"I will not support Hillary Clinton for President" by Molly Ivins

[Beer and Pizza]

I don't buy it, you guys will vote for her if you must.

In a general election, liberals will vote for Hillary over the republican.

Its all spin right now, trying to convince Hillary not to run.

[ElliotR]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't buy it, you guys will vote for her if you must.

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course you don't. For some people, politics is a game. Those people stick with their party no matter what. Others make more thoughtful choices.

[turdbird]

[ QUOTE ]

Hey, I'm way to the left of Dean/Pelosi/Reid. But do you want a Democrat to win or not?

[/ QUOTE ]

I didn't think it was possible to be and farther left of those three....scary!

[bdk3clash]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't buy it, you guys will vote for her if you must.

In a general election, liberals will vote for Hillary over the republican.

Its all spin right now, trying to convince Hillary not to run.

[/ QUOTE ]
I assure you that if Clinton is the Democratic candidate I will vote Green.

[andyfox]

I've made a zillion posts, a good portion of them on politics, so feel free to read up from the archives. Maybe I'm just more honest than those three, I don't have to run for reelection.

[andyfox]

Edwards did nothing for the ticket last time; he didn't even pull in his home state for Kerry. Clark didn't do well in the primaries.

The best thing the Dems might have going for them is that there is no apparent charismatic Republican frontrunner. My point was that for a Democrat to "bravely" stake out leftist positions with courage is a losing strategy.

[bdk3clash]

I think Ivins' point, which I agree with, is that the Democrats that are further "left" (Dean, Pelosi, Reid, as you mention, and also Clark and Edwards) are more in touch with the majority of Americans than more "moderate" Democrats like Clinton. The media has shifted rightward, as has the federal government, but to a great extent the population and state governments haven't.

I guess I just have a hard time seeing what a "centrist" like Hillary gains by tacking hard right on issues like her hawkishness in Iraq and flag burning.

I mentioned Edwards because he has given some pretty amazing speeches lately and I like what I've heard. It's obvious Clark fared poorly in the primaries and would be a longshot to get nominated again but if he did I'd really like his chances.

I also think that 2008 will see a Democratic president unless the party leadership screws up horrendously, which they have shown they are clearly capable of doing. They need to stop pandering, fight back, and listen to the godddamned electorate.

[ QUOTE ]
I think Ivins' point, which I agree with, is that the Democrats that are further "left" (Dean, Pelosi, Reid, as you mention, and also Clark and Edwards) are more in touch with the majority of Americans than more "moderate" Democrats like Clinton.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think just the opposite: that Dean et al are actually out of touch with the views and positions of the majority of Americans. I was actually considering making a separate thread to that effect, and to the further point that the Democratic Party, in putting such emphasis as it has recently on its further-left leaders, is actually distancing itself from the majority of Americans and is hurting its election chances.

If average Americans were so far left as to truly embrace the visions of Dean, Kennedy et al, then wouldn't Kerry have likely won by a large margin? It was a close election--which means, among other things, that the country's average opinion (weighted average opinion so to speak, since there is a lot of polarization today) is probably somewhere pretty close to the middle.