNOP on Jun 3, 2005 5:57 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Right on!

The present Democratic party is as great a hindrance to liberal progress as are the Republicans themselves. In fact, one could make the case that they have been infiltrated by the opposition and are actually aiding and comforting them with their depraved indifference to things American.

All of our recommendations are meaningless when offered to the present nest of self-protecting invertebrate miscreants that infest the Democratic national party. Until someone takes a strong insecticide to the Democrats or invents a new liberal party, we are just tilting at windmills.

Perhaps someone like Howard Dean or Al Franken could organize and create such a vehicle. It could incorporate the ungelded liberals currently outside of the Democratic party such as Jim Hightower, Arianna Huffington and Molly Ivins. Such a movement could succeed only if there is a concurrent effort to build an impartial or a liberal arm to the mainstream media. Then, we could give Harry and Nancy and Hillary the political funerals they have so richly earned.

But as long as the neocons get to call the tune and the present Democratic crack-whores dance to it, America will continue its devolution into Amerika.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

No to Hillary
Posted by: PJT on Jun 3, 2005 6:11 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I don't think the challenge for Democrats is really very complicated. 1) the Dems need themes that resonate with the rural conservative voters who got fired up by God, guns and gays to the extent that in 04 they voted against their own economic, social and some would say ethical interest. 2) They need to distill the themes into a message that these heartland voters can understand and 3) they need a charismatic messenger who can communicate the message unambiguously. That ain't Hillary. That's all I know. Best wishes- PJT

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: No to Hillary Posted by: ClarencDarrow
remoran
Posted by: remoran on Jun 3, 2005 6:17 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Hillary in 2008 is a guareenteed loss. She GRATES on people. At the Democratic convention, one could tell that Bill has it, Hillary does not. 'Nuff said.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: remoran Posted by: sefba@aol.com
» RE: remoran Posted by: spyderbaby
What kind of list is that,dude?
Posted by: Erin on Jun 3, 2005 6:37 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
They are all Bush-like Democrats. And Feinstein is actually a Republican who has infiltrated the Democratic Party with ulterior motives to take the Party down.
Some of the Democrats that I might consider (Boxer, Kucinich,Watson,Conyers) would probably all be fodder for the Swift Boat SS troops. I don't have much hope left, but should someone arrive to save the day, I hope I, and a majority of us, will recognize them before it is too late. There is a dark and dangerous cloud about to envelope us. We need help fast -SOS, SOS, SOS.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

"She's a librarian"?
Posted by: washburn on Jun 3, 2005 7:01 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
That fact is about the only thing LB has going *for* her. This author's distain for librarian is pretty unimpressive, especially give the role librarians have had in defending civil liberties and free speech in the US.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: "She's a librarian"? Posted by: OldRedleg
» RE: "She's a librarian"? Posted by: gopbarfbag
It's Time to Get On Message
Posted by: klorbiecki on Jun 3, 2005 7:00 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It's time that the DNC and Howard Dean begin to layout the platform of the Democratic Party. It's time to define what we stand for rather than what's wrong with the Republicans and Bush Administration. We need to have succinct statements of our positions so that there is no ambiguity as to our stand. And with this platform, we then can go door-to-door, in the grassroots of the nation and pull people out of the morose that is often evident in middle america, noteably our youth.
We need positive statements and action. Forget what "they" are doing. What are "WE" going to do?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Professional Losers
Posted by: spaghetti happens on Jun 3, 2005 7:04 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I had the same kind of thoughts when Paul Wellstone was killed during the 2002 campaign and then replaced on the ticket by Walter Mondale. Of all the bright and progressive democrats in Minnesota who could have stood in for Wellstone--and there had to be plenty--a worn-out retread like Mondale was all the big thinkers there could come up with. And so now we have Norm Coleman in the Wellstone seat. Some progress there.

My favorite published description of Shrum et al. is this: professional losers.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Professional Losers Posted by: davidt
Kucinich in 2008!
Posted by: JimM on Jun 3, 2005 7:12 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
One must be careful who one polls. I, for one, would vote for for Hillary over Cheney.
We need a Paul Wellstone! Is no one ever going to express concern about his accident?
So Dennis the Menace is fodder. So he is, but, at least, he speaks his mind and it is a good one. Show me someone better and you had better be quick about it!
Kucinich in 2008!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Kucinich in 2008! Posted by: xfgry
» RE: Kucinich in 2008! Posted by: Erin
» RE: Kucinich in 2008! Posted by: phatkhat
» RE: Kucinich in 2008! Posted by: gopbarfbag
» RE: Kucinich in 2008! Posted by: gopbarfbag
» RE: Kucinich in 2008! Posted by: Terese Lorese
Democrats need own version of Religious Loons to promote them
Posted by: fat otter on Jun 3, 2005 8:21 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The cREePULICANS have a bunch of religious loons to push their off-balance arguments. This is what the Dems need to succeed in '08. I propose they promise to repeal the polygamy rules to get the Johova's Witnesses on their side. Hell, they are at your door every 5 minutes anyway, just have them hand out some Dem propaganda, buttons or some shit like that, along with the "Good News". They would be happy to do it. The Dems might make it close in Utah in the process...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

BUSH - CLINTON - BUSH - CLINTON?
Posted by: mendomama on Jun 3, 2005 8:20 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The very thought of our list of presidents since '88 sounding like some twisted, royal family style, dictatorship - with the Bush family and Clinton family taking turns is disturbing. HELL NO! Just that aspect alone is enough to make me wretch. Yeah, that's a good way to show the world that we have a free, democratic government. But, hey, that's just the beginning of why I would never vote for Hillary (unless it's between her and say - Cheney or Frist).

Hillary should have been Republican, as far as I'm concerned. She's more of a moderate Republican than she is a Democrat. Just look at her voting record as Senator. No, thanks. I'll take someone that, first of all, voted against the war - at least the second time around.

Democrats need to get real. They need to produce a candidate that inspires people. Someone they're drawn to. Hillary is not the answer, nor, might I add, are some of the other suggestions the author made. Lately, Conyers is my favorite. Anyone willing to set himself apart from the other drones, and address the lies told to go to war, is a hero in my world. Not to mention the comments he made about the media coverage of the Downing Street Memo. He, reamed them for covering Michael Jackson and the runaway bride like it was the most important thing, while ignoring the biggest revelation of our time.

Yes, I want someone who will call Bush the liar that he is. I want somoene with a clue. With a spine. With a heart. Impossible? I hope not. Go to Conyers website - JohnConyers.com - and see for yourself. Right there on his homepage, front and center, is the issue of the Downing Street Memo. Also, you can read the letter that he, and 88 other Representatives signed and sent to Georgie. He even encourages citizens to read and sign the letter. So, I did. You should, too. Then, I wrote a letter thanking him, as well as encouraging him to run for President in 2008.

Hey, as a woman, I'm all for a woman president. Actually, I think it's high time. However, Hillary is not the right choice AT ALL! I'll take Boxer or Pelosi over her - if it has to be a woman. Otherwise, my bet's on Conyers. When Bush turns out to be proven a liar to his devout Christian supporters, they'll be ready to burn him at the stake. And who will rise as the hero of the movement to bring him down? That's right. Conyers.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

No to Democratic doormats
Posted by: paradisi on Jun 3, 2005 8:25 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
No to Hillary, no to Obama (he's pretty and he talks like a Democrat but he votes like a Republican where power is concerned. He's training to be Joe Lieberman II). Sadly, no to Kucinich, he has the personality of a wet doormat. Someone that sad-sack won't even energize all the liberals, let alone get any Republicans to vote for him. Someone more like Dean--with a vibrant personality and some will of his own (which is why the DNC & DLC hated him, and the other Dem candidates savaged him--he revealed them to be the diluted, label-only-for-display, empty-bottle Dems they are). George Bush may have a head of sawdust but voters know what they will get with him. Hillary's annoying and an opportunist with her own choir that already won't listen to anyone else. Obama & Kerry are like hospital food: it's either a chicken sandwich, a turkey sandwich, or a tuna sandwich--but you can't tell by tasting.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Excuse me?
Posted by: PB on Jun 3, 2005 8:42 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
How about this for 2008: Elliot Spitzer. Think about it for a while. It might grow on you.

By the way, as a former librarian, I take issue with your derogatory reference to librarians. Laura Bush is no librarian. Librarians stand for freedom of speech and intellectual pursuit, two things Laura wouldn't know if they bit her.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: xcuse me? Posted by: gonzo
» RE: xcuse me? Posted by: NoLandGrab
» RE: xcuse me? Posted by: davidt
» RE: xcuse me? Posted by: sterlingwisdom
Are we paying attention?
Posted by: Erin on Jun 3, 2005 10:20 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Did anyone pay attention when Bush 1 said that he is hoping that Jeb will be the next President? We better get it together quickly because they have probably already wired the voting machines for Jeb.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Are we paying attention? Posted by: mendomama
Wandering In The Desert
Posted by: coyote on Jun 3, 2005 11:12 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What we have to come to terms with is the fact; most Americans are homophobic right to lifers. They would rather send their sons to die in Iraq than see two guys kissing in the mall. And the thought of their teenage daughters having sex figuring abortion is an option is enough to put any man into orbit, liberal or not. This sort of thing can’t be changed in a voting booth or by a judge. Religious power mongers like James Dobson keep planting flags on these minority (although incendiary) issues, and the Democrats keep taking the bait. If you back either of these issues on a national level, you will lose. The trick would be to keep them off your plate altogether. Figure out some way to make them “States” issues.
The Gay Rights / Pro Choice constituency is obviously not enough to carry the day alone. Neither is the Religious Right. Both sides are parasitic, filled with venom, and blind to the needs of the community as a whole. If the Democrats are to be successful they will need to control this particular battle and figure out how to stay out of it.
As for the candidates, there is not one Democrat I would feel good about voting for right now. I voted for Kerry out of disgust for Bush and his crew, but I didn’t feel clean about it.
I have voted Democrat across the board in every election since 1974. I am currently donating money to the Democratic Party, although I am not sure why anymore. Looking out on the horizon, the only person I see that interests me is a Republican from Arizona. And that is a very sad state of affairs.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

No to hillary? Yes to Darth Nader?
Posted by: Donkeykong on Jun 3, 2005 11:19 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Karl Rove is that you posting?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

No to hillary? Yes to Darth Nader?
Posted by: Donkeykong on Jun 3, 2005 11:19 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Karl Rove is that you posting?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

In defense of librarians, again
Posted by: Sisyphus on Jun 3, 2005 11:33 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I too found the sneering ref to librarians ridiculous (poss even sexist). It's the librarians standing between us and the Patriot Act, as shown by recent homeland security efforts, thwarted only by a (woman) librarian, to find the author of marginalia in a library book about Osama bin Laden. Why so snide, Pizzo? And sure Hillary would be a disaster, but need we return to Republican smear attacks of every stripe to make that point? I found this piece utterly destructive, dumb, and unhelpful. Visions of Eliot Spitzer and George Mitchell are infinitely more cheering, if also infinitely less likely. Finally: why no response to *The Nation*'s recent, weirdly adulatory piece on Hillary?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Mark Warner
Posted by: wesymurray on Jun 3, 2005 1:14 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Kucinich, Pelosi....what's going on here.

The Democrats, I hate to say it, need a person who is male and has worked in an executive office for the Democratic presidential nomination...preferrably someone with a good record of running blue in a red state. Mark Warner's a great choice, he's got the record and the mannerisms, all that's left is some foreign policy experience on the ticket and there's your winning combination. Plus there's very little for the muckrakers to dredge up there, no senate voting record to pore over, just four solid years of fiscal accountability and a proven ability to cross party lines to get things done...making the shiftless Repooblicans look stupid in the process. If I here Hillary Clinton and 08 in the same sentence again I'm going to plotz. Warner's going to run, my uncle was his business partner in telecommunications, and he's going to win and it's time we quite speculating and start making decisions. The Republicans are practically handing us the next election, assuming there aren't any "computer errors", all we have to do is not allow Hillary to get past primary 1 and it's ours.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Mark Warner Posted by: maxpayne
» RE: Mark Warner Posted by: spyderbaby
Russ Feingold is "The One"
Posted by: tremphunter on Jun 3, 2005 1:24 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Russ Feingold the Senator from Wisconsin is the person who should be nominated in 2008. He has consistently supported progressive positions. He is not a member of the Northeastern establishment. He is a straight talker who has shown the way to win in a swing state like Wisconsin (also Ohio, Iowa, PA, FL, MI and probably some of the states in the intermountain west like CO and MT) Check out his new Progressive Patriot Fund. If he could break through he would be a very strong national candidate. He is the heir to the Bob LaFollette progressive tradition in Wisconsin. I think he really offers progressives our best candidate.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Lions, Tigers and Hillary! Oh NO!
Posted by: Jammer2 on Jun 3, 2005 1:42 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Tell me it isn't so! The Democratic party cannot be thinking that Hillary could win a national election. Bush might as well run one of the twins to take over for him and keep it in the family. Certainly when forced to pick a lesser of two evils, the American voter would most certainly choose a 22 year old spoiled airhead rich-bitch over Hillary Clinton. That would certainly be the death knell for the Democratic party... but based on their lack of common sense in the last outting, maybe that is their plan!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Ready to be flamed...Kerry in '08?
Posted by: evenstar on Jun 3, 2005 2:17 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I hate to say it, but despite some of Kerry's drawbacks, I still think he would have made a really good president. And he came REALLY close to winning in the last election (if he didn't in reality). I also think that if you listened carefully to what he said, he really was progressive. As much as I would like to see a more left-wing progressive in office, I am also realistic - no one is going to put Kucinich in office. Hillary is definitely not the answer, and I wouldn't put all my marbles in the Kerry basket, but I would still like to see him in office.

Awaiting the flames...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

why does everyone hate the Clintons?
Posted by: Shakti on Jun 3, 2005 2:19 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I really don't understand all the Clinton-bashing by Dems. Although they don't represent my own very liberal views in many respects, how could the Clinton Administration have been more progressive, given Republican control of Congress and the *constant* vicious attacks leveled against the Clintons during the entire 8 years of their tenure? Frankly, I think they tacked as far to the left as they felt able and still win high public office, given the current climate in this country.

As for the author's specific points:

-yes, Starr et al. would attack another Clinton WH, but the Republicans will rip apart *anyone* who opposes them ... there isn't a candidate you can name whom they will not try to dismember. Look what they did to Kerry; reflect on what they did to McCain in the primaries. If a Dem actually made it to the WH, they will pull out all the stops again. I don't think the Clintons are ethically compromised, relative to most politicians. They just had 8 years in the hotseat and some of the shit that was thrown at them stuck.

-Bill Clinton's penchant for having sex outside his marriage is *none of our business* ... are the President and First Lady our parents? Do we need them to have a model marriage? Is that what this is about?

-Bill Clinton will not be roaming the WH corridors looking for ass, he will be working shoulder to shoulder with his life partner on policy and politics. He may like sex, but he *loves* politics.

-The Dems need someone electable. Period. If Hillary seems like someone people would vote for, then hurray for her! Maybe a lot of people will wax increasingly nostalgic for the Clinton days ... prosperity, peace, optimism. Things were much better for most of us back then. And she has brand name recognition.

-For liberals who want a truly uncompromising, progressive Dem in the WH, that would be great, but keep dreaming. Do you really think the nation will vote Kucinich or Conyers (whom I adore) into the WH? Get real. Even Obama and Boxer are long-shots.

I think the Dems should stop doing the Repubs work for them and stop the Clinton-bashing. Bill Clinton was the first Dem since Roosevelt to win more than one term. The Clintons deserve more credit from us.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Promote PARTY and PLATFORM
Posted by: AdamSelene40 on Jun 3, 2005 2:53 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I am so tired of this Man on a White Horse school of picking candidates -- even when the equestrian statue is female.

The PARTY – Not personality
The alternative is to run on Party and Platform. Instead of trying to create a cult of personality – which the Democrats have not been that good at lately -- during the primaries all the potential nominees should take the position “This isn’t reality TV. No Democrat gets kicked off the Island. Whichever one of us becomes the standard bearer, the others will be actively supporting her, or him.”

The PLATFORM -- We stand for this
Then, promote the importance of the Party Platform. Be extremely transparent about developing its contents. leave a couple of key issues to be decided at the Convention … then present an easy-to-read Manifesto in a document no more than 4 pages long -- with headings and bullet points -- and make sure every remotely possible Democratic voter gets a copy, preferably printed on paper and sent by US Mail.

The REST OF THE TEAM -- Who you see is who you get.
Then take it one step further … long before the Convention, announce the candidate’s short list for cabinet posts. While the electorate is getting to know the candidates, they can also get to know as the possible appointees.

If we can't win on looks and charm ... maybe we can win on candor and transparency.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Promote PARTY and PLATFORM Posted by: gopbarfbag
» RE: Promote PARTY and PLATFORM Posted by: SeeingBLUE
Barbara Boxer for Prez
Posted by: nanobubble on Jun 3, 2005 4:15 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
She makes Hillary look like Laura Bush

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Barbara Boxer for Prez Posted by: davidt
Me run for Congress?
Posted by: PB on Jun 3, 2005 5:03 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Yes, I've thought of it. However, I'd rather have a life.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

where is the quality?
Posted by: samuel on Jun 3, 2005 8:04 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
god...i am so sick of alternet publishing these insipid useless articles...if you are going to criticise politicians, criticise their politics for christ's sake...besides hillary's war stance, this article had nothing to say about her politcs/policies.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: where is the quality? Posted by: mendomama
IRV
Posted by: spring on Jun 3, 2005 8:22 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
We need instant run-off voting to give third-party candidates a voice, fair opportunity, a fighting chance to get elected, and to effectively challenge the status quo parties.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: IRV Posted by: nanobubble
Re: Ronald Reagan flew a chocolate cake and a signed Christian Bible to the Ayatollah Khomeini
Posted by: dennyduke@earthlink.net on Jun 3, 2005 8:34 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Let's not forget what all else Reagan sent to Khomeini - all those Iran-Contra weapons.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

TAKE COVER!! - part I
Posted by: susan9390 on Jun 4, 2005 4:45 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I'd heard rumors to the effect that it would be Hillary in '08, but this insipid article gives no further insight than the rumors. For the most part, the comments that follow were no more informative even if they were much more entertaining.

You've got it backwards, folks. FIRST, you build a PLATFORM based on VALUES and strategic INITIATIVES to enable those values. THEN, you find a CANDIDATE with CHARISMA and CHARACTER that can convey those values and initiatives to the public.

With any luck, both the D and the R parties will implode from their own internal corruption, and like the phoenix from the ashes will be born two new parties - let's call them Liberals and Conservatives - that can be distinguished from one another. It would be refreshing to see the voters given a real choice for a change.

Before you protest, I suggest that you study carefully two sources. The first is any high school history book that clearly defines what Liberal and Conservative (left and right) actually mean. The second is the interview with Bill Moyers from about a week ago. He got it right on when he said that, in order for the American Eagle to fly straight, it needs both a strong left wing and a strong right wing. Then the center will automatically be in balance, and everyone's best interests will be served.

But this is an article about CANDIDATES. This country is no more ready for a female than it is for a black. The so-called swing voters, the undecided, are undecided because there are aspects of both platforms that they like and others that they dislike. They then vote based on personal characteristics.

As much as I love Dennis Kucinich, he is not a winner; let him be Secretary of State. The winner must have a one- or two-syllable name of indeterminate ethnicity that's easy to spell and pronounce. (Remember how dumbed-down we are.) He should be caucasian, probably brown-haired (not too curly!) and brown-eyed, probably a protestant of a less dogmatic stripe, at least six feet tall, at least 50 years old, and maybe 10-20 pounds overweight so that he fills out a business suit with no draping. His political record hardly matters - after all, the platform is already solidly built, and he's got plenty of help with the "issues" - but his moral and ethical record must be unassailable.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: TAKE COVER!! - part I Posted by: dhoa1
TAKE COVER!! - Part II
Posted by: susan9390 on Jun 4, 2005 4:46 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
As for Hillary, I agree with the comments that reject her based on baggage and personality. If you are already being called spineless, why would you put up a chameleon for a candidate? And Boxer? After the last appropriations bill (the one with Real ID hidden inside) passed 100-0, I wouldn't vote for any Senator. Kerry? Another hawk! Dean? Another chameleon!

In short, what we really need in this country is a good house-cleaning and some innovation in all directions. There's the smell of revolution in the air. Just pray it's a bloodless one.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

No to Hillary in '08
Posted by: cdemmitt on May 9, 2006 1:52 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Absolutely true! The whole story! If the Dems put Hillary in office that would be Karl Rove's wet dream. She would be easily defeated. Fox News constantly brings up Hillary Clinton's name as a democratic presidential hopeful, because it's been a RNC talking point for a long while. They use her candidacy as a constant reminder to the conservatives of what went wrong with Bill Clinton.
Don't be fooled. Hillary is damaged goods. She'll be better off as a senator.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Obama HAHAHA
Posted by: clp1024 on May 27, 2006 11:32 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Everyone stating that you want Obama for president , or even discussing him in the same sentence as president shows me why the democratic party continues to lose election after election. Obama cannot be president for 1 very good reason. He was not born on US soil and the US consitution clearly states that the President must be born on US soil. People claiming that want him to be president mearly shows what most Americans already know. The uneducated vote for democrats.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Obama is eligible Posted by: DavidTA