LATimes' Jonah Goldberg: Candidate Hillary, The GOP's Dream

[flpoljunkie]

Candidate Hillary: the GOP's dream
A campaign against Sen. Clinton may give Republicans the best shot at running as the party of change.

Jonah Goldberg

October 23, 2007

The most interesting thing to come out of the umpteenth Republican debate Sunday is confirmation that the GOP is dying to run against Hillary Clinton. Like Don Rickles flaying a heckler, each candidate whacked at Clinton as if she were a pants-suited piñata. When they were done with their one-liners, former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee deadpanned: "Look, I like to be funny. There's nothing funny about Hillary Clinton being president."

No, but there's something deeply advantageous about having her as an opponent. So far, the commentary about the Republican offensive against Hillary has focused mostly on how it reflects poorly on the GOP (those Clinton-hating wing nuts are at it again!). What's not been fully grasped is how Hillary gives the GOP its best chance at being the party of change.

<>It seems incandescently clear that voters want a change, and, up to now, change meant little more than Democratic victory and no more President Bush. But Democrats got a significant victory in 2006, when they took control of both houses of Congress. And now Congress is even less popular than Bush. In other words, the clamor for change in Washington is much bigger than Bush.

Besides, Bush is leaving no matter what. And unlike every other election since the 1920s, there's no White House-approved candidate in the race. Any Republican will start with 40% to 45% of the vote in his pocket once he gets the nomination. The question that remains is whether the critical 5% to 10% of swing voters will think Hillary Clinton represents the sort of change they want.

What most independents and swing voters want is an end to the acrimony and bitterness in Washington -- and a candidate they like. Whether that's right or not is irrelevant. That's what they want.

<>If Democrats could get out of their bubble, it might dawn on them that virtually all of their other candidates are better positioned to run as champions of change. Hillary Clinton has shrewdly tried to trim the differences between her and the competition by claiming that any of them would be better than George W. Bush. From a liberal perspective, that's obviously true. But that perspective won't necessarily dominate come next fall, particularly if conditions in Iraq continue to improve.

Is it really so obvious that, say, Rudy Giuliani or Mitt Romney represent "change" less than the ultimate Clinton retread, complete with Bill as "first gentleman?" That's how Democrats are betting right now, and they may be bitterly disappointed -- again -- when it comes time to collect.

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-goldberg23oct23,0,3831108.column?coll=la-opinion-center

[cali]

1. I really, really doubt that the repukes look forward

to running against Clinton. They may be stupid, but I doubt they're that stupid. She's running a near flawless campaign and they can see that. In addition, she has so much more money than any of her repuke counterparts.

[Dawgs]

3. Then why bring her up in the debate?

They use her because they know it will unite the Republican voters. They know that being against Hillary gives them the most support and attention.

I'm sorry, but if you don't see how she energizes and unites the right you are blind.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

9. I'm Sorry

I'm sorry ,but if you don't see that the right is a rapidly shrinking tribe you are blind.

Even if Hillary motivates them there are less of them to motivate.

What part of that don't you understand?

[cali]

12. Sure she energizes the right , but it's not enough

And the reason they're going after her in the debates is largely because they're scared of running against her. If you're at all tuned in to where the repukes stand, you'll know that they're not even remotely united behind a candidate. Run Rudy and many of the religious right wing won't vote. Run Thompson, and you have an old guy with cancer who's already fumbling. Run Romney and you've got someone who's past history is at direct odds with what he once said. Furthermore, all of these candidates are running so hard to the right in order to get the nom, that's they're going to have massive problems attracting enough moderates and liberals in the general. They're beating up on Hillary actually makes her look stronger, and hasn't to date, delivered support for any one candidate on the repuke side.

Now, instead of just tossing out an adhom, try addressing these issues.

[niceypoo]

55. It doesnt matter who runs against them

They will turn up the attack machine full blast no matter who runs against them, then spend the next 8 years trying to investigate every iota of that persons existence. It is what they do. Had Kerry taken office they would have immediately attempted to impeach him, same with Gore.

[truebrit71]

86. Exactly right!

..they have nothing to run on...they have plently to run away from...but if HRC is the nom they have ONE PERSON TO ATTACK...and that ONE PERSON is the one they KNOW will generate repuke votes at the polls...

[DemocratSinceBirth]

8. One Dynamic Of The Campaign

Jonah can scream all he wants about change but the Clinton machine will do its best to make George Bush* the Pug candidate's virtual running mate just as the Clinton machine made the unpopular Newt Gingrich Bob Dole's virtual running mate...

[truebrit71]

84. I don't....she's their dream candidate...they won't have to talk about their records..

..or lack thereof, all they will have to do is go into Anti-Clinton mode 24/7 and they will probably win...

HRC is definitely NOT the winning candidate for the Dems...

[DemocratSinceBirth]

2. St. Teresa Of Avila

"More tears are shed over answered prayers than unanswered ones"

1) The GOP base is not 40-45% ...He pulled that out out of his ass...Goldwater and Bush Pere proved it could be pushed down to 37% or 38%.

2) The Clintons' are 10-1 in races against Pugs...If anybody has figured out the formula to beat those mendacious bastards it's the Clintons.

3) Women will comprise 52% -56% of the electorate...That puts the Pug at a distinct advantage.

4) Hillary is tougher, more focused, more driven, and yes, meaner when she has to be to than any of her potential GOP rivals...

5) She will have a lot more cash than her Pug opponent to run an effective campaign...

6) If it's Rudy or McCain the theocrats in the party will not be energized...

[Dawgs]

6. Nice try, but you are assuming all Democrats will vote for Hillary.

I wish it wasn't true, but it is. Hillary will make a win for the Democrats more difficult, not easier.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

11. I Assume She Will Get 87% to 90% Of The Democratic Vote

As Democratic presidential candidates have attained in the past four presidential elections.

If you have evidence to the contrary please produce it.

[tigereye]

81. I think a lot of Dems will vote for Hillary if she is the nominee

there's a lot of gnashing or teeth now understandably, but I think a good percentage will. I'd be interested to see some overall Dem polls....

She is good at kicking Rep ass, that's for sure.

[zalinda]

57. Could you be any more 1950's

Women will comprise 52% -56% of the electorate... So, that means that women will vote for Clinton just because she is a woman? I don't think so. The majority will vote for whom they feel is the most qualified candidate.

Ooooo, I think I'll vote for Edwards because he's soooooo good looking. Obama will get all the black votes, you know how all them black folks stick together. Okay, girls let's all vote for Clinton because she's a woman. :sarcasm:

Give me a break! Clinton is the last on my list of candidates that I want. I looked at her positions, and decided I'd have to hold my nose to vote for her, especially after her Iran vote.

The RW is praying she'll get the nomination, so all the Clinton haters will come out in droves to vote against her. The repub candidate wouldn't matter one whit, just so those immoral Clintons are kept from the White House. And believe it or not, there are dems who will not vote for her because of Bill and NAFTA.

zalinda

[rinsd]

78. Ummm Hillary's polling strengths are with women.

So since Hillary runs strongest among women voters and women voters comprise a slight majority of the electorate, Hillary stands a very good chance of winning.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

117. Sarcasm And Condescension Are Always Endearing

There has been a gender gap in every election since Ronald Regan beat Jimmy Carter in 1980... Woman will comprise 52% -56% of the electorate and polls indicate Hillary Clinton is doing very well among them...

As for your sarcasm and condescension I'll rise above it and not address it because it reveals more about you than it can ever reveal about me

DSB

[zalinda]

123. No, it reveals what lengths Clinton supporters will go

to, to make Clinton come off as the only viable candidate. If women voted just for women and are 52%-56% of the electorate then all elected positions would be held by women, if your logic held. The fact is, that many women will give Clinton a favorable nod, but that doesn't mean they will vote for her. It assumes that women will vote for Clinton because she is a woman, not because she is the best candidate.

Polls mean nothing, because they don't tell you what questions were really asked. I've been polled a number of times before and the questions asked can be used for or against a candidate, they can be really tricky. If I was asked if I have a favorable view of Clinton, I would say yes, that doesn't mean I would want to vote for her for President. She has been a good Senator, and I would like her to stay as Senator.

zalinda

[mtnsnake]

4. If the GOP really thought she was a GOP's dream, they wouldn't make such an issue of her 24/7

You only do that kind of shit when you fear somoeone tremendously.

Hillary is their worst frigging nightmare.

[truebrit71]

85. Completely wrong assessment....they make such an issue out of her precisely to get her nominated...

...then they'll get their lapdogs in the MSM to beat her down 24/7...

[mtnsnake]

90. Yeah that makes sense. Get your biggest nightmare nominated so you can lose to her. Right. nt

[truebrit71]

92. She ISN'T their biggest nightmare...they WANT her to be the nom...

...why can't you get that through your noggin?

[Tactical Progressive]

94. Because it's too silly to fit in a noggin

Republicans are terrified of another Clinton Presidency, and not just another Clinton Presidency, but one with the tough Clinton that doesn't just want everyone to like her as Bill did.

You can see it in their faces and hear it in their voices whenever they talk about it. Or in this pathetic attempt at reverse psychology, based on all the wrong facts and premises, by Jonah Goldberg who is nothing else if not always a clown.

[mtnsnake]

95. Thank you! nt

[Tactical Progressive]

101. No, thank you mntnsnake

You and Elmer have done a fantastic job standing up to the Dem-Hating-Leftists who have been sliming Hillary all summer long. I've been busy with things outside of DU and frankly, not in the mood to fight such discourteous leftists much. When I have it's gotten me really pissed.

But you and a few others have really held out and kept your composure in doing so. I noticed it every time I popped back for a looksee. Thanks.

[truebrit71]

98. ..and it is that fear that they will use to mobilize their base...

..and unless you haven't been paying attention, using FEAR is what the GOP does best...

Or do you think that the 'liberal media' will not engage in any Clinton-bashing?

[PDittie]

5. I usually give this guy as much credence as

the turd I just flushed. Except that I think he's right about this.

We're right on the cusp of turning the third or fourth largest county in the nation (Harris; Houston) blue. We have a baseline vote of 48% by virtue of the most recent elections. We have a Democratic mayor, a vast majority of city councilpersons who are Democrats, the comptroller is lesbian ...

We have an outstanding challenger to John Cornyn.

And I'm afraid it's all going to go down the tubes. Texas stays redder than a baboon's ass if Hillary is at the top of the ticket.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

16. When Was The Last Time TX Went Blue In A National Election?

Why are you holding her or any national Democrat responsible for forces beyond her control?

[PDittie]

36. They're not beyond OUR control.

We need to nominate a less polarizing nominee.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

39. Like Kerry, Gore,Clinton, Dukakis-Bentsen, Mondale And Carter

TX hasn't gone blue since 1976...

We put a Texan on the ticket in 1988 and got rewarded with 35% of the vote...

[PDittie]

41. We'll go blue in 2008

but only if Hillary Clinton is not at the top of the ticket.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

63. Six Southerners* In A Row Couldn't Carry TX

Carter (80) Dukakis-BENTSEN(88) Clinton (92) Clinton (96) Gore (00) Kerry-EDWARDS (2004)

It's intellectually dishonest to omit certain facts because they undermine your thesis...


One day TX will be blue again, but it won't be because the candidates change...It will be that Texas has changed...There will be a lot more Hispanics and African Americans who vote Democratic.





*at the top of the bottom of the ticket..

[PDittie]

82. No Democrat ever was elected president without carrying Texas

until Bill Clinton in 1992. In history. Texas has been red for less than a generation.

It's intellectually lazy to refuse to understand Texas politics. (You ain't from around here, are ya?)

You need to try a little harder to get this: Hillary will probably win without Texas. She may even be a decent President. But she gets dozens of Democrats in Texas and throughout the South defeated, and she sets Democrats in Texas back another generation. We can't take that.

[BootinUp]

88. You must have missed the recent poll, Clinton puts NC in play

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3636070

She's helping more there than Edwards did in '04

[PDittie]

135. Perhaps you don't understand the difference

between "polls" and "history". It's significant.

[BootinUp]

137. Your history argument didn't work too well

imho. I saw no need to further punish you on it.

[PDittie]

139. Oh, go ahead.

Let's see what you got.

[BootinUp]

140. I think history wise

that we are about to make some. I believe independent women in red states can be pulled over to Hillary. Not sure how we can judge that based on history. Maybe we can look at how a former woman Governor of Texas did that? Ann Richards.

[PDittie]

142. You think. You believe.

What are you, fourteen?

I want a little of that punishment you think you can deliver, cowboy. Spin again?

[BootinUp]

143. Nice

bye.

[Texas_Kat]

89. "all politics is local"

Chet Edwards manages to get elected in one of the toughest districts in Texas -- George Bush's 'home' district -- and not because of the 'top of the ticket' coattails, but because he's a damned smart, tough politician. For Texas, Kerry was a worse candidate than HClinton. Texans will vote for 'tough" (regardless of gender) before they'll vote for a (perceived) wuss.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

115. I Agree

Hillary isn't carrying Texas but she has spunk...I assure you if Lyndon was alive he'd feel a lot more comfortable with Hillary than any of the other candidates...

[PDittie]

138. It's intellectually dishonest to

make predictions based on obscure conjecture. (Lyndon was a ribald sexist, if you recall.)

[PDittie]

136. Hillary won't carry Texas

Hillary WILL win, though. She'll also kill us all the way down the ballot. As for Chet Edwards ... well, you keep him.

[Texas_Kat]

146. Maybe, maybe not... re: Hillary

Re: Chet.... any moderate Democrat who can withstand huge Republican challenges year after year has something to offer other Democrats in Texas. That Texas Democrats fail to see it, says a lot about why we lose year after year. This cycle, the NRCC has finally given up trying to unseat him.

From Nov 2006, just after the last election

The National Republican Congressional Committee has been a model of perserverance and put a lot of people to work on both sides of the aisle with its perennial campaign to unseat U.S. Rep. Chet Edwards in a Central Texas district that's tailor-made for the GOP. The GOP has poured vast sums of money into its quest to oust the Waco Democrat from Congress. It's attacked him repeatedly as a liberal, recycled candidate, put Texas A&M in his district and sent a powerful state lawmaker into battle against him on a map whose design had been personally overseen by Tom DeLay to ensure Edwards' extinction.

(snip)

After 14 years of high-dollar targeting, the NRCC finally saw the light and pulled the plug on a massive television advertising campaign it had planned for Taylor a month before the vote. Edwards captured two out of every three votes in McLennan County, his home base. He won 58 percent of the vote in Brazos County where students at Aggieland and others were giving Republican statewide candidates way more than 60 percent of their votes. He came within eight votes of beating Taylor in Johnson County, a Republican stronghold where only 39 percent had backed him two years ago.

Three years after the GOP carved up his district and stood ready to pronounce him dead, Edwards won re-election by the biggest margin of victory he's enjoyed in a dozen years. Taylor never had a chance because Edwards is simply the best politician in America - or one of the best if he has any rivials - and what didn't kill him in the wake of DeLay's redistricting made him as close to invincible as a Democrat can be in a 65 percent Republican district.

Subscription required: MIke Hailey's Capitol Inside: http://www.capitolinside.com

[EV_Ares]

7. Hard to say, it is so early. I think when people really become interested

in the 08 election, you will see Obama, Edwards, others move up. People want change. Hillary represents money and no change from the Washington establishment. She voted for Bush's war, she has turned around and done the same on Iran. People are tired of Bush and Clinton. I think a refrashing new surprise will appear further down the road.

[cali]

20. Hate to break this to you, but it's not so early anymore. At all.

It's nearly friggin' November for crying out loud. What with the holidays coming up, there's really only about 6-7 weeks tops, left in the campaign season. At this point, there's just not that much more road to travel, despite that often true axiom about a week (or whatever brief period of time) being a lifetime in politics. I hope Edwards, Obama or perhaps Dodd or Biden will break through within the next month or so, but that's all the time they have to do it. If you see Clinton with a 10 point plus lead in Iowa around Thanksgiving, she really will be all but impossible to beat.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

22. If Anybody Can Derail Clinton It's Obama

He has the money... There are a couple of factors at play...African Americans make up 25% -30% of Democratic primary voters...Right now Senator Clinton is edging Barack Obama among them...If Clinton gets knocked out of the race, presumably the lion's share will go to Obama...Couple that vote with Obama's appeal to professional, highly educated, and upscale Democrats and you have a pluraility or majority of Democratic primary voters...

[cali]

31. Agreed. But he has to show some real momentum during

the next month.

[EV_Ares]

42. Good analysis and it appears he is changing his strategy somewhat

and is starting to go more head to head with her which he should have started sooner.

[EV_Ares]

23. Hate to break this to you but other than those like us here on this board

the average person out there is not that radical or interested about politics or this race yet which the debates show on the numbers watching. Maybe DUers & Freepers are following closely but not just the average Joe which is understandable as this game started after the 06 election.

Yes, she has the commanding lead right now but that could change down the road and I do think people want change more than anything which is pretty much a consensus. They are tired of Washington and the Iraq war and do not see her as making any change on Iraq.

I think the people out there want us out of this war just like they voted this congress in to do that. Hillary does not represent herself as the one to get us out of the war, rather, she has made it clear she intends to stay on.

[papau]

10. RW National Review editor Goldberg says Democrats should not nominate Hillary?

As prep/warning of GOP plan to steal election now that the left has helped kill the possibility of audits of election results by killing the Holt bill, this article does a good job of setting the stage for a media reason to ignore that theft.

Or it may just be a RW nut mouthing off.

[wyldwolf]

13. a conservative from National Review Online.

:)

[DemocratSinceBirth]

17. In 1992

When they discussed Bill Clinton's challenge in the White House Bush Pere laughed at him...

[bluestateguy]

14. Careful what you wish for Jonah

A lot of Democrats hoped that Ronald Reagan would be the nominee in 1980 too. They felt him to be too vacuous and loony-right to ever be elected.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

19. I Didn't Like His Politics

But he was a great campaigner and stylistically a great debater...I'll exclude the 84 debates because I think he was in the early stages of Alzheimers Disease...

[SmokingJacket]

15. Jonah Goldberg has the IQ of a bathmat.

Clinton is not my first choice, or my second, but she has a much greater chance of winning than Giuliani or Romney.

[BootinUp]

30. !

I learned something about bathmats on DU today. ;)

[yellowcanine]

64. My bathmat resents that comment.

[swag]

18. Doughy Pantload will tell us what to do!

[BeyondGeography]

21. If Hillary's the nominee and the R-candidate figures out a way to run against Bush AND Clinton

he'll win. Goldberg is almost as big an ass as his mother, but he's right about one thing: The "Clinton" brand is a tough sell when the country wants change.

The running against Clinton part will be easy, and drawing lines of difference with Bush part is easier than you might think. Bush's negatives are mostly a function of his transparent incuriosity, his incompetence and his tone-deafness on Iraq. Any of the leading Republicans will appear more intelligent, which helps solve problem #1. On Iraq, they'll simply have to move toward the center and say what the Democrats have been saying for months about withdrawing troops and leaving a residual force to combat al Qaeda and help guarantee the basic security of Iraq.

We'll still have the advantage on health care, retirement security, the economy (at least we should), but those issues could well be negated by the focus on the Clintons; they will be the single biggest issue of the campaign, and that's only helpful to the other side.

[EV_Ares]

25. You are absolutely correct on that one. eom.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

27. For Every Action There Is An Equal And Opposite Reaction

The Clinton machine will do its best to make George Bush* the Pug candidate's virtual running mate just as the Clinton machine made the unpopular Newt Gingrich Bob Dole's virtual running mate in 1996... I can still remember the commercials of Gingrich and Dole side by side...They, so, got under Dole's skin that he literally muttered that he wasn't running with Newt Gingrich...

Nobody plays hardball politics better than Bill and Hill...

[BootinUp]

33. And people seem to forget that the RW machine is simply less effective

now. I don't care how much noise they make, it ain't gonna help if we have a strong candidate like Clinton.

[BeyondGeography]

38. That would be the proper strategy

but even a die-hard like you knows it's easier to say the Clintons are the Clintons than Romney or Rudy is Bush. Romney in particular will have an easy time of it because he'll impersonate Che Guevara if it means votes. Rudy "Thank God George Bush is President" Nine Eleviani would be an easier opponent for the difficulties he would face in distancing himself from Bush alone.

The good news is Bush outranks even Hillary in unpopularity, so the pressure will be on the Republicans to reject him, or at least the aspects of Bush that even Republicans find objectionable. They've already laid the foundation to do this by refusing to even mention his name at debates. They're ideologically and politically disgraceful, but they're not stupid.

[cali]

43. Well, I'm not a die-hard. No way will I vote for Clinton in the primary

but Romney and Guiliani, not to mention Thompson, are all deeply flawed and provide easy bulls eyes. In brief: Romney is the ultimate flip flopper, Rudy's closet is overflowing with skeletons, big and small, and he'll discourage a significant if unknown number of fundy voters, Thompson is old, tired and has cancer. In addition, they can't run away from bush if they support his war.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

45. I Think Romney Is Too Slick By Half

Whomever the Rethuglicans nominate and whomever we nominate the other side is going to try to define...

But even if Mitt " I'm more in favor of gay rights than Ted Kennedy" Romney gets the nomination and is willing to say anything to get elected he can't trash Bush* because that will alienate the very voters he needs to secure...

I am a die-hard...I am a Mickey Mouse, Yella Dog Democrat...

I don't approach these elections like they were my first rodeo... I look at them with a dead, cold eye... I know when to like our chance and when not to...

I think Dems are the favorites...I think Obama, Clinton, and Edwards can all win, but I'm not under any illusion it will be easy or that the Rethugicans will not do their best to DIRTY UP ANY of our candidates...

[BootinUp]

24. Goldberg's predictions are so reliable

Lets base our strategy off them. :sarcasm:

[wyldwolf]

26. Another day, another Obama supporter using rightwing sources...

[DemocratSinceBirth]

28. Goldberg Comes From The Same Seed

Goldberg comes from the same seed as the clowns who predicted George Bush was still going to win the election in late October of 1992...

[EV_Ares]

29. I dont know if it is a "right wing" source or not, not that familiar with him

but it is the context and the words I look at. Does it make sense, is it probable, what points are being made. Doesn't matter where it came from, it is the meat of the article and how it is framed.

Now a Limbaugh, Hannity, etc article, it certainly is not hard to tell if it is slanted or right wing.

Just because you do not like what an article says, does not necessarily make it wrong.

[wyldwolf]

32. the rest of us do. It's an opinion piece written by a Republican - and vile one at that.

He was involved in going after Bill Clinton in the 90s.

[cali]

34. LOL

Goldberg is simply a Hannity or rush tarted up with a little faux intellectual window dressing. His mother is Lucianne Goldberg. If you don't know who these folks are, do a little research. You don't come any more wingnut than these people.

[EV_Ares]

37. Have you ever tried just making an informative comment to anyone

before?

[cali]

44. Sure. Here's one in this very thread. I'd be glad to flood you, er

I mean provide you with dozens more.

"Sure she energizes the right , but it's not enough
And the reason they're going after her in the debates is largely because they're scared of running against her. If you're at all tuned in to where the repukes stand, you'll know that they're not even remotely united behind a candidate. Run Rudy and many of the religious right wing won't vote. Run Thompson, and you have an old guy with cancer who's already fumbling. Run Romney and you've got someone who's past history is at direct odds with what he once said. Furthermore, all of these candidates are running so hard to the right in order to get the nom, that's they're going to have massive problems attracting enough moderates and liberals in the general. They're beating up on Hillary actually makes her look stronger, and hasn't to date, delivered support for any one candidate on the repuke side.

Now, instead of just tossing out an adhom, try addressing these issues."

And YOU are the one making the disparaging comments to me in this thread.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

35. Hmmm

Did Goldberg invent a new diet? He opined that the Rethug candidate will try to run as an agent of change...The fly in that ointment is for a Rethug to be an agent of change he has to reject the Bush* presidency and it hegemonic aspirations...The Rethug candidate is not going to do that and even if he did it would alienate what's left of the Rethuglican base...

But, yeah, some folks here are clinging to it like flies to a garbage truck because it confirms their prejudices...

As, for Jonah, him and his mom, Lucianne, are some of the biggest right wing assholes to come down the pike in the last forty years:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucianne_Goldberg

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonah_Goldberg

[EV_Ares]

40. Hey thanks for the non smart ass comment. Actually I am getting tired

of the Hillary supporters on here that just get pissed about anyone who is looking at someone other than Hillary or does not like her. I have never paid any attention to him but now that you mentioned his mom, yeah she is a wacko. Thanks for the links. I don't spend my life on here or just "politics", I do like other interests so I may not have been that informative on this guy but you at least didn't throw out the sarcasm shit like some of the sensitive Hillary supporters.

[cali]

46. No. It look more to me like people in this thread, even those of us who are not

Hillary supporters, are providing substantive rebuttals to your argument, and you don't like it.

[EV_Ares]

48. No you haven't even made a rebuttal just the typical comments you

usually make like this one with nothing behind them.

[cali]

50. Really? Try reading posts #1, 12 and 20, and addressing the

issues I brought up, or at least tell me why they're not substantive points. I won't hold my breath. I expect you to simply make another weak personal attack, and ignore what I wrote in those posts.

[EV_Ares]

53. The only attacks are coming from you which I have to admit you seem

to do best. Goodby.

[cali]

56. You might have a better argument if

you hadn't falsely accused me if writing nothing substantial, and doing nothing but attack. And you did that several times, and were unabable to respond to the substantive points I made.

Goodbye to you as well. Have a nice day.

[cuke]

60. Very weak

but you could make it stronger by actually responding to the argument.

Face it, you use right-wing propoganda, and you don't even realize it. If you want respect, lay off the rw bs

[EV_Ares]

62. You had better lay off accusing me of using RW propoganda

and lay off the rw bs as you said because that is totally untrue and you can show me the right wing propoganda you are talkinga about. You don't threaten me.

"Face it, you use right-wing propoganda, and you don't even realize it. If you want respect, lay off the rw bs"

[FrenchieCat]

104. The point that Cali made is valid; that if you don't know who Jonah Goldberg is.....

including his history in the world of media, and what and who he represents....then you indeed have a lot of catching up to do, and it will make one wonder what else you don't know. :shrug:

FYI--Rule of thumb = Whatever Goldberg writes, the opposite is true.

He writes that the Republicans are salivating at the thought of Hillary as their GE opponent, and so you can be guaranteed that the real truth is that they, the Republicans are scared shitless that Hillary will be the candidate.

If you haven't noticed, the Media and GOP operatives are using reverse Phychology on those who would fall for such thing. The Big Clue as to I know this? For starters, they are calling Hillary "Inevitable" way too soon. This is being done in order to get the Democratic base resentful of all things Hillary (for which they are suceeding here at DU anyways!)

Same GOP folks now saying she's either great or will "rev up their own base" will be saying these things till the Iowa Caucus.....knowing that this will anger Iowa Caucus voters and the GOP "hopes" that it will push those Dems to select someone else....which is what they really want; someone else!

It really isn't as complicated as it sounds if one is intuned to the GOP methods of influencing public opinion and certain voters in order to get their way.

Seeing so many Dems fall for this is really what is scary to watch. Many of those Dems really are supporting another candidate....and so they "want" to fall for it, and are using it as the reason that Hillary should not be the nominee....instead of making the case for their own candidate.

I acknowledge that Politics is ugly......but the attitude that some DUers are maintaining against Hillary Cinton is probably the most disgusting thing that I have witnessed yet. It is not only intellectually dishonest, but their talking points really do resemble those who reside in FreeperVille!

Sad!

[EV_Ares]

126. Well FrenchieCat;

You Say: "then you indeed have a lot of catching up to do, and it will make one wonder what else you don't know."

Maybe in this specific area of Goldberg I do have some catching up to do, however, I feel very confident in my knowledge of most subjects and will not worry about your little personal slam there (what else I don't know) If it will make you all feel better I guess I should apologize to FrenchieCat, Calie & the other individual who is so upset about the Goldbergs.

However, my weakness is that I have a lot of other interests outside of DU & politics. Biking, work and volunteer work at some places where they need the assistance. Now I know why that is as it is very pleasant, satisfying and rewarding. However, I have to say that most people on this board are civilized and polite on here.

So really from the deepest part of my heart, please accept my apologies for not being a "know-all" on the Goldbergs.

As far as your upset at my so called lack of knowledge on the Goldbergs and please, do not worry about what else I might not know because really, I am ok in my knowledge of most things.

In closing, the one thing however, the other friend of yours and Cali who accused me of using Right Wing propaganda is completly 100% wrong in making that personal attack so you guys need to find something else to slam me for.

[FrenchieCat]

127. Thanks for your reply.....

and I can tell you as the mother of two, who runs an accounting business, is the wife of a minister (and active in that role), and "does" many other things, including cooking and cleaning; you may be surprised of how many posters here have lives that go way beyond posting on a political board....so you are certainly not alone in that respect. In fact, you multi tasking your way through life is not a weakness....as it is undoubtably the norm here at DU.

That being said, google is your friend. Considering the season, the messenger simply does count as equal or of more importance than the message. There will be many pundits and operatives who will attempt to steer us exactly where they want us to go. It is imperative that when considering the message, once considers the source....because at the end of the day, the last thing that we should want is to "have been hosed". :)

[EV_Ares]

128. So maybe you guys should worry more about the messenger than

being so concerned with me. That said, I appreciate your last post which was not so much in a confrontational way.

Also, have a nice day.

Thanks for the tip on Google, I do have some experience with it at work and personal use. I will try to do better.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

49. I Try To Be Nice But Fail Occasionally

Tempers are high here because it seems some folks want to stop Senator Clinton by any means necessary and that includes making an intellectual alliance of convenience with the far , far right....

Jonah Goldberg is vile...

[EV_Ares]

52. Yeah it is hard not to fail when you get the crap you do sometimes

here. I am not nor want to stop Clinton by any means necessary but it doesn't bother me to see other information. She has her good points and none of us will find the perfect candidate, positives and negatives are shared by all. It all depends on how it is presented. If you are a Hillary supporter, I can tell you this. You are doing her more good than most of her supporters on here with your attitude and non-attacking method. There are certain other supporters that can turn you completely off of Hillary.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

47. I Don't Mind Having An Intelligent Discussion

But how does it benefit DU to have a hit piece on a Democratic candidate written by a wingnut make the Greatest Page...It makes us look like jackasses... I assure you there aren't any hit pieces on Rethug candidates written by liberal writers on Freak Republic's Greatest Page...

Hate turns some people into intellectual peasants...

[EV_Ares]

51. Agree, how some things get on that page is surprising but nothing

can be done about that if it gets the votes I guess.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

54. It's On The Greatest Page Now

It's embarrassing.

[Froward69]

75. I agree

Just as blind faith turns people into intellectual peasants!

[DemocratSinceBirth]

108. I Have An Acolyte

You follow me from thread to thread...

Anybody can do a search function and see...

I'm actually quite touched...

[Froward69]

119. Your welcome

we read the same threads and Your moniker stands out. as well as i think we could become Friends. it is good to have friends that don't allow ones head get too big.?. although we disagree on whom to nominate. we do actually share a Better vision of where America should go. as well as poking fun at one another helps both of us to remain focused on the importance of this election cycle. I do hope you can appreciate that. :pals: :patriot: (edit= spell check)

[DemocratSinceBirth]

134. Ha-Peace-My Friend

It has become a moniker that stands out...Sometimes I wish I picked out one that doesn't "scream"...

Before I was Democrat Since Birth I was Dolfan Since Birth at a Miami Herald Dolphins board...That's where it comes from...

DSB

[Tactical Progressive]

93. Goldberg's absurd anti-Hillary piece helps DU

In three ways that I can think of right off the bat:

1) It shows how much alike the arguments of the Hillary-Haters on the right and the Dem-Hating-Left sound

2) It exemplifies how vacuous those arguments are, which is easier to see when it comes from an external enemy

3) It conveys just how scared Republicans are of Hillary, which should reassure Dems everywhere about Hillary


In setting out to convince Democrats that Hillary is bad for them, and that Republicans want her to be nominated, Jonah Goldberg has managed to do just the opposite on both counts. Which is a real service to Democrats and maybe an even broader audience. Thanks Jonah, for sucking so bad.

[Tom Joad]

58. the best thing about Hillary is that even if the Republicans lose, they win.

[zbdent]

59. Dick Morris would have at least 8 years of employment ...

since all he does is make up shit about Hillary ...

[flpoljunkie]

70. Yet it was Hillary who brought Dick Morris into the White House.

Payback's a bitch.

[desi]

72. No it was not..

It was the greatest president in my lifetime who did...WJC.

[zbdent]

83. and he saved Morris's career ...

and it's a shame how Morris repays him ...

[flpoljunkie]

106. "At the urging of his wife, Bill turned to Dick Morris, a controversial friend from their time..."

From The Nation: "Spinning Hillary Centrist" by Ari Berman...

Despite the risks he poses, it's easy to figure out why Hillary clings to Penn. The Clintons (like the Bushes) put a premium on loyalty, and they credit Penn with saving Bill's presidency. After the 1994 election, Democrats had just lost both houses of Congress and Clinton was floundering in the polls. At the urging of his wife, Bill turned to Dick Morris, a controversial friend from their time in Arkansas. Morris knew Penn from his days as a pollster in New York and brought him into the White House. Morris decided what to poll and Penn polled it. They immediately pushed Clinton to the right, enacting the now-infamous strategy of "triangulation," which co-opted Republican policies like welfare reform and tax cuts and emphasized small-bore issues that supposedly cut across the ideological divide. "They were the ones who said 'Make the '96 election about nothing except V-Chips and school uniforms,'" says a former Clinton adviser. When Morris got caught with a call girl, Penn became the most important adviser in Clinton's second term. "In a White House where polling is virtually a religion," the Washington Post reported in 1996, "Penn is the high priest." He became known as the "most powerful man in Washington you've never heard of."

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20070521/berman

[desi]

133. Yes of course...

Ari Berman was/is a close confidant of the President and the First Lady/Senator hence the inside info on Morris. And that's why he's writing this "flattering" ( Spinning Hillary Centrist) piece about HILLARY in May of 2007. Some people were born at night but not all of us last night.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

107. Clinton Used Morris Like A Prostitute And Discarded Him When He Was Done With Him

As Charlie Sheen famously said " I don't pay prostitutes to stay, I pay them to go."

[Name removed]

61. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[swag]

65. Metacomment: I can't believe Jonah Goldberg is on DU's "Greatest" page.

[desi]

66. I believe it..

Before it's all over we may even see Lucienne and links to her website. I notice the OP did not hang around to defend his/her "scholarship."

oh I forgot the K&R..everybody needs to see the Obama supporter's use of radical right wingnut's smear of DEMOCRATS.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

67. I Rather Cut Off My Ear Than Use Right Wing Talking Points Against Any Democrat

But that's just me...

Plus the OP is desperate...Desperate people do desperate things...

[desi]

69. Yes I have noticed the desperation

but it's always just a few "usual suspects." One must be careful of painting Obama supporters with a wide brush. To be quite frank I took the OP off ignore just to respond to this BS.

[Cameron27]

87. I know, unbelievable.

[FrenchieCat]

105. I say that it is disgusting.........

:puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke:

[FrenchieCat]

68. Geeze, when Jonah Goldberg speaks, we are supposed to listen?

It's not like his mama didn't have anything to do with attempts to bring down the Clintons the first time round, right? :sarcarsm:

and so, whatever Jonah writes......simply think just the opposite....and that will be what is truly going on. That's my advice!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucianne_Goldberg
Goldberg met Linda Tripp in the early part of the Clinton administration while assisting an author writing a book on Vince Foster. Tripp spoke with Goldberg resulting in Lewinsky bringing the tapes to her in 1997. <7> Goldberg also urged Tripp to take the tapes to Kenneth Starr and brought the tapes to the attention of people working on the Paula Jones case. <8> She started speaking to reporters about the tapes in the fall of 1997 notably Michael Isikoff of Newsweek. <9> Within days of the scandal breaking on the Drudge Report, the Democratic National Committee circulated an "information sheet" to reporters with information intended to damage Goldberg. <10> Goldberg spoke at an anti-Clinton rally organised by the Free Republic.

Although Goldberg was deeply involved in the Lewinsky scandal, Starr never subpoenaed her to testify in front of the Grand Jury. Starr never explained why he did not subpoena her.

[desi]

71. She was a dirty trickster from way back before Clinton.

I had the pleasure to sit at a college lunch with George McGovern during his "Terry: My Daughter's Life-and-Death Struggle with Alcoholism"...book tour. He spoke quite a bit about Ms. Goldberg though he did so "off the record," His signature on my book: "From one LIBERAL to another."

[DemocratSinceBirth]

73. She's Vile...

eom

[Tactical Progressive]

74. Republicans pretending they want to run against Hillary is fantastic

They are scared shitless. And since they are pretty much made of shit, their fear runs all the way through.

As to Goldberg's desperate attempts to concoct rationalizations for Dems to avoid Hillary, namely:

No Change Hillary -- Sorry, most of us know who the real agent of change will be, just like you do - it will be Hillary. That's exactly why you're terrified.

Congress is Unpopular -- uhhh, yeah... how you morph that into people don't want Hillary is unclear. Maybe you don't understand that Congress is unpopular because the change they haven't effected is that they HAVEN'T SHUT REPUBLICANS DOWN. Not because they don't like Dems.

Republicans are in extra full-force and Hillary will tip the few independents needed away to Repubs -- Republicans are decimated and it looks like more and more people are warming to Hillary. I don't know if that's the exact opposite of the fantasy world you live in, but it sure is close.

An end to the acrimony? -- There is only one solution to that problem: get Republican ugliness as far away from power in Washington as is humanly possible for as long as possible. You are the acrimony.


The Republican's fear of Hillary makes me even more committed to her Presidential ambitions. Guess your pathetic hail-mary attempt at reverse 'psychology' backfired on you, huh Jonah? I think one of us is going to be bitterly disappointed.


This is just the first stage of me enjoying Hillary's election to the Presidency of the United States - watching terrified Republicans pretending they want Hillary nominated to try to 'trick' Dems into not nominating her. ......... Oooooh! I almost fell for it.

This just made my day!

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

76. For perspective, the last Jonah Goldberg piece I read before this one said

that Patton should have kept going and conquered Russia in 1945.

For those not up on WWII history -- That is one of the stupidest thingss imaginable... a crackpot RW talking point from the late 1940s red scares. (The problem with that theory is that we would have lost, and lost horribly, in a land war with russia.)

[DemocratSinceBirth]

121. Did He Really Say That

We would have lost millions of soldiers...

FDR offered Stalin minesweeps during WW ll... Stalin said they didn't need them...They just used live soldiers...

[rinsd]

77. What's next from Obama supporters? Rush Limbaugh's thoughts?

[BootinUp]

79. lol

Its so much easier getting all our "news" and opinion in one place don't ya know.

[swag]

80. Doughy Pantload gets 7 paragraphs, when most articles we quote

are only allowed four.

[Alamom]

91. It's allowed quite frequently for one particular group in the community.nm

[zulchzulu]

96. Can anyone who disagrees give a compelling argument why this OP is wrong?

Here's the question...

Will nominating Hillary Clinton as the Democratic nominee not empower the Republican base and thus make the Presidential race much more contentious than with another candidate?

A nice summary that makes sense would be greatly appreciated. The question is certainly on the minds of many Democrats concerned about this upcoming election and wondering about the viability of having the Republicans to be able to run against two Clintons.

[rinsd]

97. So ZZ, Jonah Goldberg is right?

Should Hillary supporters post his thought on Obama? Ya know just for discussion. :eyes:

"Will nominating Hillary Clinton as the Democratic nominee not empower the Republican base"

Someone prove it will empower the base. I posted several threads seeking proof and no one has done so.

"and thus make the Presidential race much more contentious than with another candidate?"

Yes because GOpers will play nice. C'mon ZZ you have to be joking.

[zulchzulu]

100. So your answer is?

You don't think a Clinton nomination would empower the Republican base? There have been plenty of articles from Democrats worrying not only about the Republicans finally having something to get fired up for but also negative coat tails from the nomination.

These are not right wing talking points. These are realistic questions that much be examined.

[Tactical Progressive]

102. Empower? No.

Pissed off and apoplectic like when they listen to Rush's garbage rhetoric? Sure.

That will be their hobby for the next eight years.

Listen, your question is specious. You know the answers already because they've already been given a thousand times here. The right-wing will always attack that which threatens them and that which they hate - which is pretty much everything but a full-on fascist - with all the vitriol they can muster and all the lies they can get the mainstream media to peddle. That means any and every Dem that gets power. You know this, so stop pretending that it just applies to Hillary or even more to Hillary. If Hill dropped out tomorrow their anger and hatred would have to go somewhere else. Are you thinking it will go where it should, to the person they see in the mirror? You know better.

Further, there is NO BETTER BAROMETER to what is wrong than what right-wingers want, and similarly NO BETTER BAROMETER to what is right that what right-wingers hate. I think most progressives have woken up to this at least to some degree. By that measure, the more they dislike Hillary, the better she is for us and for this country. I'm not being flip; if we had a candidate that Republicans thought they 'could work with' or whatever, I'd be skeptical and worried. No such worries with Hillary, even though they'll have to say that at some point before they start sliming her.

So let them spin their hate. They will end up looking as increasingly ugly and irrelevant as they truly are. I look forward to the hate. Ideologically it means Democrats are on the right track with Hill. Practically it will help us get Hillary elected. And emotionally, it feels good.

One last thing, and DHLs need not apply. We're going to protect Hillary from these rabid monstrosities and from the media which trolls every piece of their garbage that they can get away with, unlike we did with Bill. I think they are the ones who are in for a rude awakening about who is fired up. Twenty years of this shit is enough.

[rinsd]

103. Its not about rw talking points, no one has demonstrated that Hillary will increase turnout.

It is simply repeated as CW with no proof other than statement that the GOP hates her.

Same with the coattails notion. Its is simply repeated without proof.

Did GOP turnout rise when she ran in 2000? How about 2006? Did GOP turnout rise in 1996?

We actually have chance to gather some data to measure her impact. The RNC has started using Hillary and her huge warchest in their fundraising materials this quarter. We can see how the fundraising was effected.

[NYCGirl]

99. Yeah, it's written by Jonah Goldberg, which is wrong in so many ways.

I wouldn't believe him if he said the Earth was round.

[flpoljunkie]

109. The Hillaries cannot. That is why they are attacking the messenger here, not the message.

[rinsd]

110. Because Jonah Goldberg's message has value?

:puke:

[jefferson_dem]

112. Of course it has value.

How anyone can actually argue that Hillary would not embolden the Republican base is beyond me. Sorry...that's simply a given (CW = truth). Whether she could drum up enough support to overcome or at least offset that is another matter.

[rinsd]

114. CW=truth? C'mon now surely you have better,

[jefferson_dem]

116. ...

In this instance. Sure.

You honestly think she would not embolden their base...more than any other candidate?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

118. I Always Saw Al Gore As A Rather Benign Figure

Look what the Reich Wing did to him in 00 and despise him today...

If we nominated Jesus Christ, the Rethuglicans including the right wing evangelicals would crucify him again...

[Froward69]

120. again I agree

[BootinUp]

111. I'm getting close

to sending you to my ignore box. Not that you care, but thats a description of the level you have stooped imho.

[FrenchieCat]

113. The message was written by the messenger, and he has an agenda.....

and it ain't the same one as Democrats.

That's the problem with this OP.

[SaveElmer]

122. Because there isn't a shred of evidence in it...

Simply right wing (and left wing) conventional wisdom rehashed in editorial form...

He throws figures around which just came out of his ass...are not based on anything but the right wing perception of Hillary...and sad to say, a significant portion of the left as well

However, there is a good body of evidence which counters Goldberg's arguments, not the least of which how well Hillary is polling in several heretofore solidly red states (my home state of Virginia being one of them)...

If the right wing were truly interested in running against Hillary, they would keep their mouths shut...

Look at the suspicion generated here when any Republican remotely says anything nice about Hillary...

In any case, what possible reason should Democrats care about what Republicans think. Even if Goldberg's assertion were true...the Republicans are idiots...all one has to do is look at how things are going for them to see that.

If there is anyone in this country about that I could care less what Republicans are saying about...it is Hillary Clinton...

[zalinda]

124. If what you say is true, then why

is the MSM promoting her like crazy. It's Clinton, all the time, fewer times Obama and even less Edwards. Why? We know that the media is held by the RW. We know that most people don't pay attention to politics. We know that people are swayed by TV and newspapers. People will vote for people who advertise the most, that is similar to what they want. So, again, why is the MSM media promoting her?

I have many other whys, about her. Her health care WILL NOT end private insurance or get to single payer insurance. And then there is her vote on Iran, that is the biggest why. Triangulation may have worked before repubs got so mean and stubborn, but now I don't think it will. I worry that she will divide the nation more, and will not be the real change that we need. I do know that my mother will not vote for her, she hates Bill Clinton (she and I don't know why, it is visceral) and that hatred will transfer to Hillary. She also hates Bush, but hates Clinton more.

I have too many questions, to give Clinton a pass. None of these questions have ever been answered. She have never answered questions directly. She is a "pig in a poke". I want to know who I am voting for, and if they are breaking election promises, with her, I won't be able to tell.

zalinda

[FrenchieCat]

129. Hillary is being promoted because the MSM understands that this

type of Promotion (touting the "Inevitability" of any candidate) angers the Dem Base voters and gives them a reason to have resolve to prove the MSM wrong....that's why.

The MSM and anyone who actually understands "political manipulation" and "how to influence public opinion) clearly knows that Dem activists will get more and more angry the more a particular candidate is proclaimed a winner before even a single vote has been cast. The MSM is betting that voters will become that much more determined to teach the MSM a lesson and do the exact opposite of what the MSM has pronounced.

Soooo when the MSM promotes Hillary, it is NOT to help her get elected, but instead it is to make sure that she will be defeated. You must keep in mind that the media is not so simplistic as to promote who they really want to win (until a few days before the voting begins in earnest).

Do not underestimate the media's skill at manipulation, as they are good at this game, and they will be damned if the netroot beats them at it....and IF the MSM wanted Sen. Clinton to win......they would not have promoted her as "inevitable" so early in the game.

It is elementary. It is reverse phychology 101.....and many are falling for it.

[zalinda]

131. Really, if that was true then why advertise at all?

The more you advertise a product the more the product sells. It's recognition value. We, the netroots aren't really important in the scheme of things. We are marginalized even by our party, do you think the MSM thinks we are any more important then a bug on the floor? Reverse psychology, I don't think so, they know advertising. Advertising works, that's what they sell, that's what they know.

Later in the campaign, we may see reverse psychology from the Rovians, but I even doubt that. Just look at the Swift Boat Ads, no reverse psychology there. They advertised that Kerry was weak and a coward, and I'll be damned if we still hear that message even today, here on DU. What was brilliant about the ad was that it was so blatant that every network, big or small played that ad, a number of nights in a row. And no matter what Kerry would have said after that, the message would have not gotten as much play as that ad.

It is "catapulting the propaganda", that is what the RW is good at. I don't think they think any further than telling the lie, over and over again. They have gotten away with it for over 8 years, why do you think they would change now, since it has worked so well for them.

zalinda

[FrenchieCat]

132. Think Howard Dean in October of 2003.....and you will find your answer.....

He was also "Inevitable" in 2003......and that was according to the MSM, not necessarily the netroots.

In fact, John Edwards made that very point about Howard Dean in his statement that Hillary was not inevitable. http://thenolan.wordpress.com/2007/10/09/edwards-asked-about-the-inevitability-of-hillary/

Problem with John Edwards' statement though, is that he didn't really give the media any credit in their complicity of deep sixing Howard Dean back in 2004.

The Point is that Howard Dean was only as "Inevitable" as the Press said he was, for the amount of time that the press determined.

Your example of John Kerry is a bad one as it actually bolsters my point in that he was first touted as "a goner" by the media in late 2003...with "revival" publicity two weeks before the Iowa vote. Then he was called most "electable" all the way from Iowa till the end of the Dem Primary. It was only AFTER the Dem nominee was decided and had won that the Swiftboaters showed up for the party....and not one day prior.

NETWORKS ANOINTED KERRY, EDWARDS BEFORE IOWA DID
Study: Iowa Caucus Victors Received 98 Percent Positive Coverage
WASHINGTON, DC—Prior to their surprising Iowa caucus performances, 98 percent of the network evening news coverage of Democratic Presidential candidates John Kerry and John Edwards was positive, according to research conducted by the Center for Media and Public Affairs (CMPA). The study also found Howard Dean received more critical coverage over the same time period, at 58 percent positive.
<>
OTHER MAJOR FINDINGS:

Golden Boys Get Midas Touch-Not one person quoted by the networks had anything critical to say about North Carolina Senator John Edwards (100 percent favorable coverage) in the two and half weeks leading up to the Iowa caucus, while 96 percent of the evaluations of Massachusetts Senator John Kerry were positive.
http://www.cmpa.com/pressReleases/NetworksAnointedKerryEdwards.htm

My point is that Hillary is being sold down the river as we speak by the media....cause it is after-all Dems that vote in primaries, not Republicans. And so there is not upside for Hillary Clinton to have Right Wingers and their corporate media push and promote her prematurely in an election where the only folks who vote are those who don't much like what the RW and their operative media have to say.

The media has been purposefully overexposing Sen. Clinton, and it ain't because they want her to win. They are betting on Clinton fatigue....and from the sound of many on this board, they just might get what it is that they are aiming for.

Like I have said before, some of us are being hosed but simply don't want to know it.

[Catherine Vincent]

130. The media is "promoting" Senator Clinton is because she is the first serious

woman that may actually become President. Not because she's a Clinton or a Democrat, imo.

[onenote]

125. Jonah Goldberg has opinons on a lot of things. I don't think I've ever agreed with any of them.

If you thnk he's right on this, what else do you think he's right about.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonah_Goldberg

[bagimin]

141. What qualifies this asshole to attempt to write a column?

lordy mama.

[illinoisprogressive]

144. Hillary's main accomplishment and why she is even in her postion is nepotism

[CyberPieHole]

145. Why would you quote a vile RW crackpot?

Because you like what he says about a Democratic candidate whom you do not support? He also wrote this article for the LA Times (October 19, 2006):

Jonah Goldberg: Iraq Was a Worthy Mistake
We know now that invading Iraq was the wrong decision, but that doesn't vindicate the antiwar crowd.

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/sunday/la-oe-goldberg19oct19,0,7691039.column?coll=la-util-opinion-sunday

I don't believe ANYTHING Goldberg has to say.