2008 may prove to pique the interest even of the normally apolitical citizens in the country. This is top-shelf stuff for the political junkies of Blue Oregon and beyond. I'm worried that Chris Matthews' head might actually explode. Come to think of it, that wouldn't be so bad...as long as it's not televised.

Interesting ticket possibilities:

Clinton-Obama Clinton-Richardson And the myriad possible combinations with just these three.

Is the streak of white male presidents about to end? Is this truly the first election of 21st century America?

It's sobering to contemplate the mess the next president will be inheriting. Be careful what you wish for....

The problem with a family dynasties is lack of accountablity. I do not believe that Sen. Clinton will hold this Bush responsible any more than President Clinton did with the first Bush on Iran/contra. Please see MY LIFE p.457 where President Clinton decided to let him (BUSH) "retire in peace, leaving that matter between him and his conscience."

The Bush Crime Family must be investigated and exposed so that we don't have them back again.

I've been voting since I turned 18 in 1978. In every Presidential election since then, there has either been a Bush or a Clinton on the top ticket. Maybe its time for someone from other families to run. I want GWB to be held accountable, and I fear Sen Clinton won't do it

Hi Folks...

Although it's still early, I'm more inclined to support Edwards at this point due mostly to his focus on poverty and working class issues.

That said, as a political junkie from a union background, I would love to see Ms. Clinton at the head of the ticket if for no other reason that to see her savage whichever chump the Repugnicans put up. We've had too many weenies at the top of the D ticket for too long.

Regards

How about Clinton-Clinton? Oh, I forgot. The P and VP have to be from different states. But that didn't keep Cheney from moving to Wyoming. So maybe that wouldn't be a problem after all.

Can Hillary buy the nomination? - probably

Will Hillary and her supporters collect tens of millions of dollars in campaign contributions from Fortune 100 companies and their lobbying organizations? yes

Will the Hillary controlled DLC crush dissent and force the Dems to crown Hillary as the nominee-in-waiting by February 5, 2008 ("Super Tuesday") in order to preserve "party unity"? - probably

Will there actually be a fight for the nomination carried into spring or summer of 2008? - no

Will "progressives" abandon their support of liberal programs and liberal ideals just to elect a Democrat in the White House? - yes

Hopefully I am wrong. If not, my money and vote go to the Green Party this time around.

Randy Davis,

Are you serious? The Bush Crime Family? Were you not awake from 1993 to 2001? Was it just me and the rest of America that witnessed arguably one of the most corrupt Presidents of our time? This isn't opinion, it is fact. Look up the number of Clinton administration officials who were indicted. Clinton himself was impeached. Look at the people Clinton pardoned right before leaving office. Whitewater, selling the Lincoln bedroom, Lewinsky, etc. All this from a man who promised to bring in an era of high ethics to the Whitehouse. Name one adminstration that has held another responsible for anything? Do you really think they want to cloud their presidency with the alleged sins of the former just to appease a small fringe of the party?

Hillary for Prez: this is the ultimate full-employment act for focus groups.

Oh, how I miss Bubba!

Eight years of peace, prosperity, jobs, jobs, jobs, a roaring stock market and he left a record budget surplus (remember that word) in the bank for The Bushies to blow.

Then, when Al Qaeda hit the World Trade Center, Bubba and Janet locked up all of the bad guys for good. And he won Bosnia withoiut losing one American soldier, while the GOP screamed about meddling in foreign affairs. Remember? We do.

Oh, JAF, you may want to read Kevin Phillips' best-selling book, "House of Bush, House of Saud". The record shows the Saudi royal famly has stuffed more than a billion dollars in the Bush family wallet over the years.

And, we also note the book is NOT called "House of Clinton, House of Saud."

History is such a b!tch.

Back to the thread, Go Hillary!

Oh yes, go Hillary, go far away, please. Like NY state. The Dems have done some good work in the West and gotten pretty good results and trending towards better, you're looking at the candidate who could single handedly undo most of that. NY seems to like her, I'm glad for them. She is poll driven politics and the flavor of the month, she got a lesson back in the health care debacle, unfortuanately the wrong one.

Good for Hillary. I hope this country is open enough to her now. I hope she is electable. One thing I've learned is that I'm not going to waste my vote on a 3rd party candidate that's for sure. Yeah I said waste...2 party system...pick one.

The number one issue is the war in Iraq. Hillary Clinton has been highly complicit in that tragedy. I could not vote for her, despite years of voting Democratic.

Sid Leader wrote:

Then, when Al Qaeda hit the World Trade Center, Bubba and Janet locked up all of the bad guys for good.

They missed a couple of bad guys, Sid:

In 1991, Ramzi Yousef began planning the WTC attack. His uncle, Khalid Shaikh Mohammed Ali Fadden, "the principal architect of the 9/11 attacks," gave him advice and tips over the phone. Khalid Shaikh Mohammed was arrested in 2003, by Pakistani Authorities who had previously protected him. It is unlikely this level of Pakistani cooperation would have been possible without the War on Terror.

Abdul Rahman Yasin was arrested the day of the bombing, living in the same building as Ramzi Yousef. Yasin was taken to FBI headquarters in Newark, New Jersey, and was then released. The next day, he flew back to Iraq, via Amman, Jordan. Yasin was later indicted for the attack, and eventually in 2001 he was placed on the initial list of the FBI Most Wanted Terrorists, on which he remains a fugitive today.

Correction to the above: the "catch and release" of Abdul Rahman Yasin was 6 days after the 1993 WTC bombing. The official explanation for his release remains classified.

Let's thank You shoulda seen for his trenchant analysis and especially for the links to Wikipedia. I guess he never got over the junior-high notion that "research" is equivalent to looking something up in an encyclopedia.

Sure, I'll vote for Hillary...right after I check the weather report from down South- waaaaaaay down South, if you get my drift!

She's certainly not my first choice, but if by next April or so she's got the nomination sewn up I'll sure be out there busting ass to get her the win. John

But back to trhe actual topic. meaning Sen. Clinton. I completely agree with Chuck Butcher that "she got a lesson back in the health care debacle, unfortunately the wrong one." In 1993 I was wishing she were president instead of Bill. Then the White House put her on ice after the right-wing chattering class and the Gingrichites started with their "socialized medicine" BS, and when she reappeared, she'd been blow-dried and received a personality transplant. Those who know Invasion of the Body Snatchers will understand when I say that someone must have put a pod under her desk.

For the sake of brevity I'll only name a few of those indicted. Webster Hubbell, Henry Cisneros, Mike Espy, and Ron Brown was under investigation and more than likely would have been indicted when he died. All indicted for actions taken while in the Clinton administration. So you were saying, Kari?

JAF

you missed my point! Bill clinton gave a pass to Bush I on Iran/contra (see MY LIFE p.457). So 8 years later these same rat bastards from Bush I are back using our Constitution as butt wipe. I have concerns that Sen. Clinton will give Bush II(who makes Nixon look like a choirboy) a pass on all the crimes he has committed. (ie. spying without warrants, lying to Congress about the reasons for war, etc.)

Also troubling to me is that, as I stated earlier, I've been voting since I turned 18 in 1978, and in every Presidential election since then, there has either been a Bush or a Clinton on the top ticket. I don't understand why in a country of 300 million people, we don't have more choices, than someone from these two families.

That being said, Hilliary Clinton would be a competent and capable President, and I am sure if elected would be able to clean up the disastrous mess that junior Bush has created.

my fingers are crossed. i'm really excited about all our candidates so far. whatever single flaw the mass media harps on about any of them, the republican candidates all marched in lockstep with dubya for six solid years. that's real bad.

kari, i'd like to give a troll donation, but i've noticed that the candidates are all from 2006. perhaps it's time to make jaf's love of wingnutty "judicial watch" pay for ms. clinton's campaign (and obama's, and edwards', and whoever takes on gordon smith's...)?

It's sad that the choice we now are faced with is defending the manifest failure of the Clinton administration to do their part to build a Democratic Party which defends and represents the values of working people, against nut jobs like JRF.

That Senator Clinton - who in the job as Senator as far as I can see has only been competent in promoting herself and the agenda of the scumballs in the DLC - has irresponsibly chosen to put us in that position, along with her support of the war until it became politically expedient for her to equivocally oppose it, are the reasons I'm hoping someone who defends true progressive, Democratic values wins the nomination. My heart first is with Kucinch, and so far next with Edwards, but I'm still hoping for a surprise candidate with solid Democratic values.

If Hillary is elected president and serves through 2016, our country will have been led by Bush's or Clinton's for nearly three decades. Bush, Clinotn, Clinton, Bush, Bush, Clinton, Clinton. (And we still have jeb, Chelsea and Dubya's two doorknob daughters to deal with.)

This country has several hundred million people and we let two families run it for three decades. That's truly is pathetic.

Does America REALLY have that little imagination.

It's not really a democracy anymore is it? We should call it a Nepocracy and change the national anthem to the theme from Sanford & Son.

Fortunately, Hillary represent the same ol' same ol', and if there's one thing the last election revealed, people are sick of that same ol'crap.

Although I a registered Democrat, I am really a progressive populist and I could never support a warmongering corporatist, elitist like Hillary. Bush lite will not get us out of the mess we're in.

I wont comment on whether Hillary would make a good president but only on whether she could win. I believe that answer is no. First look to her staff she has. The New York Times a while ago had a good article on how her staff is loyal but really the same staff as her husband used in his days and that they are loyal but not the best out there. to win this election loyal staff isnt good enought. Secondly as many have said in the news lately either you love or hate her and I think thats true. A artilce I read said that becuase she has no republican support she would enter the election down at least 170 electoral votes. Also the polls put Obama and Edwards very close to CLintion who has reached her peak. Most voters already know her and about her issues while thats not true about Obama(who most know but not his issues) and Edwards(out of the spotlight for a while). She is like Dean in 2004 starts in front but loses in end. I dont see her as a vp since he seems like a person who wants 1st place and wont settle for second place. Also polls show that clinton is beating any republicans in the poll. The polls such as the lastest Gallup polls show that Edwards and Obama are candidates who could win it all with some more time and exposure.

I'm finding some of the "anti" rhetoric somewhat interesting and I wonder if it's a preview of what we'll see if Sen. Clinton gets the nomination.

For instance: Senator Clinton - who in the job as Senator as far as I can see has only been competent in promoting herself and the agenda of the scumballs in the DLC

Actually, she's gotten high marks from just about everybody for the good work she's done in the Senate. Ask people in her home state: she's won over a bunch of early skeptics because she's smart and has done great constituent work.

Or this: Hillary represent the same ol' same ol'

I'm not sure which same-old you mean. The same-old that will appoint judges who respect the right to choose? The one who will put competent people into the diplomatic posts in the middle east? How about the ones who will make sure there's some sanity in tax and budget priorities?

If you present the public with the "same old" eight years of the Clinton Administration, people will vote "yes" in droves.

Or this: Sure, I'll vote for Hillary...right after I check the weather report from down South- waaaaaaay down South, if you get my drift!

I don't even know what this means. Is it vaguely misogenistic? Or just crazy? So let's assume that Candidate Clinton would get lots of crazy, non-specific trash-talk.

The repubs have always hated the Clintons, not because of their "corruption" (much of which was invented anyway), but because of their fundraising muscle, which rivals their own.

No question her war vote is the toughest thing for me to swallow, and I sympathize with the people here who have said they couldn't support her for that reason. I don't think the voters as a whole will hold it against her though, and I'm not sure I will either. My first priority is to elect someone who will make fair and sensible choices in the task of getting out of there and trying to restore some sanity to our relations with the rest of the world.

Now I know I'll get responses about how I need to "get off the kool-aid" and I need to stop coddling war criminals and other overheated jibberjabber. I don't want to hear it and you people need to come up with a new recipe.

My opinion is that she would be competent and hardworking, and she would support good progressive bills and would appoint good and diverse people to the courts and the agencies. She's not my first choice, which would go to any of the various candidates who have been more outspoken on the war. But she'd be as likely to anybody else I've seen to make sensible judgments along the way as we extricate ourselves from the nightmare in Iraq. That seems pretty good compared to the last six years. I hope that at this stage progressive people would at least be open to the idea of supporting her.

John

OK so what is wrong with this picture?

GHW Bush VP 80-88 GHW Bush P 88-92 B Clinton P 92-00 GW Bush P 00-08

H Clinton P 08-16? J Bush P 16-24?

Please see Op-ed in Sunday's Washington Post

'Date adds, "I've covered Jeb Bush for eight years as a state capital reporter, and I'm convinced that he remains the GOP conservative wing's best hope for a post-Iraq comeback. And his own political ambitions burn as brightly as ever. Perhaps 2012 or 2016 or -- why not? -'

http://www.rawstory.com/news/2007/OpEd_What_if_it_had_been_0121.html

That "rawstory" link in the previous posting is silly. It's all about how Jeb Bush woulda done this and that. Is it really necessary to point out that history happens and we don't get to rerun it like a lab experiment?

Paging AL GORE,

Dear Mr. Vice President:

Please, please run again. A large portion of the country couldn't stomach another presidential disaster like Hillary will be. We're sorry about 2000, but don't you think it's your duty to help spare the country from Hillary? I've never given money to a Democratic candidate (ok, so I've never given money to a Republican one either, but that's besides the point), but if you run against Hillary, I'll donate to your campaign, I promise. Remember how you got teased about inventing the Internet? Ok - Jay Leno and the rest of us are sorry about that, but Hillary is going to get the same teasing for saying that she was named after Sir Edmund Hillary even though he was a no-body when she was born. At least you have integrity - you didn't blame your problems on a vast right wing conspiracy instead of your mate's philandering ways like she did. And about Hillary's attempt at socializing our health care system? I'm sure you wouldn't screw up a bad system by making it worse, would you? Of course not. Now before you mention Obama...he really isn't ready to be president yet, but maybe you could make him your running mate.

Please Mr. Gore, save us from Hillary. I think you're the only one that can. I tried to register www.anybodybuthillary.com but someone already beat me to it. So I can't do much except offer you a contribution and volunteer to organize Independents for Gore in 2008. How about it?

Sincerely,

Independent Andy

Note to John Mulvey- Don't tell me you've never heard the phrase "When Hell freezes over..."! THAT'S "...waaaay down South"! Hello????

Ok, "progressives," who are you going to vote for if Clinton wins the nomination? John McCain? Rudy G? Sam, "I'm against abortion," Brownback?

How do we know that a front runner will be nominated? Rather than talking about scenarios for who will be running for which party in 2008, let's watch the debate, resist the impulse to label anyone who thinks differently, and see who makes the most sense.

Some say this is the most open nomination battle in 80 years. At the beginning of it all, long before either party chose the location for their nominating convention, there were those in the national media claiming it was all over. Hillary had the nomination locked up, nothing anyone could do about it but conjecture about the Republican nominee. Now we hear "co-front runners, Hillary Clinton and Barak Obama" and some hints that in the opening states like Iowa she isn't ahead.

Personally, I'd like to see both John Edwards and Chuck Hagel in the contest all the way until their conventions. That would give us more serious debate than we've seen for the most recent presidential nominations.

Comment to grrlszgrrl: If Hillary wins...er, I mean BUYS the nomination, I'll be grateful if my limited (MENSA, only 98% smarter than EVERYONE!) mental abilities still allow me to be able to spell (and write) "N-A-D-E-R".

Steiny

I don't understand the folks who are throwing their support behind Edwards, the only white guy running. Come on people! This is such an exciting time in our history, right now we're meant to choose between a woman, an african american & a latino? And you're choosing the white guy? I'm confused.

Kristi:

Dont vote for someone beacuse thier black, female, latino or any other thing. Vote for the person who would make the best president. As a latino I want minorities to have thier day in the spotlight but only when they earn it. The whole gender and race card is being played to much in this race already lets focus on the issues. On that note I plan on voting for Richardson in the primiries. He has lots of experiance with foreign affairs, the federal government and can be a strong leader. But hey if any of the other candidates give me a reason why I should vote for them rather then Richardson then they have won my vote.

I don't think you'll get a chance to vote in the democratic primary, given that you're a republican troll. Aren't you the same "17 year old with an opinion" who was so adamant about your peers having to tell their parents if they wanted an abortion?

No one who would vote for HC is a progressive. So, since this is supposedly a progressive list, most of you are trolls.

Kristi:

I am a proud democrat who has put endless hours in helping democratic candidates to win and proud of the fact that the democratic primary will be the first election I can vote in. For the record I oppose parental noticifation laws but believe that in an ideal society and place teenagers would talk to thier parents about them.

17 year old, I think point is that for the first time in history, the democrats have viable minority candidates. All other things being equal, I too would throw my support behind one of the minority candidates. I don't think anyone is saying they'll vote for someone simply because they are - fill in the blank. And to the person who made the stupid comment about Hillary, I'd like my daughter to grow up knowing that someday she really could become President, instead simply being told she could like I was. I call that progressive.

All I am saying having a quality white president is better then a sub par female, latino or black president. Just make sure when voting to vote for credinitals not gender or race.

I'm only voting for Hillary if she can convincingly demonstrate that she is related to at least one mobility impaired left-handed Jewish lesbian of color.

I am only voting for candidates who can spell correctly.

From Danny Schechter (the news dissector), Mediachannel.org, 1/23/07. This is a real progressive site, so some of you may not want to read it.

HILLARY IN “TO WIN”

Sam Smith comments:

major media likes to talk about Hillary Clinton being divisive. In fact she isn't anywhere near as divisive, say, as George Bush doggedly pursing a war even some of his advisors and many of his former allies would like to get out of. Besides, since you never know where what she's going to say on any given issue on any given day it, it's hard to have a fierce argument about her positions. Even in her kickoff for the Democratic nomination the best she could come up with was:

"Let's talk about how to bring the right end to the war in Iraq and to restore respect for America around the world. How to make us energy independent and free of foreign oil. How to end the deficits that threaten Social Security and Medicare. And let's definitely talk about how every American can have quality affordable health care."

Well, we actually have been talking about these things for some time; it's just hard to get Clinton into the conversation. This is a classic piece of Clinton rhetoric. To the casual listener she is supporting an end to the war, energy independence and universal healthcare. Far from it. She just wants us to talk about it. A neat semiotic slide, sort of like Barack Obama wanting us to come together. . . so he doesn't have to choose between us.

Jayne Stahl Comments:

”What she lacks is credibility. Not only did Clinton vote in favor of the war, but she watered down her pro-choice statements, so they'd be more palatable to centrist Democrats and Republicans making one wonder just how far the Senator is prepared to bend with respect to Roe v. Wade, an important question in light of the current composition of the Supreme Court, and the tenuousness of a constitutional amendment that guarantees a woman's right to choose. One would also like to hear Clinton speak out against the Military Commissions Act, the USA Patriot Act, the NSA electronic surveillance program, and challenges to a free pres instead of trying to look commander-in-chiefish' during her Internet appearances.

FIRST NON-ENDORSEMENT—CINDY SHEEHAN

In 2005, I was dying to support Hillary for president: finally a bright woman with experience. However, she is a champion fence sitter and politically heartless.

I, again, affirm my commitment to peace. I don't care if it is a man or a woman; Democrat or Republican; white or black; Christian, Jew or otherwise. I will only support a candidate who is courageously and uncompromisingly committed to peace.

Hillary Clinton is not that person. She never will be. History speaks louder than words.

This is a real progressive site, so some of you may not want to read it.

Geez Louise. Is the temptation to say nyah-nyah-nyah, to insult, to reflect on one's self-defined ideological purity, never going to go away?

For the Roe comment above: Perhaps Roe should NOT be supported, not because abortion shouldn't be legal but because, if you look closely, Roe doesn't do a very thorough job of protecting the ability of women to have an abortion. Casey demonstrates this extremely well. If this is a little too esoteric for some of you, ask Steiny what it means. He's the genius.

So, if HRC might be less than supportive of Roe, it might be that as a lawyer, she understands its limitations better than someone who just parrots the party line.

lin qiao:

Ideological purity is what HC seeks, not me. Is a commitment to peace ideological? Civil rights? Health care unfettered by corporate greed? Most Americans favor these things. Are we all ideological?

<h2>There's one ideology that's consistently expressed by the dominant members of the two major parties: the ideology of state hegemony and corporatism. That's what should be pissing you off, not a sarcastic remark directed at apologists for that ideology.</h2>