But if she makes clear that our Middle East policy -- from top to bottom -- needs to be revised

Is it politically possible for any candidate to take this stance, given AIPAC?

I absolutely agree that anyone who does...is the real deal.

Gonna pray on that.

Yes, supporting vigorous US diplomacy to implement the two-station solution would cost her nothing.

Hillary is big enough and powerful enough that no single lobby can stop her. Yes, she'd lose some of the right wing donors. But she'd pick up alot more on the left (Hollywood, for instance).

"...the rest of their field is no better."

Did you see Huckabee on the Daily Show? That man SCARES me. He's the kind of person to put a sugary coating on the fundamentalist pill that makes it easy going down.

J. McCutchen

The Other Man From Hope! The one with the Rodney King act. Too nice for the hard right wingers

LOL...well right now I am pulling for the darkest of the dark horses, Chris Dodd, which might just be some "state pride" on my part.  He is the only democratic senator from my state, lol.  I find him to be on the correct side of the issues more often than HRC.  Right now I am still very bullish on Hillary.  And I don't know enough of Obama's positions to make an informed decision on him.

DODD IN '08!!! ;)

(But right now I know I am in a very small minority in terms of support) 

There's a big problem lurking below the horizon for Hillary. Wild Bill screwed up in a major way on a matter of national security in Bosnia -- if you accept that a President is responsible for what happens under his command.

The damage from the incident hasn't been revealed yet but is known to some Republicans formerly on the intelligence committees (Porter Goss)as well
by Melvin Dubee (Jay Rockefeller's guy). If it comes out, the country may decide they can do without the Clintons. Certainly Wes Clark is toast.

One thing, though MJ. The Republicans wrote the book on how to attack the Clintons. And I would bet Hillary polled lower than Bill as far as popularity throughout.

Even when Democrats were pissed at Bill, even they blamed Hillary.

So, yes, you are correct that the right will have a field day. They will make Hillary bashing the new Bush bashing, regardless of merit.

Ken Starr will become a Fox News analyst. Newt will forget his own politcal ambitions and take up "the cause" again. Whitewater and Monica will be big stories all over again. They will dig up Vince Foster for Forensic Files.

I like Hillary, too. As a person. As a First Lady. As a Senator. But her candidacy, I fear, will rip the party apart.

One of my enduring and un-endearing memories of Bill Clinton is the comment he made about "picking up a gun and getting into the trenches to defend Israel" or something along those lines. He ran off and avoided the draft when his country was at war, but Israel, now, that would be different. Anyway, a look at his donor list, which Hillary largely inherited, showed why he would make such a panderous statement. Hillary won't be an honest broker in the sense Carter was -- a no-bullshit, down-the-middle dealmaker -- because she can't afford to be. Quite literally. Maybe in her second term, when she's looking to cement some kind of legacy we'll see some kind of progress, although I'm not holding my breath. By then, it might be Chelsea's time to map out a political future.

In this, Hillary's no different from any other viable Democratic politician, and with the rise of the crazy "Christian Zionist" movement, Republicans are no better. If that's a central issue for you, Kucinich is your only choice.

Personally, I gave up on the issue long ago. Peace won't be made (as opposed to established) there until Israel decides to do so (when the Palestinians accept that they are a "beaten people", according to one Israeli general), the Arabs/Muslims build an effective lobby in the United States, or some other power appears on the scene to act as a balance to the U.S. (without the competitive threat of the Soviet Union as an influence on U.S. policy, Israel would almost certainly still be occupying the Sinai, for example). Again, I'm not holding my breath.

In a recent Newsweek poll Clinton, Obama and Edwards all beat McCain. Rudy Guiliani beat Clinton and Obama. Edwards beat Guiliani. In fact, Edwards beat Guiliani pretty handily. It is 20 months out so everything is still in play, the incessant drumbeat of Hillary's divine inevitability not with standing.

There are millions of people who will not vote for Hillary no matter how many times the elites and members of the MSM click their heels together and repeat "I think Hillary can win. I think Hillary can win. I think Hillary can win."

Personally, I think Hillary might be this year's safe candidate who "can win," just like "President" Kerry.

On behalf of all of us who thought we lived in a country where any kid could work hard and grow up to be president, can we have a change from "Bush, Clinton, Bush, Clinton." Please.

The poll can be found at:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16720627/site/newsweek/

Ron Byers

Oh, boy. How anti-climactic waiting for drivel like that about how You-Know-Her "looks" as she again says nothing of significance. I could have sworn I heard Bob Shrum whispering more expensive free advice to her just off camera. And from her sorry, non-existent back-bench Senate "record," I'd have to say that she knows a whole lot more about joining Republicans than beating them. Also, given her chickenhawk glaring and clucking for ever more Warfare Welfare and Makework Militarism, she could use a new title for her retread little book about villages and what takes them (or vice versa): namely, "It takes destroying Muslim villages to save them." We need someone else and better.

What are you talking about? Seriously.

Ah, the benefits of nepotism and sexism!

If Hillary Clinton were a man, and if her last name were not Clinton, yet she had the same views, positions and legislative history not one actual Democrat would take her seriously as a candidate.

Would you be willing to cast your primary vote for somebody who was among the most hawkish Dems on the war, refused to call their vote for the AUMF a mistake, supports amendments to the Constitution that criminalize the terrible and oh so common act of flag burning, constantly rails against the evil effects of popular culture, kisses up to those who want to commingle religion and government, is in the grip of corporate interests, has no defined position on single payer health care but is guaranteed to look out for insurance companies, is a long time part of the DLC and is known for taking positions only after making sure they are accepted by what they think are the majority of the public, or at the very least not going to be controversal, if their name was John Smith?

If you would, would you vote for Joe Lieberman for President? Wait a minute, Joe is a least willing to take an unpopular stand in favor of expanding the war. Oh, that was only after he was re-elected. Sorry.

If the answer to the questions above is "yes." than I would like to be in a different party than you.

I have read a few of these favorable reviews and comments about Hillary today. They are all along the lines of "more friendly and less of a vicious harpie than the usual portrayals would have it". I haven't seen one good argument based on the substance of her positions or her agenda for the country.

Hillary does little to impress me. However, I think she is probably going to get the nomination - and that's a tragedy.

As I've said elsewhere regarding anti-abortion radicals and Hillary's presidency....

Do you really want Hillary to not be able to spy on those lunatics, to not be able to take the pliers to their toes, to not be able to disappear them in Gitmo? Hell, I want her to be able to do all that!

Yes I want her NOT to be able to do that.

I want her to NOT be able to listen in on intimate and personal conversations.

I want her to NOT be able to torture people.

I want her to NOT be able to vanish people.

Anyone. We are all Americans.

If we need to stop them we use the tools of law enforcement and investigative work. We do not go outside and around the Constitution. There are evils associated with NOT being able to do these things, but the evils associated with BEING ABLE to do them are far far worse. We can always take rights away, gaining them back often requires the spilling of blood.

Her Presidency might well rip the country (rather than the party) apart even if she is faultless in the matter. Things almost always go wrong in unexpected ways in any 4 or 8 years and the post-election venom would begin before she is worn in. Any and every Democratic President will face that, but (for reasons I've never fully understood) she will face it all the more. Ken Starr will not be on FOX if CNN outbids them (if they hired Glenn Beck they will hire anyone).

global citizen

I can aremember a time, long, long ago, when voters decided on who would be the Democratic candidate based upon "electability". They decided that someone controversial wouldn't do, when there was a "safe" choice available. So they picked that safe choice and, history records that the reign of President Kerry was an exceedingly brief one. The moral of that story: the Primary election cycle is where we all get the opportunity to vote for who we feel will be the best president as we see it. Electability is not the issue then, nor is it wrong to opt out by "sending a message". During the primary we can shape the party to be more like we want it to be. So, I suggest that we not worry about what the Republicans will say about whomever our candidate turns out to be. They have a way of finding things to say about whomever that is. It would be helpful though, if we didn't write their script for them.

Hoppy in Sacramento

I think Hillary is radioactive, and that may be her best asset.

If she's the nominee the right wing will go nuts, mindlessly nuts. They will be incoherent with hatred. Hillary can expose and isolate the irrational right better than anyone. And we need to do that. We need the rest of the electorate to understand just how far off the deep end 30% of the population really is. And no one can push them further off the deep end than Hillary. We need Ken Star and Newt (and dozens of others) showing us just how freakin' scary they really are.

We're still 340+ days from Iowa. A lot can happen between now and then. My negative on Hillary is that I don't have a clue what she REALLY believes. Will the real Hillary Clinton please stand up! If the pack of democratic candidates can reposition the center more to the left, maybe Hillary will feel safe in exposing that she's really to the left of Kucinich, who knows, right now we don't!

Also, in 340+ days there are going to be hearings, hearings, and more hearings. How battered will the Republican party be by then? Iraq will either fall into hell head first or be ruled by a Grand Ayatollah by then. Either way - ShameOnWho? Shame on the fruitcake fringe of the Republican party, the very lunatics that will be attacking Hillary the hardest.

Excellent post MJ!

"The situation is excellent, there is chaos everywhere, opportunity abounds" - Zhou Enlai

Sorry MJ, but I see zero room for optimism that HRC will deviate from what in the other thread, you called "the line". That is all she has done on that issue since she became a politician in her own right.

I agree with you that the acid test will be Iran. I'm not holding my breath.

Huh?

And we need to do that. We need the rest of the electorate to understand just how far off the deep end 30% of the population really is. And no one can push them further off the deep end than Hillary. We need Ken Star and Newt (and dozens of others) showing us just how freakin' scary they really are.  

 If George W Bush has not shown how far off the deep end his faithful 30% is, there is not another human who can.  Why do you say Hillary would be the one to do it?  Because they will excoriate her unfairly and then all the other voters will see the light?  Based on what experience?

Look at Kerry, the war hero, brought down with the help of Vietnam veterans in favor of an AWOL drunken coward!   The problem with depending on Newt is that he speaks professorily and makes people who don't do their own reading (or reasoning) think he must be right about the issues.

I saw him on a book tour, and he accused Al Gore of using scare tactics to prove his points about Global Warming!  He backed it up with a bunch of drivel and wasn't challenged at all!  How any Republican can accuse ANY Democrat of using scare tactics without choking is beyond me!

So, I guess I disagree with your premise that by sending a nominee that will inflame the 30% is a good thing -- that it will bring everyone else to their senses -- nope! 

And secondly, there are plenty of moderates that detest Hillary.  I am a yellow-dog Democrat and I think she is a terrible candidate, would be an awful president, and I agree with the poster above that  -- with the same record of accomplishments -- if she were a man named John Smith she would not even be a consideration.

I know this is not a substantive criticism, but when she uses what I call her "boy voice," rocks her head slowly, and speaks her platitudes she reminds me of the worst stereotype of a politician portrayed in anti-political movies.  Superficial or not, I am not the only person reacts negatively to the way she projects; it doesn't inspire trust any more than her wishy-washy record.

Jan Knaus

Hillary Clinton has one advantage over her rivals.

She has been investigated to death by partisan prosecutors and congressional committees. She has been demonized 24/7 by the Right Wing Noise Machine. She has been portrayed in the press as a power hungry conniving bitch.

This caricature can work to her benefit. When she appears on TV she comes across as a reasonable, moderate and articulate person. She doesn't have her husband's personal warmth but she is not the Satan she has been portrayed. The contrast between the caricature and the real person works to her advantage.

One weakness she has is giving speeches in front of large crowds. She will never be as good as her husband but she can take lessons and significantly improve her style.

 "I'm sick and tired of having to hold my nose when voting for a Democratic candidate for president, aren't you?"

People who thought like you voted for Nader and gave us the Bush Presidency.

I will vote for any Democrat against any Republican.

It is very simple. When you vote for a GOP candidate for president (or a Nader) you are voting not just for him but for the entire GOP power structure. You are voting for Dobson, neocons, WSJ editorial page, Federalist Society, etc. You are putting the GOP Oligarchy in power.

My negative on Hillary is that I don't have a clue what she REALLY believes.

OK Kache, here's my take: What Hillary really believes is that the most important thing in life is power. And I don't mean she believes in the instrumental value of power for the purpose of doing good. Oh no. It's just the ruthless, mindless, frenzied, cynical pursuit of personal power in itself that makes her world go round.

Why do people like Hillary want power? Well silly, they want power because that's what super-smart, super-achieving, super-people do to prove their super-superiority over the rest of us. They climb and claw and destroy and win. The achievement of status and power is the only thing that morally and spiritually empty human shells like Hillary have left to prove to themselves that they still actually exist, and to supply themselves with the transient daily hits of self-worth they need to stave off for one more day the crushing perception of their own mortality and emptiness.

Of course, we will soon learn from the media how Hillary is a warm and good, grounded, all-American family values girl who is really attached to her roots in Chicago Boston New Haven Arkansas Washington New York.

Hillary's ideology is "vote for me". Her devotion is to whatever temporary combination of money and influence and positions-of-the-moment can get her the position she craves.

But Hillary will appeal to a certain number of people: all those lost souls who are drawn like moths to the glare of worldly success and victory. That includes a lot of of those lonely hyper-meta-uber-self-reflexive "activists" whose driving emotions are resentment, anger and humiliation, and who occupy themselves in narcissistic fascination with the reality-show drama of their own interior and exterior struggle against a world of enemies - but who can't seem to figure out what they actually want to do once they defeat those enemies. At least for them there is the consolation of winning.

Maybe that's all we really have left in savage and atomized modern America - the cheap thrill of winning itself. Everything in life - the singing of songs, the preparation of food, the wearing of clothes, the selection of a mate, the buying of a home, the rearing of children - is now a competition.

How would that be helpful, Hoppy?

OK, I'm going to post this same reply every time one of you True Believer Party Faithful trots out that little canard.

In the first place, it's not true. Gore won in Florida. The SCOTUS stole the election from us. So don't try to blame Nader voters for something that didn't happen.

In the second place, those people voted for someone they believed in. That is both their right and their duty as American citizens. Don't blame the Nader voters. Blame the Bush voters. They are the ones who gave us Bush. Where do you have get nerve to claim that the Democratic Party owns the franchise for every non-Wingnut in the USA?

In the third place, if you knew what a monster the Compassionate Conservative would turn out to be, why didn't you tell those Nader voters? Also please reply to this comment with the name of the 2008 Republican nominee.

Finally, the American electorate managed to put Monkey Man back into office again four years later without much help from Mr. Nader. Who do you wanna blame for that one?

So how many SCI clearances do you have, mjshep? Assuming more than 0, how do you propose to raise the security level of this forum above unclas?

I gave you names above to check before the Democratic Party drives over the cliff (yet again ) by crowning Hillary without doing due diligence.

It occurs to me that ole Porter is unlikely to talk --even after that sudden "resignation" of his -- so try checking with a former staffer of his , John Stopher, who is still on HPSCI.

I don't think HPSCI has yet moved into that Fuhrer Bunker that's being build under the East Lawn, so John Stopher should still be up under the dome of the Capitol, Room 405B.

To get there, go to the middle of the Capitol basement (aka the Crypt), look behind the pillar for a door marked "Authorized Personnel Only" , go through the door and take the elevator up.

Turn left off the elevator, follow the curving hall around until it splits. Take the right hand split and go into the small room with the guard's desk , the leather sofa, and the bookcase with items of tribute from minor nations. Go past the Guard's desk , open the steel door, and go into the small theater. The one with rows of square seats (similar to the ones in airline first class) that are --or used to be --upholstered in blue leather. With curving blond wood benches in front of them to serve as writing surfaces. Ask for John.

Back in 2000, I would have suggested that you check with John Stopher's boss, John Millis, but John Millis isn't there anymore: See http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A4896-2000Jun6&notFound=true

True, but as it stands now, the White House will be inhabited by a Democrat in 2008. Even a moderate, unspectacular candidate like John Edwards would have a leg up on anyone the GOP can bring; especially McCain.

Hillary Clinton, however, would likely be a disaster. It has nothing to do with her ability to lead. Perhaps I should have clarified in my above post that I in no way feel that she is unqualified to hold the office of president. I was merely pointing out that nobody and nothing will rally the GOP base better than Hillary getting the Democratic nomination.

Think of the American south. There will be people who normally wouldn't vote who will go to the polls just to vote AGAINST Hillary.

Not to be forgotten in all of this is the Democratic primary season and convention.

It is going to be contentious to say the least. The Democratic contenders will have such a leg up on their Republican adversaries that the true battle might just take place within the party itself.

And they're off (their rockers, yet again). With good Democrats like the ones who've posted in this thread in the party, the media will certainly think twice before pushing their negative scripts about yet another Dem candidate. Hillary, get out there and run. The "netroots," with all their intelligence, historical knowledge, and keen appreciation of electoral strategy, have your back.

I voted against her in the Democratic primary in New York. I participated in the under vote in New York when the election came along (I admit I wouldn't have done this if I thought she was at risk). I don't recall what I did 6 years ago, but I opposed her candidacy 6 years ago. I am not an opportunistic opponent. I have thought she is a DINO from the early 90s. I opposed her husband's candidacy, another DINO.

Your righteousness is misplaced. She is not the right candidate. The anointment by a dead Moynihan, himself a flawed character, doesn't make her the best candidate.

Moynihan is implicated in the current financial mess in Social Security.  Those few that understand this mess realize that the problem with Social Security is that its REGRESSIVE taxes have OFFSET PROGRESSIVE income taxes since the 1980s.  In the middle of the next decade, PROGRESSIVE income taxes are going to have to be raised to REPAY this arrangement.

You may recall reading something about the growing income gap between rich and the middle class.  Here is a little part that no one seems to notice.  WHY HAVE the Republicans been so manic to RESTRUCTURE taxes and GUT Social Security?  When the PROGRESSIVE income taxes go UP in 3-10 years, you will see them howl.

Who gave 'em this 30 year break?  Daniel Patrick Moynihan. 

My, what a nice little straw man you built there! I like the corncob pipe and, where did you find the straw hat? I even notice the great makeup job you did on the face. So, now that you have slain that dreadful creature for us, what will be the next act?

Ah, I know - when, in 2012 the Democrats nominate, Osama bin Laden as presidential candidate, then......

Hoppy in Sacramento

But Hillary will appeal to a certain number of people: all those lost souls who are drawn like moths to the glare of worldly success and victory. That includes a lot of of those lonely hyper-meta-uber-self-reflexive "activists" whose driving emotions are resentment, anger and humiliation, and who occupy themselves in narcissistic fascination with the reality-show drama of their own interior and exterior struggle against a world of enemies - but who can't seem to figure out what they actually want to do once they defeat those enemies. At least for them there is the consolation of winning.

DanK, I was with you up until here. I believe that Hillary's appeal is as the age-old universal 'underdog'. She is pitted against the 'good ol boy network, vast right-wing conspiracy, and the ever present chauvinistic  male power structure that dominates American culture.. What she represents is someone who has succeeded, despite those huge odds, and who knows how to wield power right along with the big fellas when  it is politically expedient while achieving her policy and personal goals. People with power who do not understand power, fail abysmally...look no further than GWBush.

 Needless, to say, there are men who also have failed when going up against these big dogs and they too root for Hillary knowing how remarkable her achievements are. Women also find her success inspiring, even while they may not have agreed with all the means, they get that her methods succeed and personally understand the odds.. So what she ends up representing to many of her supporters is someone who has the strength of character and strategic vision to win against the dominate power structure.

Lastly, underdogs tend to be trailblazers. In order to be a trailblazer you have to win..so yes winning is key, not as a consolation but out of necessity.

I surprise you because I'm interested in arguing from the basis of fact? That's hardly a compliment, is it?

Go forth, my son, and do the same.

I'm going to assume that you also intended no ill-will with your last sentence here; but let me suggest that your diplomacy could use a little sharpening.

Another slice of advice -- Avoid this line while on a date: "Gee, your breath isn't nearly as bad as everybody says!"