Clinton is running John Kerry's campaign. If nominated, she will lose, just like he did.

Republican Lite is a failing strategy for Dems. Always has been.

As Harry Truman said, given a choice between a Republican and a Democrat who acts like a Republican, the American people will choose the real Republican every time.

Ain't it the truth.

When will enough Democrats learn this simple lesson?

And "the system itself" IS fucked up.

The Clintons represent the Republican wing of the Democratic party.

William Kristol, editor of the conservative Weekly Standard, sounded more effusive [in his praise for Clinton than Lindsey Graham, who supports John McCain for president]. "Obama," he said, "is becoming the antiwar candidate, and Hillary Clinton is becoming the responsible Democrat who could become commander in chief in a post-9/11 world." (Washington Post)

If you believe the United States has the "right" to take "offensive military action against Iran" -- that is, against a nation that does not threaten us now and will not threaten us for years to come, if ever -- and if you believe, in the event we do launch an unprovoked, non-defensive attack on Iran, which is to say, if we commit another monstrous war crime, that it would be nice, but hardly necessary, "if the rest of the world saw it as a position of last resort"; and

If you think the United States should still have troops in Iraq at the end of your second term as president, which is to say, at least through the end of 2016 -- which is, of course, the view of the entrenched foreign policy establishment that believes in a foreign policy of aggressive, neverending global interventionism maintained by an empire of military bases around the world, all to guarantee American hegemony; and

If you believe that the president should have "some lawful authority" to use torture or other "severe" interrogation methods in a so-called "ticking-bomb scenario" -- which is to say, in a scenario that does not correspond to real life at any point, but is the fever dream of viciously stupid and imitative hack writers; and

If you do not "believe any president should make blanket statements with regard to use or nonuse" of nuclear weapons, even against nations and peoples that do not threaten us -- because, well, you know, you can never be too safe or too careful, and at some point you might need to murder another million people who were no danger to us whatsoever... (Arthur Silber)

Of course neocons are going to talk Hillary up, because they want us to lose.

The Clintons represent the Republican wing of the Democratic party.

One thing I learned shopping for used cars is that if they know you aren't willing to leave without That Car you will never get the deal you want/deserve.  If they know you are really willing to walk away the advantage shifts to your side.  Democrats have been playing us that way for YEARS. I know I am going to work against Hillary in the primary.  But, I'm probably part of a very small minority of Democrats who isn't sure, even, if he would vote for Hillary in the GE.  As important to me as electing Democrats is - just as important is changing the political "game".  Hillary is the antithesis of changing the political game. A shift is just beginning to occur. And, I'm not so bent on electing Democrats that I'm willing to turn the game back over to the old consultants and power brokers in Washington.

But, that's just me.

Especially since I actually do not think that she has...yet...done much for which she must apologize.

She has put herself in a commanding position to become the first female president of the most powerful country in the world.

Pretty good work, from a political point of view. In a country that still has a HUGE gap in the way that women are treated both in the marketplace and in the society in general.

And she has done so without compromising her social views. She STILL has an astoundingly "liberal" voting record, especially on social issues. Yes, she has had to tapdance through the minefield of American corporate-dominated politics. And here she is, all in one piece, VERY close to the prize. She has detonated NONE of the many mines that are planted in the way of a socially responsible candidate. Not so far she hasn't.

And here "the left" is...whaling away on her, night and day.

As NYC Mayor Bloomberg said after one of the more recent Neo-Con sponsored terrorist flaps...the "We woulda blown up JFK airport if only we coulda gotten our lighters to work" thing a couple of months ago..."Get a life."

Get a life, folks.

It's a done deal.

Let us concentrate on getting her elected.

Please.

Giuliani?

Thompson?

Romney?

Scary.

Can't we all just...get along?

No.

She is not Emma Goldman.

Not Saul Alinsky, either.

DEAL WITH IT!!!

Please.

Later..

AG

Goodness had nothing to do with it, dearie.-Mae West

...she gets even eventually, even if it takes her 10 or 12 years.

And woe to the vast right wing conspirators who took down Bill if she ever gets hold of the reins of power. For real. Their asses will be under SERIOUS threat.

I have a suspicion that she can hold a grudge.

...And it will be very interesting (in the "may you live in interesting times sense?) to see what happens on the right when the PermaGov decides to turn over to Hillary all the levers of power put into place under Bush.  

Maybe it's to teach the Republicans a lesson about not getting too uppity, when they were put in power to serve a "higher power"  (hint - it's not one you're gonna find in a church).  

Maybe it's just that Karma payback is a bitch.  

Maybe it's the yin and yang at work.

Whatever, the odds are looking better for Hillary; her slapdown of the blogosphere is her Sister Souljah moment.

(Which raises the question - Did Bill come up with the original all by himself?)

Triangulation: Is it the left, right, and middle, or the left, right, and money.  If the latter, you know where the center of gravity is.  Same as it ever was.

"Money ruined Democracy. Washington is lost. We only have the grassroots left." - Bill Moyers

And as my spouse constantly reminds me, there is more to being a successful president than just winning. If we elected someone who was really far ahead of Congress (with this congress, wouldn't be hard) there might be years of deadlock--like the Carter years. Carter was brilliant, just ineffectual. I can't imagine that happening to Senator Clinton again.

(Please don't throw up the health care fiasco of 14 years ago. It was an elephant, ahead of its time and too big to work. She had no clout, and was forging a new role for a First Lady that was amazing in itself even if it didn't work.)

Michaela

I guess I am getting my answer.

And now we shall fiunally see how much "power" the so-called netroots have.

A good 80% of the responders on this website are virulently anti-Hillary
Clinton.

As are a smaller percentage on My Left Wing. Say 50%.

A quick tour of Dkos (YUCK!!!) suggests that maybe 66% percent of the krosshacks will deign to support her if she is the nominee. I know that this is unscientific and bad math, but thgen so is the whole polling idea no matter HOW broad the so-called sample.  Averaging those out we get about a 45%  "Yes, we will vote for her. If we must" result.

If she only wins a 45% plurality the primaries...say splitting them with Obama getting say 35% and Edwards and the others cleaning up the remaining 20% or so...which is pretty much how it is beginning to look except with a greater plurality for her and less for the Edwards and below crew...will the netroots resistance have crippled her badly enough so that she will lose the election?

A number of people here hope so, apparently.

The old "Cut off your nose to spite your face" routine is what this looks like to me.

But what do I know?

Be careful what you wish for, folks.

You may just get it.

AG

Goodness had nothing to do with it, dearie.-Mae West

But let's cut to the point:  You are arguing that Clinton has both the political skill and the backing to win the election, and that we should help her.  

The first two points are not greatly in doubt:  She has skill, and she certainly has backing.  

But WHO is backing her?  

First and foremost, the soft wing of the powers that be.  Soft wing:  These are the folks who think manipulation is to be preferred--when it will work--to open violence.  A corollary:  Competence is to be preferred to incompetence.  

Sounds good, right?  

But what are the OBJECTIVES?  Well, the continuation of empire, and a more effective approach to the resource wars that sustain it.  Enhanced control of the masses at home (this is why the Dems keep folding on civil liberties issues).  Direction of the suffering of the hard-landing of the American economy to America's poorest.  

But is she a stealth candidate?  That is, is she the opposite of what she is portraying herself--a tool of the wealthy who supports the extension of war--who is secretly preparing to create peace and restore democracy?  Well, it's unlikely, that's all.  

The fact that the crises--climate change, peak oil, economic disruption--which will be the actual life-and-death issues of our political economy--are not on anybody's agenda tells me that our political economy will not last long.  Now it may well be the powers that HAVE thought about these things--it is even likely--but if so it is to profit at the expense and well-being (survival) of the rest of us.  That is the reason for KEEPING these issues off the agenda:  We are meant to go down like pole-axed sheep.  

But in this context, having a competent, skilled leader keeping the death-machine (empire) running is not obviously so much better than having a incompetent one.  Both will do great harm, but a skillful opponent is always the more dangerous.