Clinton Could Lose Nomination _ If...

Tsunami

Active member
Oct 25, 3:09 PM (ET)
By NEDRA PICKLER



WASHINGTON (AP) - Memo to the Democratic presidential candidates: You can still beat Hillary Rodham Clinton, but you better act fast.
The former first lady looks more likely to win the nomination every day, showing strength in polling, fundraising and setting the campaign agenda.
She's so strong, in fact, that the race has become about her. And Democratic operatives from presidential campaigns past and present say the only way for any other candidate to win the nomination is to make an even stronger case against her.
"If this were a wedding, we'd be at the 'speak now or forever hold your peace' part," said Steve McMahon, who advised Howard Dean in 2004. "If you're a candidate hoping to get past her, the time for nuance and veiled references has passed."
There is always the chance that Clinton could make an error in the next couple of months that would hurt her chances. Some argue that her vote against Iran at a time when anti-war Democrats are concerned about war there has the potential to damage her standing.
But Democratic insiders, including some working on various 2008 campaigns who spoke on condition of anonymity, agree that barring a major stumble, Clinton is all but sure to win the nomination if she wins the opening contest in Iowa. She is polling well in the states that follow, and no one else would be able to challenge her unless an Iowa loss made her look vulnerable.
"If Hillary wins Iowa, she can practically start shopping for a running mate," said California-based Democratic strategist Dan Newman.
But that's a big if. Clinton has called Iowa her "hardest state," and it's the best - some say only - chance her opponents have to get past her.
"At this point the trailing candidates need to not only catch a huge wave, they also need one to crash on top of Hillary," Newman said. "They need to upend the conventional wisdom that is gelling among donors and others that she can't be stopped, and they need to prove it in Iowa."
The most recent polls in the state show a close race among Clinton and fellow Sens. John Edwards and Barack Obama.
Edwards has been making a more vigorous case recently against Clinton's ability to win a general election. He's also led criticisms of her that have been picked up by other candidates - that she's too connected to lobbyists and that her vote to declare the Iranian Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization could be a repeat of her mistake in voting for the Iraq war.
Those criticisms haven't hurt her yet, but they could as more people begin to pay closer attention in the closing days of the race. Some advise that the Clinton campaign should consider fighting back against Edwards or anyone else who takes her on so directly.
"While Edwards is attacking her as being unelectable, the GOP is also saying she is polarizing and out of the mainstream," said Donna Brazile, who ran Al Gore's campaign in 2000. "Time to deck them or push back."
Joe Biden and Chris Dodd have been more aggressively criticizing her on foreign policy. Obama says there needs to be a change away from Washington insiders while generally avoiding mention of her name.
And at a time when Obama needs to be winning voters away from Clinton, instead he's been playing defense. Just this week he's been under fire from gay activists who objected to a participant in his gospel concert series, and his campaign agreed to return some donations after The Washington Post reported that they came from children.
Most of those interviewed say Obama needs to get tougher on Clinton.
"I don't buy this 'Politics of Hope' means you can't engage the next candidate," said strategist Jamal Simmons. "People want to be hopeful, but people want to know you are tough enough to win and you are tough enough to lead the country."
In comparison to Obama, Simmons said, "people are very clear what John Edwards is running for. He's there fighting for the working man and woman, and he's taking his shots. Even at some times he may seem to the outside world to be too strident and hitting it too hard. But he's hitting, and people respect that."
But some inside the Clinton and Obama camps think it would be a mistake for Obama to go on the attack in a multi-candidate race. They ask: Why not sit back and let Edwards and others try to take her down, while he tries to rise above?
"I think with name ID as high as Senator Clinton's, there is little new information about her that would change voter's minds," said Erik Smith, who worked for Dick Gephardt in 2004. "A candidate can move late in Iowa if making a strong case for themselves as the best candidate to win the general."
That happened in the last Iowa presidential primary. In 2004, Dean was the front-runner, and Gephardt went after him hard. Dean and Gephardt fell into third and fourth place respectively in the caucus, behind John Kerry and Edwards.
"Her opponents will have opportunities to slow her down, but the risks of doing what that will take come at a considerable risk," said Democratic consultant Michael Feldman. "Take Senator Obama, for example. It's hard to slash and burn when you have said that you want to move beyond negative campaigning. He runs a serious risk of undermining his brand." And there's no indication it would work since she's done well with what's come at her so far. "There is no doubt that she will be tested, but she is running the kind of campaign that indicates her ability to roll through those inevitable challenges," Feldman said.
=======================================================
Lets see - Gore jumped ship and is now with Osama - I mean Obama... Oh, the heck with it - put up Osama/Obama or Hillary - its a done deal either way. The republicans just need to respond w/ a white anglo saxon male w/ a heart beat (sad but true...).
:lol:
 
One of the things that really makes me laugh is all the anti-Hillaryism amongst those in the GOP.

Compared to all the other Democrats running for President, Hillary tilts to the RIGHT of the Democratic party. If you look at her voting record she has sided with the Administration on most major Economic and Foreign Policy issues, including Iraq, Iran, the Bankruptcy Bill, illegal immigration, and pro-Corporate Business, to name a few.

Read it yourself.
http://www.ontheissues.org/Senate/Hillary_Clinton.htm

The only issue she is consistently Liberal are on Social issues. Some of her voting has enraged the left of her Party. In fact if she doesn't get the nomination it will be because of the leftwing, not the rightwing.

Can any body tell the difference between her and Rudy Guiliani? Peel away the stump speechesm and look at their records There isn't much of one.
Why do you think her campaign war-chest is so large? All the corporation fat-cats that used to give to the GOP are all behind her. Do you all think thats a coincidence?

Now compare that those those other nominees running against her. Some of the right-wingers here have sympathy or indifference towards Obama or Edwards. Both men are far more to the left + liberal than Hillary. Hillary voting record resembles that of Joe Lieberman. She is even more conservative than her husband was.

She looks like Newt Ginginch compared to Dennis Kucinich or Gravel.

And yet its Hillary that is reserved all the GOP barbs.

Its hilarious.
 
Last edited:
Who said I was anti-Hillary - I truly hope she wins the nomination, I get flash backs of Geraldine Ferraro and the a** whooping the demcorats took. For those of you who were not born - Ferraro and running mate Walter Mondale were defeated in a landslide by incumbent President Ronald Reagan and Vice President George H. W. Bush in the 1984 election.
Please - nominate that socialist!
:firedevi:
 
Who said I was anti-Hillary - I truly hope she wins the nomination, I get flash backs of Geraldine Ferraro and the a** whooping the demcorats took. For those of you who were not born - Ferraro and running mate Walter Mondale were defeated in a landslide by incumbent President Ronald Reagan and Vice President George H. W. Bush in the 1984 election.
Please - nominate that socialist!
:firedevi:

She is still beating every GOP candidate out there. The only one with a decent chance is Rudy. And as I noted the difference in platforms is no much. I know Rudy, I voted for him twice. He's competent, unfortunately he's a very arrogant and unpleasant guy who is hard to work with. He will make enemies quickly everywhere he goes. His own daughter is supporting Obama -that tells you something about his character. Unfortunatly there is nobody else the GOP has right now. If the GOP knocks him off they'll have nobody.

The thing is this; People hate the Clintons (even amongst the Democrats) they just hate Bush even more. The GOP biggest problem are the independents. Without a large showing from the Purple States the GOP is finished next year, because their base isn't large to win the elections alone. Neither is the Dems for that matter, but the Dems have the advantage of having more wiggle room, and a more in-line base. Meaning they only need *some* independents to win.

This is exactly why she might win. She would now if the election were today. With all the problems the GOP has its tough to see how they can win. They need a stellar 2008 to have any chance at all.

Frankly I want her to lose, I don't like her fair-weather voting record, its dishonest. I would wish she would take a stand on something and stick to it regardless what the polls say. But she wont. She just goes with the blow. Its exactly how she arrived to NY in the first place.
 
Last edited:
The funny thing about polls is that Democrats always point to them to justify they are winning.... Yet, come Presidiential election time - it would appear the +/- is always a little ( a lot) skewed.
This nation is not ready for a female president, and if it were - Hillary is just not going to do it in my opinion.
 
The funny thing about polls is that Democrats always point to them to justify they are winning.... Yet, come Presidiential election time - it would appear the +/- is always a little ( a lot) skewed.
This nation is not ready for a female president, and if it were - Hillary is just not going to do it in my opinion.

Care to state an example?

I can gaurentee you it wasn't in 2004, 1996 or 1990. In those elections The result followed the polls. The only time it was maybe off was 2000 and recall that most polling groups refused to pick a winner. The best chance is Al Gore. Most polls have her tied to Gore. If he doesn't run, she'll win the nomination barring a total meltdown at caucauses as what happened to Howard Dean.

You keep saying she wont win, but do you think can beat her?

Rudy? A NYC liberal-Moderate. His candidacy is the most controversial. The Far right has threaten to split if he is the nominee. He will win the nomination by default if nobody else can step up but I don't see many conservatives carrying him on their shoulders. Despite his attempt to play conservative, the far right knows better.

Romney? A Mormon and a flip flopper. Far Christian Right doesn't like either one. Some of his social views are similar to Rudy.

McCain? Tired, used up, yesterdays news. Conservatives haven't forgotten the 'Maverick' McCain. He had a chance with libs and independents but his kow-toying to Bush cost him dearly. Hes running on fumes, Its over John.

F.Thompson? Boring. His 15 minutes are over, he has nothing else to offer. He's no Ronnie that much is sure.

T.Thompson? - near Broke. Not much experience either (except in Health and Human Services).

D.Hunter? - near Broke. Has no experience in anything but military matters. He'd be a better SECDEF, in fact its been suggested that he do so

Huckabee - On paper he should be great to conservatives. But for some unexplainable reason he has no momentum. A person who has all the issues, the popularity but still is like in 4th place? That Tells you something about his suitability. Also, Independents will find him much too conservative. His views on socials issues wont sit well with moderates.

Ron Paul - The fact that the GOP is trying to keep him off the ballot should speak volumes. I admire his honesty, but he has no chance. hes actually more popular with the liberals than with the conservatives.

You have to admit, even if you don't agree with their views the Dems have a much better lineup and they got the money too. Thats TWO big advantages they got.
 
Last edited:
I don't like hillary much either. too much talky, with out enough walky.

Which puts her right up there with Obama and the entire Republican Lineup.

I like John Edwards out of those who have a prayer for nomination.
 
I would be surprised if she took a single southern state. There isn't too many places you go where she if loathed below the Mason Dixon.

She will garner very few votes from those serving in the military - she has done way too many negative things off camera with those serving in the Presidental Guard. I had one 1st Class transfer to me from the Clinton White House who confirms much of what you hear about the abuse of Secret Service personnel but she honestly thought the military members were her personal servents. I have heard way too many personal accounts not to believe they are true. More than likely will not play a part in the election from a media standpoint - John Kerry had some of the same issues, not the Swift boat stuff but how he treated people in general, voters can spot an ass a mile away.

All this said I hope we get balance - I am not a big fan of one party controling everything, I like Washington gridlock, it seems to be less expensive.
 
I would be surprised if she took a single southern state. There isn't too many places you go where she if loathed below the Mason Dixon.

She will garner very few votes from those serving in the military - she has done way too many negative things off camera with those serving in the Presidental Guard. I had one 1st Class transfer to me from the Clinton White House who confirms much of what you hear about the abuse of Secret Service personnel but she honestly thought the military members were her personal servents. I have heard way too many personal accounts not to believe they are true. More than likely will not play a part in the election from a media standpoint - John Kerry had some of the same issues, not the Swift boat stuff but how he treated people in general, voters can spot an ass a mile away.

All this said I hope we get balance - I am not a big fan of one party controling everything, I like Washington gridlock, it seems to be less expensive.
---------------------------------------------------------
While I agree its difficult to win the south, there are a few southern states she might win. Florida for one. She wins Florida and she wins the election. Missouri and maybe Arkansas as well. She might have a small shot as LA as well, people are really pissed on how bad Bush screwed up Katrina. The anti-Bush sentiment might help her. Its a long shot, but not impossible.

Another factor is Virginia. Virginia is seeing a population increase in the North (very pro-Democrat). We saw this last year when George Allen lost, and its been increasing since then.
It is very possible Virginia switches from Purple to Blue next year.

Remember that her husband won all those states plus Georgia and Tennessee as well. But then again, he was liked much better than she was. You have to remember that Bill Clinton still has an approval at 58-61% thats pretty good and it will help.

Regardless, she doesn't need the south. The Battleground states will be one in the Mid and Southwest (Ohio, Penn, NM, Colorado, etc). She basically needs to win OH or CO while defending
Penn and NM.

The GOP has its problems in the South of its own. Which is why I think Edwards is the best candidate because he acts like a southern, talks like a southern, so people there can better relate. If he flips 1-2 of the more moderate southern states and he'll be in good shape.
 
Last edited:
All this said I hope we get balance - I am not a big fan of one party controling everything, I like Washington gridlock, it seems to be less expensive.




Yes, i believe this is the ideal for the electorate; to avoid governments which are too powerful. We have suffered from this problem for twenty years or so. A too powerful Tory team, followed by a too powerful Labour team. Horrible - electorate at their mercy, they take no prisoners with their greedy agendas. They make very little allowance for the interests of the people. They do not need to for 5 years! The Italians used to have a good ideology, although they were a bit extreme in effecting it - have a comfortable life-style but a poor (powerwise) government. Then the latter pay attention to the electorate!

Give me gridlock or give me a loud-hailer!
 
Yes, i believe this is the ideal for the electorate; to avoid governments which are too powerful. We have suffered from this problem for twenty years or so. A too powerful Tory team, followed by a too powerful Labour team. Horrible - electorate at their mercy, they take no prisoners with their greedy agendas. They make very little allowance for the interests of the people. They do not need to for 5 years! The Italians used to have a good ideology, although they were a bit extreme in effecting it - have a comfortable life-style but a poor (powerwise) government. Then the latter pay attention to the electorate!

Give me gridlock or give me a loud-hailer!

Historically some of the best legislation was when both parties were able to work out a compromise together. I remember a member of congress once said (I forget who) put it:

"You know you have passed a good piece of legislation when both side feel like they lost something".


You don't get that when you have just one party who just dictates everything to the other. Both sides hate Gridlock, but Gridlock prevents bad legislation from becoming law.
 
Well, Republicans wern't pushing the idea of a divorce between the White House and Congress from 2000 through 2006, as I recall.
The term Ruber Stamp Congress coming to mind.

If a Democrat wins the White House in 2008, I'd say for at least the first 2 years they will hold both Houses of the Congress as well, performance coming into play afterwards.
 
True, but don't expect the democrats to do the same either. Out of control Democrats can be just as dangerous as out of control Republicans. If the Dems sweep in 2008 they will be under tremendous temptation to do the same rotten things the Republicans did for the past 7 years.

Pixiedustboo

Nobody, but nobody, could do a worse job than George W. Bush. Hillary isn't my favorite either and I won't vote for her either, but compared to GWB she is Abraham Lincoln.
 
Last edited:
Well, in my view Republicans need punished, all Republicans, so, I can think of no better punishment to inflict than another President Clinton, and a huge Tax Increase to go along with the new President Clinton, just like with the old President Clinton.

So, if she gets the nod from the Democrats I'll be happy, if she loses the non from the Democrats I'll be happy. If she wins the White House I'll be happy, if she loses the White House I'll be happy, it's a win-win for me.

And I do not believe the Republicans will be happy with any Democrat in the White House, they seem to have a National problem with all Dems, so, I tend to disregard whatever any Republican says about any Democrat in Office, or running for Office, right off the bat.

It is also not as easy to get all the Democrats behind an issue, as the Liberals are just free thinkers, and the more Conservative among them tend to shy away from the more Liberal Democrats, but time will tell, and Elections take place all the time in the USA, so, the Congress can change hands quickly if there seems to be a problem, like when the last President Clinton was in Office.
 
You very well might get your wish. I think another Clinton in the White House would be Divine Retribution against the GOP. And make that a 'SUPER-SIZED' tax increase against those who sold us GWB as a compassionate conservative.

Turns out that was false advertising. He was neither compassionate nor conservative.

The free lunch for the Billionaires is over, now its time to pay the check.

And according to pollingreport.com which tracks all the polls she beats all the GOP candidates including Rudy. Some Republicans must be having ulcers.

http://www.pollingreport.com/wh08gen.htm
 
Last edited:
Pixiedustboo

Nobody, but nobody, could do a worse job than George W. Bush. Hillary isn't my favorite either and I won't vote for her either, but compared to GWB she is Abraham Lincoln.

I think if anyone could do a worse job it would be Hillary Clinton. (Or Michael Moore).

I will agree that Bush has done a great job at screwing things up. I didn't think I voted for the President we got shackled with the past 4 years.
 
Back
Top