It’s what passes for official. Hillary Clinton has announced she is forming an “exploratory committee” to run for president. Editor’s note: When did this particular euphemism/hedge get adopted? Didn’t people just used to declare they were running? When did they start declaring they were exploring?
Anyway.
It seems to me that by grabbing all the true believers for whom being their idea of right is more important than being elected, Hillary Clinton will be the Ralph Nader of the 2008 elections. By siphoning off primary votes from candidates who stand a chance in the general election, she will lead us to ultimate loss in November.
The woman just has too much baggage all the way around. She will never be forgiven for marrying Bill, for being too secure to pull a Knots Landing/Desperate Housewives/soap opera maneuver and instead determining adultery isn’t a deal breaker for her, and for, as the Dixie Chicks would say, not making nice.
But maybe it’s time for a woman to be a serious contender in a presidential election. Part of me has to hand it to Clinton for being willing to chart this particular territory. What usually happens in these situations is not that the trailblazer wins but that she opens a door that never closes in the same way again.
I think if anything “will lead us to ultimate loss in November,” it’s the Repukes stealing the election.
The whole issue of voter fraud and tampering seems to have fallen off the radar screen since the Nov. 06 election. But the crisis for democracy is as real as ever. True, the GOP didn’t successfully steal the Nov. 6 vote (not that they didn’t try with their assortment of dirty tricks, such as robocalls, etc.).
But as long as we having Diebold-manufactured voting machines with no paper trail, as well as “scrub lists” that remove millions from the voter rolls, we will be in peril of having future elections stolen.
As far as Hillary goes, I don’t believe she should in any way be held to blame for the transgressions of her husband. And I’m getting sick of the media referring to her as a “divisive” figure.
“Divisive”? To whom? (I mean, besides the nutcase, foaming-at-the-mouth, Rush-listening wingnut crowd).
How come the MSM calls Hillary “divisive” and not Bush himself? No president has ever been more divisive than Bush (and no president has not only divided the U.S., but alienated the world from our nation, as well).
Marc McDonald
http://www.beggarscanbechoosers.com
Maybe that’s the point.
I read somewhere that she said that she was “in to win.” That is an odd statement coming from someone who is supposed to be a front-runner. Usually it is a someone who doesn’t stand a chance of becoming the parties nominee, let alone president, who makes such a statement.
Bill has been spending entirely too much tim e with America’s number one crime family, thee Bushes, for me to trust the Clinton’s any further than I could throw either of them.
This is just the Democrats being the Democrats.
From the minute it was apparent we had regained congress, the positioning began. The reason I’m disenchanted with this party is because they remind me too much of the old left: let me do what makes me feel important in my own mind instead of what’s good for the overall success of the movement or, in this case, for the country.
There’s no way people like Dodd or Biden should be thinking of running for president after their collaboration with this regime in its evisceration of the middle class through bankruptcy legislation and the shameful war in Iraq.
I have been a Democrat my entire life but I will never vote for Clinton. This is a woman who always had an agenda, who became a senator from my state, New York, just so she could make sure that an Arkansas company, Entergy, had its interest represented. I’m referring to Indian Point nuclear power plant, a disgrace that operates in Westchester county and that is continually being cited for safety violations.
Too bad it’s going to come to this, but I see us losing again in 2008 if these selfish dinosaurs persist.
I’m Canadian and I’m reading and watching what your hopefuls are saying. I’m betting on Obama, he’s an awakening to the political world of today, when I first read what he had to say, my heart did a little summersault of joy, finally someone who makes sense out of all those old political fools who’ve been dominating the political arena for decades. As I see it the old boys club is on the way out and in comes the new. In Obama you stand to win not only “one” but “two” very intelligent and caring people, behind every man stands a great woman. As to Clinton, when she was first lady, why didn’t she use that position to take on political debates that would have been fruitful for her country, why does she need to replace her husband at the helm of the boat, it’s behond my comprehension.
Hillary is no Ralph Nader. Remember, more Democrats voted for Bush in 2000 than voted for Nader. Ralph not only talks the talk, but also walks the walk. His public advocacy record speaks for itself. Hillary has done a masterful job repackageing herself as a liberal. When she was defending energy companies (Entergy,Enron) in Arkansas she was a Republican. She is solidly in step with pro corporate, neoliberal ideology. Remember: neoliberal + neoconservative = neofascist.
The only way the Democrats will lose in ’08 is if the ruling corporate elite oligarchy doesn’t trust the Dems to serve their agenda, and if hisory and recent positions taken by Dems are any indication, there is no danger of that.
Stop!!!!!
Although I don’t think she’ll get the Democratic nomination, it’s the Republicans who should be labeled unelectable in 2008 not the Democrats.
An “exploratory committee” (new euphemism or no) is just an exploration. Maybe she’ll do some focus groups and polls and figure either the temper of the times ain’t right or that the odds are against her. We can only hope, because I don’t think she’s electable.
When Clintons came to power in 1992 they had an overwhemling majority of Democrats in Congress- 267 Democrats to 167 Republicans in the House and 56 to 44 in the Senate.
Their legacy is NAFTA a trade bill that papa Bush was not able to pass, Welfare Reform which took away life support from those who lost jobs when Nafta was enacted and a Telecommuncations Bill of 1996 that allowed unlimited consolidation of the media.
They nearly destroyed the Democratic Party. Don’t give them a chance to do it again now that we have won our majority back