DEMOCRATS Say NO To Hitlery...

[007]

No to Hillary
Jun 9, 2005
by Robert Novak


LOS ANGELES -- Back east, well-placed Democrats have agreed that the party's 2008 nomination is all wrapped up better than three years in advance. They say that the prize is Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's for the asking, and that she is sure to ask. But here on the left coast, I found surprising and substantial Democratic opposition to going with the former first lady.

Both the Hollywood glitterati and the more mundane politicians of Los Angeles are looking elsewhere. They have seen plenty of Sen. Clinton over the past dozen years, and they don't particularly like what they've seen. Two far less well-known Democrats -- Virginia Gov. Mark Warner and Indiana Sen. Evan Bayh -- were hits on recent visits to California, mainly because they were not Hillary.

The concern here with Clinton is not borne in fear that she might fail to carry California. Almost any Democrat would be likely to win in the nation's most populous state, where the advent of Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger is an exotic event that has not changed the GOP's minority status in California. Rather, the fear here is pronounced that Clinton cannot win in Red America, guaranteeing a third straight Republican term in the White House.

Party insiders in Washington and New York, including many who ran the last two losing Democratic presidential campaigns, say they have never before seen anything like the way Clinton has sewed up the nomination. In particular, they say, she has cornered Eastern money in a way nobody else ever has done at such an early date.

At a dinner party in a private room of a Los Angeles restaurant attended by eight Democratic politicians (including City Council members and a county supervisor), I was asked to assess the political scene. I concluded with a preview of the distant events of 2008. While there had not been so open a race for the Republican nomination since 1940, I said, Clinton was dominant for the Democrats. For someone who is neither an incumbent president nor vice president to have apparently locked the nomination so early is without precedent.

As I made this analysis, the liberal Democratic functionary across the table from me shook his head in disagreement. He left his seat between courses, and then returned with this announcement: "There are eight Democrats in this room. I've taken a little poll, and none of them -- none -- are for Hillary for president. They think she is a loser."

Talking to some of them, I found concern that Hillary carries too much baggage from her turbulent marriage and her husband's presidency to do any better than John Kerry did last year. One female office holder was looking hard for another Southern moderate who could bite into the Confederacy as Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton had done.

Another woman office holder was hostile to a Clinton candidacy on a more personal basis. "Don't think that Hillary has the women's vote," she told me. "I will never forgive her for sticking with her husband after he humiliated her. It's something I can't get over."

Eight Democrats, no matter how prominent, constitute a tiny sample. But I checked with Democratic sources in California and found broad early resistance to Clinton. Warner wowed listeners on a recent trip, though he was not as big a hit as Bayh on his L.A. sojourn. The Hoosier senator may be a dull, moderate Midwesterner to the party cognoscenti who already have bestowed the nomination on Clinton, but he looked like a winner to the Hollywood crowd.

These anti-Clinton Democrats are not reassured by what Republican National Chairman Ken Mehlman said Sunday on NBC's "Meet the Press." Moderator Tim Russert asked: "Do you think that Sen. Clinton would be a formidable presidential candidate?" "I do," Mehlman replied, adding: "Sen. Clinton is smart. She's effective." As Mehlman himself said, Republicans don't want to repeat the 1980 mistake of the Democrats when they relished the nomination of Ronald Reagan as an easy mark.

Nevertheless, in private, Republicans say they would much rather run against Hillary Clinton, who votes a straight liberal line, than an unknown moderate from Virginia or Indiana. Savvy Democrats in Los Angeles agree.

http://www.townhall.com/opinion/columns/robertnovak/2005/06/09/15681.html

 

[jon_forward]

It is my hope that the Senator from New York will realize that its not in her, or anyone elses[read that the DNC] best interest for her to attempt the White House. on the other hand it would make it much easier for the GOP.

 

[Gunny]

It is my hope that the Senator from New York will realize that its not in her, or anyone elses[read that the DNC] best interest for her to attempt the White House. on the other hand it would make it much easier for the GOP.

I think this needs to be taken a little more seriously by the right than it has so far. WHO the GOP puts in the hot seat is every bit a factor as who the DNC pushes.

The moderate vote is nonpartisan and is going to swing whichever way the most appealing candidate is. Of the names I've heard tossed about by conservatives, I don't see that appeal.

 

[007]

I think this needs to be taken a little more seriously by the right than it has so far. WHO the GOP puts in the hot seat is every bit a factor as who the DNC pushes.

The moderate vote is nonpartisan and is going to swing whichever way the most appealing candidate is. Of the names I've heard tossed about by conservatives, I don't see that appeal.

Me either Gunny. Good point.

And I'm not commited to voting Republican either. If another Ross Pero or Steve Forbes runs on the Reform ticket, that's who I'll vote for. I'm sick of the frickin' status quo by BOTH the repub's and the dem's. I swear one isn't much better than the other when it comes to "spending".

 

[Gunny]

Me either Gunny. Good point.

And I'm not commited to voting Republican either. If another Ross Pero or Steve Forbes runs on the Reform ticket, that's who I'll vote for. I'm sick of the frickin' status quo by BOTH the repub's and the dem's. I swear one isn't much better than the other when it comes to "spending".

That's just about what it took for Clinton to gain the Presidency through the back door. Not sure I'm ready for a repeat performance; especially, if it Hillary. The woman is scary.

 

[theHawk]

lol "Hitlery" I never heard that one before.

 

[The ClayTaurus]

Not to be mistaken for defending, but out of curiousity, why the Hitler reference? Just a play on the letter H, or something more?

 

[no1tovote4]

Not to be mistaken for defending, but out of curiousity, why the Hitler reference? Just a play on the letter H, or something more?

I think it is also a play on the fact that they are constantly calling some republican a 'nazi'. Therefore a play on the name, the letter H, and the regular political diatribe all at the same time....



Oh, and can't forget that there were 13 ways one could go to prison by seeing a different doctor, or seeing a different patient, than your assigned one in her 'health plan' thus giving every free thinking person the creeps.

 

[007]

Not to be mistaken for defending, but out of curiousity, why the Hitler reference? Just a play on the letter H, or something more?

The woman is a sociopathic narcissist. She believes in ruling by absolute power. In example, like Hitler. She's more dangerous than most people will ever know.

 

[007]

That's just about what it took for Clinton to gain the Presidency through the back door. Not sure I'm ready for a repeat performance; especially, if it Hillary. The woman is scary.

Don't get me wrong Gunny, I would NEVER vote democrap. However, I do like to vote my conscience, and sometimes unfortunately, that means voting Republican simply to keep the democrap out, even though I would have liked to vote for someone else.