Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity
About Chris Cillizza  |  On Twitter: The Fix and The Hyper Fix  |  On Facebook  |  On YouTube  |  RSS Feeds RSS Feed

Clinton Courts Blogosphere

New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton has pulled off a major coup in her evolving relationship with the liberal blogosphere.

She has hired Peter Daou, author of the Daou Report (a blog on and the director of blog operations for the 2004 presidential campaign of Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry. Daou will join Clinton's senate race fundraising committee, "Friends of Hillary."

In a post announcing his new job, Dauo said that "as a true believer in the importance of [blogs], I'm thrilled about Senator Clinton's interest in building this bridge with the online community and I intend to do everything I can to make it as productive as possible." As a "blog advisor" to Clinton, Daou will seek "to facilitate and expand her relationships with the netroots," he said.

Asked about Daou's hiring, Howard Wolfson, a spokesman for Clinton, said only: "We are delighted to welcome Peter aboard. He will be a huge asset."

Clinton's reputation in the progressive blog movement needs some polishing. Her refusal to apologize for her vote in favor of the 2002 use of force resolution against Iraq and subsequent opposition to imposing a timetable for withdrawal of American forces has turned many liberals in the party against her. And, while a number of her potential rivals for the presidential nomination in 2008 attended the Yearly Kos gathering in Las Vegas last month, Clinton skipped it.

Clinton's decision to bring on Daou -- coupled with the hiring of Jesse Berney, another liberal blogger -- shows a recognition on her behalf that blogs will play a crucial role in choosing the 2008 Democratic nominee and that she has work to do in the courtship of this increasingly important interest group.

The Senator from New York is not the first potential presidential candidate to pluck a prominent blogger for her staff. Ex-Virginia Gov. Mark Warner has hired on Jerome Armstrong, creator of the "MyDD" blog as a consultant to his campaign and de facto liason to the blogging world.

Given the increased focus on the influence of blogs, expect more moves like these in the coming months as ambitious Democrats try to make nice with the netroots.

By Chris Cillizza  |  June 26, 2006; 5:26 PM ET
Categories:  Eye on 2008  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Mich. Gov.: Democrats Fight Back
Next: Utah an Early Test on Immigration


FYI, my ticket is Clinton/Clark 08 or Clark/Clinton 08.

Posted by: CMJ | August 18, 2006 9:19 PM | Report abuse

Back in 2004 the Republicans were claiming that Howard Dean was their "dream opponent."

So, the Democrats believed it and elected a "War hero"- John. F. Kerry.

They claimed he was electable, and Dean would come across as too angry for the American people.

Its on record that Karl Rove was most worried about a Dean 2008 candidacy. GOOGLE IT. As soon as Kerry stated that knowing what he knows now, that he would still have chosen to invade Iraq - Rove claims he knew Bush would be re elected.

Stop playing into the GOPs hands and electing someone that has no charisma (I.E. Kerry, Bayh, Warner).

BUSH motivates his base, and besides the whiney idiots on the blogs who don't represent the views of ALL Democrats - Hillary Rodham Clinton will motivate the Democratic base.

Her and President Clinton are the only ones who can beat the Republican Spin Machine. HRC will not be swiftboated, she'll respond aggressively...and she would also have Bill Clinton's advice and support.

You can sit here and type on your little computers all you want about how much people hate Hillary Clinton - I'm sure people do. But those same people won't vote for a Democrat anyway, they will find an excuse not to vote for Warner, Bayh, or Edwards.

Stop trying to push candidates you see as "electable"... its not working.

Despite Bush's drug abuse problems...the GOP embraced him and got behind him 100%.

They won - twice.

Its time Democrats learn how to stop bickering, and begin uniting behind their candidates. Instead of saying I'll support whoever the nominee is, many you say your going to stay home if your nominee isn't elected. What kind of BS is that? I think Edwards is a weak candidate because of his lack of experience. I also believe that Bayh is too boring of a candidate, almost a combination of Gore and Kerry. Warner will NOT help in the South as many of you claim. However, I will vote for whoever the Democrats nominate because the Republicans have failed. I hope that when it comes down to it, all of you will too.

Posted by: CMJ | August 18, 2006 9:17 PM | Report abuse


I know Marky is a tool, and he's so far off the political path, he's clueless.

See, he's dreaming up them stupid ideals, and none of you question it's direction, let alone reasoning (he's not even an ideologue, and you guys are let around the nose as bad as the Neo-Cons are -- without question!).

Yeah, I know about Daily Kos, I was posting there. But the twerps don't know anything but their own navel gazing. Nor do they realize those on the Right don't like Bush either. What's Marky and crews' prescription? Ban such talk (yep, censorship is alive and well there for these so-called "free speech advocates", and they're bridge burners).

Now I'm waiting for his little empire to face what all empires face: it either being raided by a more powerful force, or it goes the Nero route, and decays from within with all it's "Bread and Circuses".

So don't come back to me not knowing the landscape. Been there, done that and saw through his operation.

When your rights are gone, and Marky is in prison, it's too late to stem the tide. All over partisanship, all out of ignorance, and all because the tool milked you dry.


Posted by: SandyK | July 1, 2006 1:20 AM | Report abuse

"This is how I view the Daily Kos. They claim to know how it feels to be the underdog and all, but really don't understand the very people they claim they want to represent. The Dems I know aren't college types, nor can afford Starbucks."

Where do you get off characterizing 80,000+ members and far more lurkers? There are a lot of dirt-poor people on Kos, too, though it's not something most people like to brag about. When was the last time you heard someone say online, "I'm unemployed, my brother embezzled $11,000 from me before his kid stole my CC info, my formerly-perfect credit rating is ruined due to the fallout, I need a new power wheelchair but Medicare won't cover the one my doctor agrees would serve me best, my electric bill is late, I let my homeowners lapse and I have no idea if I will need to go to the food shelf before my food-stamp-card is valid again and I cannot afford to live in my house beyond June 2008 because I have a crummy ARM which will double my payment."

There - is that better? Are you glad that there's a Kossack who is so poor she can't even think of not being depressed at any time anywhere in the future? Do you think every Kossack lives in a NYC classic six on 66th or on the Puget Sound?

It is of no value whatsoever to go on ad nauseum about POOR POOR ME. There are a couple Kossacks who do, and I wish only the worst on them as they do nothing for political discourse.

A liberal can only wear a halo so long. Eventually BushCo wins, but not without the help of the general American populace, who comments constantly on that which s/he does not know, and in so doing lies and lies and lies. The "everyman" version of right-wing radio is a blog full of posters who post about people they do not know. Your all-out-wrong assumptions explain why no good candidate will ever penetrate the collective skull of the uninformed majority.

Many people who use DailyKos are able to access more stories than any one newspaper can provide. The combined knowledge of candidates, national and local, is more than I can find at the DCCC & DNC as people on blogs cover the netroots candidates, many of whom are now winning primaries over DCCC/DSCC endorsees. Next up, Ned Lamont? Connecticut will benefit and so will the country and the party if so.

Posted by: Anonymous | June 29, 2006 11:17 PM | Report abuse

SandyK says:

"The thing is Kos shouldn't never talked about his money making on the ads. That opens him up to such criticism as folks do their own Rathergate style digging on him for a change. That he would explode in rage over the deal, shows he's not (if ever) ready for prime time, or playing hardball on himself (which politicos have to bear or wash out of the game).

It's Kos and his like that will sink the Democratic party faster than even Neo-Con style Swiftboating campaigns. They're like a cancer, that eats the core from the inside out. Worse they're their own cannibalizing themselves."

WOW. You obviously have no knowledge whatsoever about DailyKos or Markos. If there's anyone who has energized Democrats (and maintains a place where we can all link to breaking news, discuss it, discuss candidates etc. etc.) more on a civilian level I am unaware of that person. Markos might be almost too level-headed for me; I tend to go into attack mode when I see the words of an idiot and Kos does not.

He must be significant -- people who know nothing are talking about him. Lies are flying. That has always indicated to me that there is a perceived threat.

I can only conclude from your posts that you are a rightwingnut posing as a...well, hard to hide what you are, apparently.

Posted by: Samantha | June 29, 2006 10:38 PM | Report abuse

Peter Daou was NOT Director of Blog Operations for Kerry's 2004 campaign.

You're going to want to correct that Chris. Ask Peter directly if this is true or not.

Posted by: Casey Morris | June 27, 2006 12:39 PM


Agreed with Casey. I was an early adapter and a blogger for the Kerry '04 campaign. The Blog master was Richard Bell, who I worked with daily to the very last day of the campaign.

Please check your facts.

Posted by: Fe Bongolan | June 29, 2006 6:32 PM | Report abuse

The Democrats and the liberals must be shaking in their boots out of fear that Condi might indeed be on the ballot for 2008.

She is equal to McCain and Rudy Giuliani on every national poll at 20%. (Nader would have begged for even 15%) So the people of the United States CLEARLY see Condi as a contender for president.

Condi represents the party of Lincoln, and in case you all forgot, it was the Republicans in Congress which gave African-Americans full rights of citizenship and the right to vote. You also need to remember that the first THREE black members of the United States Senate were all Republicans. Also, most of the elected black members of Congress were also Republicans. So as I said, Condi is representing the party which fought to end slavery and end the JIM CROW laws created by the Segregationists in the South.

Yes, Condi, please run. You will steamroll over which ever Democrat shows up for battle in 2008. You have earned the title

Posted by: Slim Girl with Pearls | June 29, 2006 1:56 PM | Report abuse

Hillary Clinton? A DLC Democrat?

Senator Clinton has an ADA (Americans for Democratic Action) rating of 92 on their "Liberal Quotient" for her 2005 Senate votes, with 100 representing a "perfect" liberal.

Here's how the LQ is calculated (from ADA's website):

"Since ADA's founding in 1947, the Annual Voting Records have served as the standard measure of political liberalism. Combining 20 key votes on a wide range of social and economic issues, both domestic and international, the Liberal (LQ) provides a basic overall picture of an elected official's political position.

Each year, ADA's Legislative Committee selects 20 votes it considers the most important during that session. ADA's National Board and/or National Executive Committee approves those votes. Each member receives 5 points if he/she voted with ADA, and does not receive 5 points if he/she voted against us or was absent. The total possible is 100."

ADA ratings of some other prominent Senators:

Barbara Boxer (D-California): 100 (2005 rating)
Senator Kennedy (D-Massachusetts): 90 (lifetime rating)
Senator Kerry (D-Massachusetts): 92 (lifetime rating)

Hillary Clinton is in the liberal bloc of the Senate--she is NOT a "DLC Democrat".

As for Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice: She is President Bush's failed National Security Adviser, who failed to heed the very ambiguous warning of a document titled "Bin Laden Determined to Attack Inside the United States" (a document that specifically warned that al-Qaeda operatives planned to hijack commercial jetliners and crash them into buildings). Dr. Rice also ignored 11 other very vague warnings about terrorists hijacking commercial jetliners to crash them into buildings, complaining that the warnings were too vague because they didn't list the exact date the terrorists planned to do this. (I hate it when criminals refuse to cooperate by faxing over an agenda of their plans in advance, don't you?)

Dr. Rice initially refused to testify before the 9/11 Commission investigating intelligence failures leading up to that tragic day, but relented under enormous Congressional and public pressure. As with all such spectacularly competent officials in the Bush II presidency, Dr. Rice was rewarded by her boss with a promotion to the most senior position in the Cabinet, Secretary of State, where she presides over the President's brilliant handling of relations with North Korea, Iran, Russia, Afghanistan, and Iraq, just to name a few of President Bush's most notable disasters...I mean, successes!

One would be hard-pressed to think of a Bush appointee who's done worse--I mean better!--at his or her job than Dr. Rice, with the possible exception of Michael "Heck of a job, Brownie" Brown at FEMA during Hurricane Katrina, where Brown cleverly conserved government funds by buying a new tie on sale at Nordstrom's.

In other words, Dr. Rice, the handmaiden of a failed former oil company executive who slipped into the White House in two dubiously-conducted elections, is the PERFECT Republican candidate.

Posted by: Daniel Bradford | June 29, 2006 5:09 AM | Report abuse

Daily Kos users are but had tools. You got bought and sold, just like Abramoff's Indians.

Just read Marky's own words. He's not even a ideologue (he's got the BS down pack, but he's no dyed-in-the-wool type -- he likes to wear nothing instead). He just chases the money trail, instead.

Hope his empire dries up like cow dung. Then burned as some alternative fuel (I'll bring the marshmellows -- there will be plenty of wieners already around). :D

Welcome to the world of big boy politics, kids. It's not catcalls, it's not whining online, it's not buying votes, it's about even having a real following. Not one full of 15 year-old teeny boppers who can't (and won't) vote.

BTW, did you see your DK candidates on CNN tonight? No. But Hillary had airplay, along with Obama, with the blessing of religion too (very good tactic, which plays well in Black churches).

So much for radical "progress".


Posted by: SandyK | June 29, 2006 2:41 AM | Report abuse


Your ranting about Daily Kos and on Condi is embarrassing. God forbid we mobilize hundreds of thousands of the brightest young people in all kinds of professional walks of life to actually get active in pushing progressive political policies.

Besides your crass prejudicial assumption that anyone who frequents a blog is some fatcat (defined as being able to get a coffee at Starbucks) and/or shut-in, you simply choose to rule out the opinion of anyone who doesn't share the demographics you have manifestly decided are required to make a person's opinions matter.

Because you are at least posing as a woman, I will refrain from using harsher language, but you certainly deserve it. Your attititude and your efforts go a long way to help the efforts out there to derail progressives and real liberals from taking back government.

And Condi is a total pinhead. As someone above mentioned, each and every major foreign policy conclusion she's made in her professional career has been wrong. She's nothing more than an apologist for Bush in this administration and I can't wait to see the ad showing her shopping for six grand in shoes while New Orleans was drowning if she is indeed foolish enough to run.

You need to wake the heck up and smell the coffee unless your real plan is for the poor and oppressed in this country to stay poor and oppressed. Of those defending unionization, good welfare, social security and universal medical care in this country the most vocally AND the most effectively, a large portion are active in the world of liberal blogs you so rabidly deride.

Get a grip, get a clue, and please just get off your computer. You've had so many entries here I'm tempted to assume you're sitting on your sizeable rear in a Starbucks somewhere, typing away on a laptop.

Posted by: Christian | June 28, 2006 3:21 PM | Report abuse

Joan of Iowa wrote:
"Mike Steele is currently the Lt Gov of Maryland, an African-American running for the Senate.

Some radical liberals and opposing Democrats tossed OREO cookies at him, calling him a TOKEN."

Surprised they didn't bring halved coconuts (brown on the outside, white on the inside), too.

That's an issue between the Black community to iron out between themselves, and not subject to White (or any other ethnic group) interference. If they believe he's a sellout, no one else would know better.

This is how racism takes root, ya know? One ethnic group trying to force their cultural norms on another, telling them they're but "savages" again. When it's none of their damn business in the first place to dictate the norms. The ethnic community will do that on their own, and don't need busy bodies dictating to be more "white" to be "civilized". Blacks have their own sides (be it Crosby to Revs. Sharpton and Jackson), and they're intelligent enough to figure their own course of action -- they're not kids for you guys to lead around.


Posted by: Anonymous | June 28, 2006 3:20 PM | Report abuse

Out here in the Midwest, some of us are watching the political whirlpool brewing in DC about the 2008 cycle. Here is a question and answer from Chris Cillizza today on the politics debate:

Rochester, N.Y.: I want to know, personal preference at the moment, what you Chris think about Evan Bayh on the ticket on '08, top or bottom? Can he beat out Warner and Hillary Clinton? If he's at the top can he actually beat someone like McCain.

Also, even though she won't run, would Rice win the Republican primary and then the general?

Chris Cillizza: To be absolutely honest, my only personal preference when it comes to 2008 is that we have a races on both sides that are entertaining and education to cover. I am agnostic about any one candidate.

That said, I think Bayh has an intriguing resume and believe he is something of a dark horse in the 2008 sweepstakes. As I mentioned above, he does have an impressive resume, which may not wind up counting for much, and, despite his public image, is improving as a public speaker.

That said, for Bayh to win the nomination must still be considered a longshot. He would need to make a splash either in Iowa or New Hampshire and polling in each shows he is nowhere in either state. That will change as he begins to spend money to get known but the problem is that if Clinton, Edwards and Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry are all in the race a lot of the electorate will already have a candidate -- making it much more difficult for Bayh to leap into the double digits and beyond.

As for Condi, she -- and her VERY unlikely candidacy -- are a favorite topic of some regular posters on The Fix. I simply don't see any evidence that she is interested in running. Unlike, say, Al Gore, who I believe could still run, Rice has never been in elected office and doesn't seem to relish the prospect of getting started now. Obviously if she ran she would be a very strong candidate. But, there is just no reason to think she is interested. That doesn't mean, however, that I won't be answering this same question in every chat I do for the foreseeable future.

Matt's view on this discussion: I think Cillizza does not understand what a draft movement really is. Even Wesley Clark was swept up by the people movement, and his biggest mistake was not to go to Iowa and build up his support for the Caucus in January 2004.

All of you need to take a look at how Eisenhower was drafted to run in 1952, and some of best challenges, (like in Minnesota)
came about as a write-in. Experience on the world stage matters, and that is why I think so many people support her instead of some Senator who just talks and talks. There are 11 Senators being named for the 2008 race, most of them are just boring and claim foreign policy experience. Well, Condi is living and breathing foreign policy, and no one is just handing her the nomination, just asking her to run.

Can any Democrat explain why Condi should not run? She is a US citizen, meets the age limit, and has broken the racial divide in the political arena with her smarts and hard work. Not by a husband opening the door for her and then getting his buddies to donate money to her.

Hey, Cillizza, bone up on the Eisenhower thing and then you can debate the Condi movement from a more intelligent view.

Posted by: Matt from Kansas | June 28, 2006 1:51 PM | Report abuse


Respect is earned not given. Condi has done nothing to earn my respect. And, because she's "self-made" doesn't mean she's not also a boot licker. She has been in total lock step (or is that goose step?) with Bush, et al., from the beginning and on every issue. She pimped the war for them as much as every other NeoCon did. Neither she nor Hillary will win, not because they're women necessarily, but because both are too divisive and that's exactly what this country does not need.

Posted by: KAS | June 28, 2006 11:45 AM | Report abuse

Question for the "on target" view of the fact that Nader did a lot FOR the country and did not spoil Gore's chances...THE QUESTION:


Nader is making people have to face reality of the truth of corruption and what politics is supposed to be about.

However, I can say, IN CAMBRIDGE, many were VERY upset because they believed he would not win, and that fact alone was their anger and caused them to choose not to vote for him, when indeed, they said, "OF COURSE" they preferred Nader to either Kerry or Bush, but exclaimed in horror, "HE CANNOT WIN". They knew I understood. They didn't see why I was backing him and wanted the ballot access for MASSACHUSETTS.

(quick briefing is in Who's Who or in World Book Encyclopedia, under Nader, Ralph.)

I did NOT have the 49% Unaffiliated registered voters in front of me, at that time. (Statistic from the state elections commission of numbers and percentages of voter registration at the end of primary season, deadline, February 11, 2004).

I didn't need that. I believed that what I thought was a majority of registered Democrats REALLY preferred Nader, but believed what they were saying, that they were STUCK with two parties.

Not true, as shown. That stat of 49% was lodged Feb. 11, 2004, obviously, before the ballot access period, which was June and July 2004. MA deadline for getting 10,000 validated registered MA state voter signatures was August 3, 2004 to be on the ballot in MA. (Yes, some thought National Profile should be a national result, and many said, "Isn't he already on the ballot?" and when I said, no, this is required, they signed immediately.

But, most, I mean most, were screaming HE DOESN'T have a chance, and a woman in the grocery store, due to a chance conversation, (not ballot access petitioning) screamed at me across the checkout counters, "The Best is the Enemy of the Good."

Horror story of public belief. Belief. I say that as to opinion.

My opinion is that the situation is "fed" by the media, and the public simply "believes" it. Opinion is when you review it and evaluate it and analyze it, and obviously YOU SHOULD HAVE A GOAL in the review and SEEK all the necessary information. But, it starts with a WANT.

WHO DO YOU WANT for President should be the question.

Does the person above WANT someone like Nader, or Nader himself for a REAL viable President now, or in the future?

Or does he, as it seems everyone is allowing, and I REFUSE, believe the mythology that you are supposed to make someone who does the smiling and "politicking" (what the heck is that?) grubbing request and handshaking...vs...substance and solidity of purpose...a true match of what the audience wants and the candidate actually offers? Not a would be if you give them the money, but the real thing?

The real thing, I thought was Nader, and he chose the "independence" status of "protest" as in challenging status quo.

So, the bottom line of asking the audience do you want the protest to be viable and real, and the affirmative choice RECOGNIZED?

Where is the public demand for the simple viability of a strong affirmation of an INDPENDENT challenge to the status quo?

If it were done again in 2008, what would it take to win? WHO DO YOU WANT TO WIN? Should not be a different reality than WHO WILL YOU VOTE FOR? But, it MIGHT help if the polls change their question to WHO DO YOU WANT...WANT TO WIN!??!!!

Who Cambridge SAID they wanted to win, they DID NOT think they could VOTE for!

I told them I would try to get the polls to change the question to show the level of true support.

obviously, to get the truth, more than the question is required.

The candidate must be put in front view for the people. AFFIRMATIVELY for the REAL expectation of AS PRESIDENT, this candidate has this track, and offers these platforms....and then let the candidate come on stage.

Pre-emption is the behavior of enemies who want the win against the competition.

A vote for Nader was a vote for Nader and IF it had happened at a majority level, no way would be Bush or Kerry in office, and the Iraq War would be a very different picture.

Not just that.

Let the media face it. And the public demand their TRUE WANT for a PRESIDENT.

Posted by: Elizabeth Ellis | June 28, 2006 11:08 AM | Report abuse

Mike Steele is currently the Lt Gov of Maryland, an African-American running for the Senate.

Some radical liberals and opposing Democrats tossed OREO cookies at him, calling him a TOKEN.

So let's clear one thing up, if anyone wants to debate the merits of Condi being nominated or even running for president, keep a civil tone in your heads. This mud slinging and name calling is only going to make a fool out of the people who use those nasty vile terms.

Lynn Swann, Ken Blackwell, Mike Steele and Condi Rice represent the success of any minority who uses their minds along with working hard to become successful today. That is the debate, not the race thing or the gender thing. Let's start acting like grownups instead of pounding each other with a shovel in the political sandbox.

Geez, it is so frustrating to read some of the junk in these blogs and try to take any information as serious. Journalism gets a GOLD star compared to the mudslinging in here.

Posted by: Joan from Iowa | June 28, 2006 10:36 AM | Report abuse

I don't think any blogger will be able to reshape Hillary Clinton's views. When Bill met her she was a Goldwater girl. She has never really been a liberal and never will be. But the biggest drawback for a Hillary candidacy will be Bill. The Corporate media will continue to push her as a frontrunner because they know she has a snowball in hell chance of getting to the White House. If you think gay marriage and flag burning will stir up those earth worms we call repuglicans you ain't seen nothing yet. Does anyone really believe all those moral, upstanding Christian (not) freaks will let ole Bill anywhere near that White House again even as First Gentleman (whatever) will all that time on his hands. What they did to Dean, Cleland, Kerry, even old hapless McCain will look like child's play when they take on Hillary.

Posted by: Nancy S | June 28, 2006 10:27 AM | Report abuse


Just one question: are you caucasian?


Posted by: SandyK | June 28, 2006 5:48 AM | Report abuse

Lots of comments today on the topic of Hillary, and very few supporters.

Someone said Condi was a boot licker? Wow, what a nice comment toward a woman who graduated at age 15, and college at age 19, worked her way up the ladder of success.

Baggage? Nah, she is free to live on her own, and does not have to worry about trying to keep a husband in line while she is gone for 4 or 5 days. She has been engaged, currently is dating Gene Washington who is with the NFL. Now if you all did not know these things, it might be that you have been too busy listening to the nasty mean rumors and slams against a fine person like Condi. Let's try to be a little bit respectful, shall we?

Posted by: Debbie Watson | June 27, 2006 10:54 PM | Report abuse

I will never vote for Hillary. One, she is an Iraq war supporter and (2) I do not want the first woman elected President to be someone who is there entirely because she is some guy's wife.
Hillary, Liddy Dole, who would have heard of them except they married well.
I can't stand Condi but she is self-made. Don't Dems have women like that. Actually we have many. Hillary is a throwback. Throw her back.

Posted by: Maggie Forst | June 27, 2006 8:55 PM | Report abuse

i am one of those progressive Democrats who will no longer pinch my nose and vote for the lesser of two evils. i will never vote for Hilary.... sorry. not biden either. i will not vote for a corporatist Democrat. period. i think the Democrats are quite used to and comfortable with losing. they don't mind a bit, most of them. they're rich and they don't care about the rest of us. 'course, after 5 years of what we have gotten from the GOP, i would never vote for a republican. ever. there are no more real conservatives left.

Posted by: christian | June 27, 2006 8:35 PM | Report abuse

Two comments from a blogger in Ohio:

1. It's interesting to me that no one has mentioned Ned Lamont and what may or may not be happening for him because of, or in spite of? his blog and hiring Tim Tagaris from the DNC. If someone did, I apologize - but I didn't see anything in anyone's comments above.

2. It's also interesting to me that Senator Clinton supposedly attended a fundraising event this past Saturday (it was closed to reporters and I've yet to see anything about it anywhere, but might not be looking in all the right places) for US Rep Sherrod Brown (D) who is seeking to unseat Mike DeWine (R), but, to the best of my knowledge, area bloggers' efforts to reach out to her failed to reap anything (unlike the time Barack Obama spent with about 10 Ohio bloggers at the Ohio Democratic Party dinner three-plus weeks ago).

Obviously some folks she's been looking to and whom she's been having look around the blogosphere for her have come back to say that this is what she should do, and she believes it's what she should do.

But the blogosphere today isn't what it was in 2004 and will be something completely different in 2008. Remember, it still takes at least 10-12 weeks before you can see the gender of a fetus, even if you can detect it with other tests before that. I don't think that, in the lifespan of the blogosphere thus far, we're anywhere near 10 weeks old, or recognizing defining parts of it.

Posted by: Jill MZ | June 27, 2006 6:24 PM | Report abuse

NASCARstayshome wrote:
"I gave up on the 'liberal' blogosphere after reading Matt Stoller's quote in InTheseTimes that the people who are working two jobs should rest assured that good, crisp decisions were being made by the 'netroots' -- which, as far as I can tell, is four people w/ about 900 followers w/ credit cards."

Which all this "netroots" is about. Another way to circumnavigate the campaign funding laws -- like with STOLEN credit cards (and rest assured no one is questioning who's paypalling the donations, even if it comes from a 4 year-old's piggy bank account).

Republicans cater to ***voters***. They don't waste much on the youth vote, knowing way too many of them don't vote until they're in their 30s and out of college (and finally understand the complexities of mortgages, loans, taxes and raising kids). Money is only as good as what palm is greased, and a 4 year-old is more interested in candy, not voting in November to win a seat.

In all of my voting years I've had questionares and all sent by Republicans (I'm not straight ticket voter), the closest thing I got from local Dems was a plea from the local Democratic party leadership to vote a keep REPUBLICAN in office, and one who tried to get a pedophile (who raped a 3 year-old) off the hook!!!!!

That's the type of "netroot" junk that's going on. It's not ideology anymore. It's about keeping even the Republicans in office, if the Dems can cash in on more exploitation.

The more I read from this radical left, the more it seems they're but the Right's plants -- as they're doing everything they can to dismantle the Democratic party one brick at a time, and doing a very good job at polarization on both sides of the aisle and beyond (even Libertarians shake their heads at them -- folks that were long Dem friends).

Shakes head and wonder if the Democrat party is washed up from the inside out now

Posted by: SandyK | June 27, 2006 6:14 PM | Report abuse

HRC has a better chance of seeing Elvis than becoming president.

Posted by: Mr. C | June 27, 2006 5:37 PM | Report abuse

I agree with the sentiments of those concerned about her credentials, and I don't think she can win nor is she the best candidate for the Democrats. Her stance on the war and her recent posturing towards conservatives speak "political opportunist" and not "passionate progressive." Personally, I think Al Gore would be a MUCH better candidate--and a more passionate and prophetic one, which is what we on the Left need badly in our leadership. Also, if you think the Swiftboat mess was ugly, if Hillary runs...well...Rove and company will have quite a field day. I note: Bill Clinton (ah,those were good days) is a true Southerner and is able to reach the those voters in a way Hillary, despite her last name, never will.

Posted by: Steven | June 27, 2006 4:28 PM | Report abuse

Slim wrote:
"So Hillary has a blog, whoopie. She has the ultra-liberal anti-war people against her, which divides up the Democrats. There are 12 or 13 or 14 Democrats being named for the 2008 race so far, depending on the day and the mood of the reporters. So here is the point, from Chris Matthews on CNBC, "who will be the UN-HILLARY?""

She has what Condi doesn't: baggage of being a token. Hilary never claimed to be something she wasn't (White upper class woman) but she was self-made herself (going to college and being a lawyer when women were still suppose to be housewives).

Condi got where she got from being a boot licker. She never actively campaigned to gain the votes from even her own. This is the same handicapped Colin Powell faced, as their positions of esteem were handed to them by white men (again, another token).

Blacks resent token appointments as women dislike that "glass ceiling". So that's a mark against her from the beginning, especially when she works for what they may call "Uncle Toms".

Neo-Conservatives "don't get it". Can't be about equal rights, then squash AA. Can't be about understanding the plight of Black voters when they would hesitate to reaffirm the Voting Rights Act (what gave them the right to vote). They're using Condi as a "safe" alternative to a Rev. Sharpton or Rev. Jackson (which scares the bejeezes out of rich WASPS). They're playing their own racist game of "This is a good black"), and it stinks and anyone who really understands racism can see right throw the smoke screen.

She won't even get the votes by the Blacks even over Hilary. Blacks, for whatever reasons, like her (one of the few political candidates that I've heard glowing reviews from -- maybe because she lived in the South; maybe because she married a poor White boy who made it big, it's a number of factors, but they like her and will vote for her regardless).

If Dems cannibalize themselves in 2008 with another no-win candidate, you can bet the Blacks will start pushing their own candidates with power brokerages from the state side (and they don't care if it's a Democrat or Republican, they want representation and will move the churches in action to secure it, like they did locally in electing Republican mayors in a Democratic controlled county -- and the former headquarters of the Democratic party in GA!!).

Don't underestimate their potential, as they're learning how to play the game, one office at a time. And they're going the same route that secured their right to vote in 1964 -- via the pulpit.


Posted by: SandyK | June 27, 2006 3:38 PM | Report abuse


I am a "rural" Southerner (I live outside of New Orleans) and I have numerous connections all across the South in a web of Democratic men and women. I know someone working with Carville on her campaign. I know the Southern pattern for her. The vast majority of Southern Dems would vote for Edwards, Bayh, or Warner instead of Hillary. Of course, it's all moot if she loses in Iowa and New Hampshire. If that happens, her chances are virtually nil in the South anyway.

Posted by: Jack Collens | June 27, 2006 3:29 PM | Report abuse


I am a "rural" Southerner (I live outside of New Orleans) and I have numerous connections all across the South in a web of Democratic men and women. I know someone working with Carville on her campaign. I know the Southern pattern for her. The vast majority of Southern Dems would vote for Edwards, Bayh, or Warner instead of Hillary. Of course, it's all moot if she loses the primaries in Iowa and New Hampshire. If that happens, her chances are virtually nil in the South anyway.

Posted by: Jack Collens | June 27, 2006 3:29 PM | Report abuse


It would be difficult for me to imagine a more boreing career than blogging for a candidate. Or even blogging for ones one opinions, or life.

I hope all them thar bloggers find a read life ... be it reading, teaching, volunteer work, dominatrixing, ANYTHING than just sitting infront of a computer and commenting on some other person's work.

Ho hum.

Posted by: Kurt | June 27, 2006 3:22 PM | Report abuse

SandyK: They are realizing how welfare destroyed their communities, and why I see more and more of them working *2* full time jobs to get the hell out of that poverty prison).

SandyK for president.

I gave up on the 'liberal' blogosphere after reading Matt Stoller's quote in InTheseTimes that the people who are working two jobs should rest assured that good, crisp decisions were being made by the 'netroots' -- which, as far as I can tell, is four people w/ about 900 followers w/ credit cards.

Oh, and in a survey released in Feb by SurveyUSA, Clinton spanked Huckabee 52% to 43% in a hypothetical presidential matchup held in Arkansas. You know -- Gov. Huckabee, the Republican who 'terrifies' kos as a presidential possibility.

I laugh every time I read "I don't know anyone who would vote for Clinton" on the internet.

Posted by: NASCARstayshome | June 27, 2006 3:20 PM | Report abuse

Jeff in New Orleans wrote:
"How can HRC be president if she isn't even nominated? Many in her own party (myself included) see much better candidates available."

Easy. By popular vote. Hilary has the clout that no other West or East coast wannabe has. She's well known even in the rural South -- and loved (with a wink or two by them for being a woman, and one that knows about a cheating husband to boot. She has street cred). That type of name recognition and respect can't be bought in some "Townhouse", nor can be drowned out by "netroots" that has zero to do with their lives.

If there ever was class warfare going on, it's this whole "netroot" campaign. Because the population that can't afford a computer is the one left out of it. You guys better rethink your plank before losing even the Black vote, because they're not stupid, they see what's going on when their needs are being bypassed (and they don't want handouts anymore than Whites, they want hand UPs. They are realizing how welfare destroyed their communities, and why I see more and more of them working *2* full time jobs to get the hell out of that poverty prison).

So Hilary will get their vote. If polled today, it'll probably be 80% will go for her across all socio-economic lines in my Dem enclave in GA. Same would be said in SC. She's a "feel good" candidate, and one that will drive even rural voters to vote (so desperately needed in GA to win elections from Republicans!).


Posted by: SandyK | June 27, 2006 2:56 PM | Report abuse

Jeff wrote:
"SandyK, thank you for pointing out that DailyKos in no way is representative of the Democratic Party. Kos and his followers seem to think that guys who sit in Starbucks working on a laptop are hardly the heart and soul of the party. In fact, it's the folks who don't have the time or money to blog that are the raison d'etre for the party."

Daily Kos reminds me of a local (former) organization that was composed of rich folks claiming to be civil libertarians ("Oh, those poor victims."). These folks were so disconnected to who they claim to want to represent, and hold attitudes if made public would've made them angry at these folks ("I understand how it feels being born on the wrong side of the tracks" -- they equated being from a poor family is the same as understanding the feeling of racism ---THUNK, THUNK, THUNK. Meanwhile their kids would just blurt out the "N" word like it just another description [when it's taught by someone, ya know and accepted??]).

This is how I view the Daily Kos. They claim to know how it feels to be the underdog and all, but really don't understand the very people they claim they want to represent. The Dems I know aren't college types, nor can afford Starbucks. They live in Section 8 housing, trying to work 2 jobs to make ends meet, more worried about their kids not hooking up with gangs, wondering if they can see the doctor for the high blood pressure or if they kid has a cough. These are the people who ride the bus, who's candid talk gives me a reality check of the soul of their community, and what's real (as they gain nothing talking about their plight among themselves, they're not getting any checks for being human). They're God fearing, salt of the Earth types, and I feel much more connected to them than any pinstriped mover and shaker at the State capital (which I had to deal with in health access legislation and compliance). I learn more about the poor and disadvantaged from their own mouths and living conditions, than any WASP rich kids interpretation of their lot (and I wish these fat rich kids would gain a guilt complex and donate that $3 for a cup of coffee so some mom can afford daycare to work, or allowed to get formula that isn't on some WIC list. But noooooooo, they want power and money instead, and would step and spit in their faces in the process).

The Daily Kos is a fraud. They careless other than what they can get out of the system. They abandoned the Democrat roots, and the very people who they take for granted as voters (but that's changing, as they're networking with churches to nominate even Republicans into office to FORCE them to not be platitude giving hypocrites). That's real grassroots politicking from the very population that's been abandoned by the Left and Right -- and more power to them!

Hope Daily Kos dries up like cow dung and blows away in wind. As they're no more representative of the population they abandoned years ago. Just a bunch of white collar guilt complexed platitude giving hypocrites ("I feel sorry for THOSE unfortunates"), searching for selfish wants and to show the world, "See I understand" (how to bilk the citizens of their hard earned dollars, and exploit them in their private backroom dealing with Elitist pigs -- every wonder why there's a clamp down on mentioning class divisions? You betcha, because these twerps in their "Townhouse" are BSing like they're kings and the rest are paupers).

They got spanked, and it's a good feeling to see retribution paid by these hypocrites.

[Now I wonder if Chris was a member of this insider "Townhouse" group as well, since it catered to MSM journalists. Especially since this is the only WP blog that's censoring my posts, as well (as soon as I posted about this Daily Kos scoop, too -- and not before). Don't like freedom of expression when it doesn't tow the party line, just like at Daily Kos, huh?]


Posted by: SandyK | June 27, 2006 2:34 PM | Report abuse

The positive polling numbers mean little two years before the primaries. Dean was an unknown at this point in the last campaign. But the negative numbers are hard to change. Hillary's negative numbers - nationwide, not just in the blogosphere - will be hard to overcome. Her positive numbers probably reflect New York and a bit of California.

The Dems have many qualified candidates: Feingold, Edwards, Warner, Kerry, Gore are examples. Kathleen Sebelius, Janet Napolitano, Barbara Boxer, Patty Murray are all well-qualified Dem women I could easily support.

It's true that Nader could never win, but the old lie about him costing us the 2000 election is the typical logic of shortsighted partisans. Nader's done more for the country already than most elected leaders ever will. My vote for him would be to protest a bad Dem nominee, such as Hilary or Joe Lieberman.

Condi is as electable as Alan Keyes. The GOP hasn't won an election since Eisenhower without employing the Southern Strategy. Our country is a long way from colorblind and Condi understands that. She won't run, won't be drafted, and lacks the desire to pursue that office, anyway. Good luck with your effort, though. I admire folks who pursue
longshots, even when I don't agree with their politics.

Oh, and if I were a Republican, I'd certainly consider Olympia Snowe, who could draw a lot of crossover votes.

Posted by: Kevin Hayden | June 27, 2006 2:15 PM | Report abuse

Cassini - I didn't include Polipundit, Rantburg, RedState because I didn't think I needed to. I figured the garbage they spew would make them an obvious inductee in the partisan-crap-hall-of-fame. Nonetheless, it seems my post made me seem like I favor right-wing blogs, which I loathe.

I was originally excited about Kos and the liberal blogosphere. It was a different liberal voice than the weak spined TV pundits and wishy-washy politicians. My point is that Kos, being the posterchild for the liberal blogosphere, has not added much to the conversation... just more yelling. So I will ask again, besides fundraising what good do these blogs offer?

Posted by: Mike W | June 27, 2006 2:14 PM | Report abuse


Posted by: Elizabeth Ellis | June 27, 2006 2:04 PM | Report abuse

Clinton wouldnt win a single midwestern/southern state for the democrats and neither would Rice for the Republicans. The reasons are obvious.

So ... what happens if it's (a hypothetical) Clinton vs Rice?

I'm beginning to like the idea of this match-up -- just for some badly-needed progress, LOL.

MikeW: also weary of the arrogant kos & his cohorts. There is nothing 'people-powered' about it.

Posted by: NASCARstayshome | June 27, 2006 1:54 PM | Report abuse

Oh great - now Slim Girl has jumpoed on the bandwagon of idiots promoting Condi on this blog. Just what we need - more Condi shills.

Posted by: Ohio guy | June 27, 2006 1:51 PM | Report abuse

Please, please let Condi be the candidate. I can hardly wait for republicans to attack each other like rabid dogs.

Posted by: Drindl | June 27, 2006 1:21 PM | Report abuse

To those who have said Sen. Feinstein would be much better than Sen. Clinton:

Are you aware that Sen. Feinstein has supported government vouchers to private schools including religious ones? Are you also aware that she took to the Senate floor today and stated proudly that she is the lead Democratic Senator for the Constitutional Amendment giving the power to Congress to prohibit flag burning?

As a Californian, I certainly am. I am not criticizing her for these positions (although I strongly disagree with them) but am pointing out them out to inform of her views.

Posted by: Jason | June 27, 2006 1:05 PM | Report abuse

After a nice weekend away from the news, I like to come to the Washington Post and see what is going on in the world.

So Hillary has a blog, whoopie. She has the ultra-liberal anti-war people against her, which divides up the Democrats. There are 12 or 13 or 14 Democrats being named for the 2008 race so far, depending on the day and the mood of the reporters. So here is the point, from Chris Matthews on CNBC, "who will be the UN-HILLARY?"

That is an interesting question.

Likewise, who will be the UN-McCain. Whether the Republicans support Rudy or Condi Rice or George Allen or any of the other 10 Republicans on the media list, I think it all shows how open the 2008 race is on all sides. Ok, Hillary has 40% in the national polls, but she is the second choice in Iowa which now favors former Senator John Edwards.

Likewise, the national polls show Rudy, McCain, and Condi all tied at 20%. Frist is the only Republican who announced he is running, but his poll numbers are 1% to 3%. Frist is not going to win the nomination unless he moved to Iowa and spend a few million to build support. Otherwise, he should just retire in Tennessee and leave politics completely.

McCain staked out New Hampshire in 1999, build strong support, but he failed to win in Iowa by pissing off the farmers and other conservatives. The Republicans have no stomach for McCain, as much as the media wants to keep shoving him down our throats.

I like George Allen, also Romney, Rudy and Rice. So until Iowa and New Hampshire get started in promoting their champion, I can only watch like a spectator at a football game. Speaking of football, since Condi is such an expert, I think she is like a quarterback from the 49er's running with the 2008 football, and whether the other players on the field will allow her to make it to the goal-line.

Until we get past the November elections, no one is really coming out for 2008. And if Condi wants to run, she has enough clout and support NOW, at this minute, to win delegates for the 2008 convention. By a snap of her fingers, she can raise $20 million from supporters across the nation. So that should scare the Democrats more than any other factor.

Posted by: Slim Girl in Pearls | June 27, 2006 12:44 PM | Report abuse


Peter Daou was NOT Director of Blog Operations for Kerry's 2004 campaign.

You're going to want to correct that Chris. Ask Peter directly if this is true or not.

Posted by: Casey Morris | June 27, 2006 12:39 PM | Report abuse

Here's hoping Hillary gets the nomination cause she has no chance to win. Anyone with half a brain knows she's got no convictions, even less than Kerry. Which way is the wind blowing?, that's how policy is set with those & any other Dem. She'd speak out on behalf of Bin Laden if she saw a poll putting him in a favorable light. Or go with Edwards. His position on anything is just poll-watching, too. And then the details of his horrendous ambulance chasing will come out, also. You guys have no one!

Posted by: Chunky | June 27, 2006 12:37 PM | Report abuse

Mike W.

I would suggest you visit such far right wing sites such as:

Rantburg & Polipundit.

Their superheated rhetoric against liberals and democrats pales next to Kos's venting against conservatives/repubs.

Posted by: Cassini | June 27, 2006 12:32 PM | Report abuse

Kos and good chunk of the rest of blogosphere have had a substantial impact on how Americans get their political news and offered another outlet for raising money. These are both laudable, but Kos and his minions on his site have done nothing but exacerbate the sheer partisanship that is ripping this country in two. They rant on and on about the importance of holding liberal values and beliefs but succumb to spewing political rhetoric all too often. I have grown weary of the arrogant Kos and the bickering blogosphere. Are we actually gaining anything except for fact checking and money raising? If not that's fine, but let's not try to sell blogs as a form of ideological revolution. Markos Moulitsas Zuniga is hardly Rousseau, so we should stop treating him and his brethren like political prophets.

Posted by: Mike W | June 27, 2006 12:19 PM | Report abuse

Jim Curtin::
I don't think any of us are saying we are against a woman running or becoming president. I think the consensus is that Hillary can't win if she is the dem nominee..

Posted by: TheIrishCurse | June 27, 2006 12:08 PM | Report abuse

The only way for Ms. Rice or Sen. Clinton to win election to the U.S. Presidency is if they were to be nominated by their respective parties to run against each other. Otherwise, either would lose against the WASP candidate which they would face in the general election, Why you ask?

Put simply American ISN'T ready for a female president let alone two as polarizing as Rice & Clinton.

Clinton wouldnt win a single midwestern/southern state for the democrats and neither would Rice for the Republicans. The reasons are obvious.

Posted by: Cassini | June 27, 2006 12:05 PM | Report abuse

kerry had a blogger?? come on...its not really a big score at all for hillary. props to warner for getting dean's guy who actually did a lot for ho ho's campaign.

this is a feeble attempt by clinton and terribly timed. it makes it look like she's either a) nervous about the net-roots community and on the defensive or b) willing to do or say whatever it takes to win.

Posted by: jc | June 27, 2006 12:05 PM | Report abuse

The only way for Ms. Rice or Sen. Clinton to win election to the U.S. Presidency is if they were to be nominated by their respective parties to run against each other. Otherwise, either would lose against the WASP candidate which they would face in the general election, Why you ask?

Put simply American ISN'T ready for a female president let alone two as polarizing as Rice & Clinton.

Clinton wouldnt win a single midwestern/southern state for the democrats and neither would Rice for the Republicans. The reasons are obvious.

Posted by: Cassini | June 27, 2006 12:04 PM | Report abuse

Nader PROVED the MEDIA is trying to shove Opinion, down our throats instead of offering TRUE leaders.


Nader is not accusing the media of that, I am. However, he HAS accused Hillary of "Corporate Hillary"--he had a posting on either his regular opinion site, or

He was holding her responsible for stock holdings in a company that he viewed as VERY GUILTY OF BAD PRACTICES AGAINST AMERICAN PUBLIC INTEREST...I forget, but his site has the archives...

My reaction at the time, NO, likely she is ENTIRELY UNAWARE of the OFFENSES of the company...rather than willingly supporting them. Did the media pick up on the accusation and prove the truth of whether she is Guilty of what Nader assumed? Or did they willingly not care view.

The media is not conscience driven for the public interest.

Of course, the other truth is, that if Hillary as other stockholders are, is holding stock in a BAD company, that is not pretty--stockholders are supposed to be involved in their corporate Nader is well taken to say.

My view of Hillary is the problematic reality that likely as a woman, she is not at NADER's HIGH LEVEL of knowing WHAT IS SUPPOSED TO BE, and people are assuming it is there, and it is as a system that is supposed to be working, but CORRUPTION is there....the media is not operating properly.

Nader is very much on target.

The public owes him the demand for proper visibility and respect as a political challenger. Look at the past TWO elections.

WHY did he not win? Who created the "corpse" that is not real, but a still fighting standing tall attorney...the book, "The Good Fight" was published by Harper Collins, and Nader's picture on the cover (post 2000) was the photo of him when they escorted him away from the debates at UMass, where the Federal Courts found "in part" cause against the CPD for PARTISAN behavior, where they had photos of all members of third parties and refused their entry into the audience. This country DOES NOT BELONG TO ONLY Democrats and Republicans.

Nader accused them of elitist corrupt powermongering, and the WAR is a horrific reality of THAT.

Hillary Clinton may well be guilty of CORPORATE HILLARY.

I say the media is very guilty of CORPORATE MEDIA against the public interest in presenting the news with an offensive and extreme in our face bias.

The public TV and Radio should have its funding RESTORED by PUBLIC DEMAND to restore DEMOCRACY. And, the proper FIGHT shown by NADER to restore our country to DEMOCRACY.

Harper Collins published another book by "Conservatives" trying to claim BOTH the Republicans and Democrats "liberal turf" knowing full well what the truth of that is. Unreal. Naders' the Good Fight was published in 2004, and this COPYCAT trying to take over entirely, is copyright 2006 (Beinart is the auther, Editor at Large for New Republic according to the bookflap. I called the publisher to ask if they knew they had done that copycat title, and to offer comment, but since I am unemployed, and am not offering a "valid organized CORPORATE complaint" I had no real leverage.

I understand that is reasonably OK for no reply, because you cannot answer every individual complaint. However, I left the query on the voicemail of the Publicist line, and noted to them, I USED TO BE A PUBLICIST and appreciate the publicist duty. They should know, I have the professional qualifications to be properly diplomatic yet offer my vantage point of query. I said, "I am not calling from Nader headquarters, I am calling as an individual, because I AM A NADER FAN."

I figure they should have to answer the question, and I consider myself able to field the query, of A-Did they know they already had published that title (likely yes), and B-the WHY -- make them answer that first.)

The takeover of viewpoint from the public to the "experts" in charge, is not OK when the obvious purpose is CLEARLY not showing integrity and public interest.

Normal people would expect the GOOD FIGHT by Nader to HOLD, and likely the irony is, that this "contest" is that HE WILL WIN, even this small item.

Cheers to believers! Keep the faith!

I would love to see Bush impeached, the MEDIA forced to redo a contest between the DEMOCRATS and NADER for a proper INTERIM replacement until 2008.

He is for International Law and proper world order. The U.N. should be strengthened by our proper participation in its mission to prevent war.

I am no fan of Condilezza Rice, and will note when the Bush threat against Iran (mitigated now, but I don't think it is ok, it at least stays the situation, but proper diplomacy and ABM Honor for us and the world is in order, and NADER offered that...the true contest is due by proper presentation of the media)...the Bush Cabinet should go with his impeachment as the outcome...the entire Bush and VP. That is something the lawyers who CARE about this country probably could say would be unusual but within legal rights constitutionally.

Simple impeachment would net Cheney, who most who want Bush impeached would not be able to tolerate. I believe the entire elections were railroaded by the media, and that behavior is in front of us NOW.

This cannot happen again.

At least NADER is owed proper limelight!!!

The media is ignoring PROPER MERITS.

The media is horrific.

Posted by: Elizabeth Ellis | June 27, 2006 12:04 PM | Report abuse

How can HRC be president if she isn't even nominated? Many in her own party (myself included) see much better candidates available. It has nothing to do with her being a female, there are just better candidates out there. If feminists want to score a major political victory, they ought not put the fate of the country at risk. The office of the presidency is too important to use it as a vehicle for small victories. If nominated, HRC will lose, and it won't be pretty.

I really wouldn't mind Hillary if she actually took a real stand somewhere and stuck by it. This BS flag amendment is just one example of how no one know which way she'll go on any issue - too unpredictable for me. She has done some good, but why risk the loss when there are better people available?

Posted by: Jack in New Orleans | June 27, 2006 11:58 AM | Report abuse

Mrs. Clinton was smart to get plugged into the world of blogs. She will make a great president once the people that just can't accept a female president get over their out dated snit, and realize she is one of the most quailified people out there to be prez.

Posted by: Jim Curtin | June 27, 2006 11:49 AM | Report abuse

Condi Rice is, without a doubt, extremely intelligent--but why has she, throughout her career, consistently gotten every single major decision wrong, in her various areas of expertise? Collapse of the Soviet Union? Um, nope, she didn't see it coming. Fall of the Berlin Wall? Oops, she missed it! Intelligence reports which should have been analyzed and presented to the detached, vacationing President by the National Security Advisor in the fateful late summer of August 2001? She either overlooked them or ignored them and didn't take them seriously--in any case, it's a massive failure on her part. WMDs? Iraq? Alas, she didn't have a clue--or, more disturbingly, she knew quite well that it was all a sham, and went ahead and endorsed it, anyway. Does anyone want a foreign policy expert who gets everything wrong to run the world, as the President of the United States? One shudders to imagine the reality of that scenario. Or is it really just, as usual, a "we support her because we're pretty convinced that she loves the Lord" kind of thing?

2008 won't, in any way, be decided by bloggers on either fringe, anyway. The voters will make their choice, and then, regardless of the winner, the results will be fixed to put a Republican in office. Same old, same old, in the Rovian world.

I'd like to think Hillary is too smart to run, since I'm not sure she'd even carry New York. (especially if the angry man, Mr. Giuliani is on the GOP ticket)

Posted by: JaniceK | June 27, 2006 11:39 AM | Report abuse

If we're going to have a Vulcan, my vote goes to Leonard Nimoy. He'd make a much better president than Condi.

Posted by: Drindl | June 27, 2006 11:20 AM | Report abuse

Condi Lovers -- I think the primary objection to comments about Condi by Tina and now Debbie is that they have nothing to do with the Posts others are commenting on. In fact, they look suspiciously like the kind of spamming that paid operatives for candidates or PAC's try and put on blogs.

Although you certainly have a "right" to work for any candidate you want to and advocate on their behalf, I think it really is in poor taste to post off-topic statements that you're being paid to produce. This site is really supposed to be a forum for actual political discourse -not free advertising for your PAC.

As to substance, it's rather telling that the bachelor president's you cite all date back approximately 100 years. Think maybe such individuals received a little less media scrutiny regarding their personal lives than Condi would? Also, as sad as it is to say, people make certain assumptions about 50 year old women who have never been married. The kind of assumptions that don't' play very well in Republican primaries in the South. Me thinks that might pose a problem for Secretary Rice's candidacy.

Posted by: Colin | June 27, 2006 11:19 AM | Report abuse

An early comment was made about a woman for president. Perhaps Tina was putting out the message that Hillary is not the only woman being looked at for a run as president in 2008.

Interesting comments in here about Hillary and also about Condi. Even more interesting is the fact Cillizza puts out a blog site where we are all free to make comments.

Let me get this straight, being a single person is not good if you want to be president? Wow, James Buchanan got elected president as a bachelor and during his 4 years in office, he was never married.

Grover Cleveland was elected as a bachelor, in spite of a scandal. He later married a young woman who was in his care after her father died.

The voters want a strong person in the White House. Condi is a WAR HAWK, she is also referred to in a book as a VULCAN. That sounds more like Margaret Thatcher in my book. Condoleezza Rice is not a pacifist, she stands shoulder to shoulder along with President Bush.

Now if you don't like Condi, fine. But our PAC group, Americans for Dr. Rice, has as much right to organize and raise money as all the other groups. Condi does not have to authorize them, that is one reason it is called a DRAFT; in the same style of Eisenhower in 1952. If Condi decides to run by November 2007, then the media and the Democrats will not be able to whine or complain about her entering the race late or seeking to win without working for it. It is the work of thousands of Condi 2008 supporters across the nation NOW that is feeding the polls, and the reporters from BBC and Russia have interviewed the top leaders of Americans for Dr. Rice.

Again, the blog thing might be about Hillary, but Condi Rice is her equal. I think that is the most important factor right now, the fact that Condi could run if she wanted to and it will be taken more serious if she has not announced by January 2008. Of course, she could win as a write-in in New Hampshire. It would be legal and newsworthy as well.

Posted by: Debbie Watson** | June 27, 2006 11:02 AM | Report abuse

What if the Romney won the GOP ticket? Wouldn't he take a lot of the moderate votes from Clark? Just a question.

Posted by: Always Willing to Learn | June 27, 2006 10:59 AM | Report abuse

Warner, not so much. I was very angry with HRC over her war stance and embrace of this silly-ass flag burning amendment --an embarrassment and waste of valuable time. But her Privacy iniative was exactly what I'm looking for --less government intrusion. If she can run on smaller, more competent government than we have now [hard to imagine how it couldn't be] then she may yet get my vote. what I want more than anything is for someone with a brain to be in charge for a change.Just can we have someone who's not a criminal or a moron?

Posted by: Drindl | June 27, 2006 10:49 AM | Report abuse

I don't know how much impact this will have--Clinton's style, establishment, etc. isn't very much what the blogosphere likes. I think Warner and Feingold are far more well regarded by bloggers.

Posted by: college kid | June 27, 2006 10:37 AM | Report abuse

If Hillary is considered the dem front runner we are in lotso trouble in '08. She'll get not one cross over vote, and perhaps lose a few democratic votes. Running on the Clinton name will get her so far, but the right may hate her more then her husband if that's at all possible..

Posted by: TheIrishCurse | June 27, 2006 10:26 AM | Report abuse

Ideologically, Hillary is a nightmare for Democrats. The best response to any GOP candidate short of McCain would be Feingold, if for no other reason than to shock some Democrats into reality. Now, this is all from an ideological standpoint.

Realistically, Warner can probably secure a bit of the South, while also taking in moderate Republicans and undecideds here and there. He hasn't really gotten firm on any issues, however. Of course, while governor, he worked with a Republican legislature to champion issues such as health care, education, and fiscal discipline, so there is your domestic candidate. He remains a mystery on foreign affairs issues, so that is a big question mark for him.

Honestly, most of this is probably moot if McCain wins the Republican nomination, because relatively ignorant, "moderate" Democrats would probably vote for him over a majority of potential Democratic candidates - that is not to say all Democrats are ignorant, I most certainly am a Democrat, but those who don't follow things too closely. Barring a big push by the Democrats to back a moderate candidate with Southern connections, McCain could, unfortunately, win in a landslide.

Pelosi is not the best candidate, but, in terms of female candidates, she is more in line ideologically with the core Democratic base than Hillary will ever be. Feinstein would probably be better, however. Although none of them will win the Democratic nod - who really wants Hillary??

Posted by: Jack in New Orleans | June 27, 2006 10:26 AM | Report abuse

As I have said before HRC isn't running. She is a very intelligent and savy woman and she can read polls just like the rest of us. She knows that 45% of the country will not vote for her (by the way the same poll showed that 48% wouldn't vote for Gore), and that for a woman to be voted president she will have to be the hands down most qualified person for the job. That is why she will be supporting Wes Clark. With him at the top of the ticket and HRC as VP you get the best of both worlds, Clinton back in mix, and a general who can (hopefully) get us out of the situation in Iraq. Plus she can then use her Massive fundraising ability to clean house on the republican money advantage. Now give her 8 years as VP and then she would be uber-qualified to run.

Posted by: Andy R | June 27, 2006 10:24 AM | Report abuse

To clarify, I meant the alleged 'terrorists' who had no weapons, no explosives, no plan and no money. Who would have blown up the Sears tower, if only they knew where Chicago was and could manage to get there.

What a cheap,cheesy piece of political theatre that was. Does any one even know what reality is any more?

Posted by: Drindl | June 27, 2006 10:14 AM | Report abuse

Earth to nutcase! There are no WMDs in Iraq --except what Rummy gave Saddam to use on the Iranians--and those are ancient and degraded. The WSJ is Pravda, instrument of the republican party. Get real.

Also your stats are misleading. 51% don't want an 'immediate' withdrawal, but they want one within 6 months to a year. Which is what Dems have been proposing all along. Compared to republicans, who want permanent bases and 50,000 troops to use as a foothold for future oil-related activities. That's the real difference between the party's stances.

Nancy Pelosi is not running for president, okay? And can't you people come up with something a little more grown-up than flip-flopper? Since 9/11, I feel like the whole country has lot 100 points of IQ.

Watching the recent joke of a 'terrorist' attack, I thought I was watching a Marx Brothers movie. It just keeps getting stupider.

Posted by: Drindl | June 27, 2006 10:09 AM | Report abuse

Look, everybody. Democrats have a serious problem brewing for '08. HRC and Bayh both flip flop too much. So the party is left with either fanatics or quasiconservatives, and no majority of Democrats wants either of those two options.

Opposing the war won't make you as huge a favorite with the American majority as everyone thinks. 51 percent of Americans don't want an immediate withdrawl of the troops, and Bush's numbers are (slowly) on the rise now that the Wall Street Journal is publishing recenlty declassified info about troops now actually discovering WMD in Iraq. The Republicans aren't looking so wrong after all.

Dems need a better answer than HRC or Sen. Pelosi. And Sen. Bayh couldn't stand up in a stiff breeze. The 08 election is going to be won by domestic issues, not Iraq. Maybe I am crazy, but I believe that.

Posted by: Just Being Logical | June 27, 2006 9:56 AM | Report abuse

Sandy, I repeat. You're a lunatic. You said you wanted Hitler as a leader. After that, anythng else you say is rendered irrelevant and most of it is just as disgusting anyway. Go ask the Nazis to lick your toes, you freak.

As to Peter Dauo, I think that arrangement with Hillary is interesting. Frankly, I doubt if it lasts long. I don't feel somehow that he will be comfortable unless her views evolve. But Peter is very perceptive and if anyone can do something for her in the netroots area, he probably can.

His focus is really much deeper/wider, as it should be, and he can help develop a coherent communication strategy and issue framing, as the republicans have been doing for the last 20 years. They have gotten very good at campaigning--but they don't give a damn about governing. As far as Hillary's chances, though, I can't honestly say I know anyone who supports her.

And Ralph Nader? Oh my god, did someone drag that lifeless corpse out again? That loser? Hey, I used to respect him. But he gave the election to bush--come on. He long ago stopped having anyhing to offer.

And Condi? Single black woman [who may be gay]for president. Come on, wake up. I don't have a problem but I can bet you some people will.

Posted by: Drindl | June 27, 2006 9:45 AM | Report abuse

Chris, "Given the increased focus on the influence of blogs, expect more moves like these in the coming months as ambitious Democrats try to make nice with the netroots."

Why the blogs are becoming exponentially influential and smart Dems must take notice: Bloggers put their money where their mouth is. Check the status of Dean's latest 2-week fundraiser at

Posted by: Carol | June 27, 2006 9:34 AM | Report abuse

SandyK, thank you for pointing out that DailyKos in no way is representative of the Democratic Party. Kos and his followers seem to think that guys who sit in Starbucks working on a laptop are hardly the heart and soul of the party. In fact, it's the folks who don't have the time or money to blog that are the raison d'etre for the party.

Elizabeth Ellis, somewhere in that mishmash of the English language you just produced, you seemed to imply that Hillary Clinton was not qualified for the big job. I heartily disagree. She has six years of experience in the Senate, during which she compiled an impressive legislative record. She was married to the President of the United States for eight years, which brings a familiarity with the Presidency that few other candidates in the race have. And she's knowledgeable about all of the issues. Say what you want about Clinton's principles, but her resume is just fine.

Tina, I don't know if you've noticed but this board consists of people who, by and large, know that Condi is not running and who, for the most part, wouldn't vote for her either. Your posts are getting a bit old.

Posted by: Jeff | June 27, 2006 9:31 AM | Report abuse

Hillary has a shot at winning the Democratic nomination, but I can't see her picking off one state that Bush carried in 2004. That makes her an electorial college loser. She just is not going to win.

Posted by: pirate | June 27, 2006 9:30 AM | Report abuse

No to Hillary. WHAT HAS SHE DONE TO DESERVE ANY CONSIDERATION? To me, she is a gross out that the media is constantly trying to push her, and they are not showing any sensistivity to the EXTREME needs of what belongs in the Oval Office.

NOT a "woman". Not an "it." An American Citizen meeting the Constitutional requirements and then the extra "credit" of the public approval, more likely a man under today's current limelight track records of achievement and credibility and what is the TRUE NEED for the President. IF a woman had the proper credentials fine. But, it's time a woman, black, minority, etc. entered the true running--NO. When Jesse Jackson ran, I LIKED HIM for his ACHIEVEMENTS at a limelight record. But, Ralph Nader is my lifetime favorite of standing tall for America.

What is the public mandate?

Hillary doesn't begin to match that.

RALPH NADER AND PETER CAMEJO offered the proper view of what is needed for this country and the proper world order.

Footnote: to the media, after sympathy to the blog audience, to the media, TOKENISM is a HORROR and it does NOT BELONG IN THE PICTURE OF ANY EEO (equal opportunity employment means HIRE ON MERIT). You are NEVER supposed to hire "genitals." Idiots.

I have to put your truth where the truth is. Don't even begin to say the accomplishments match the public mandate and needs of the country.

Smiles and money and woman are not the qualifications for President. Willing to "suck up to the media" and take undeserved credit and railroad a party is HORRORIFIC.

Am happy to notice the majority of comments on this article are against Hillary!

Yay to the comment, WHY is the media acting as if she is a frontrunner when she IS NOT?

Posted by: Elizabeth Ellis | June 27, 2006 8:44 AM | Report abuse

Of course its laughable that Kos rails against "consultants" when he eagerly worked as a consultant himself for Dean.

Not sure this is a "major coup." Daou has an extremely small readership and is not too influential among progressive bloggers...

Posted by: Anonymous | June 27, 2006 8:39 AM | Report abuse

The netroos respects authenticity combined with progressive values. Hillary Clinton has neither.

Posted by: Intrepid Liberal Journal | June 27, 2006 6:09 AM | Report abuse

not sure i'd call this a "major coup." daou is a low level staffer that has little reputation in the blogosphere...

Posted by: Anonymous | June 27, 2006 4:30 AM | Report abuse

Sorry, Peter. But even if my choices were GW Bush vs. Hillary, I'd have to vote for Nader.

Posted by: Kevin Hayden | June 27, 2006 2:53 AM | Report abuse

I have tremendous respect for Peter Daou. He'll retain that, despite accepting this impossible task.

But Hillary, like several other Dems, is, as a Presidential nominee, someone I'll eagerly stay home for, scrounging up my pennies to pay for my healthcare.

Posted by: Kevin Hayden | June 27, 2006 2:49 AM | Report abuse

Speaking of the Dem blogsphere, look at the expose from Newsweek...

"Moulitsas is also learning another downside of membership in the elite: the bigger the liberal sniper gets, the more incoming fire he faces. The talk of the blogosphere last week was "Kosola"--allegations that Moulitsas wrote favorably about candidates with whom he or his close friend and coauthor Jerome Armstrong had financial relationships. Moulitsas swore the charges were baseless (Armstrong, too, has denied impropriety), but they clearly got under his skin. When The New Republic's Web site published an e-mail from Moulitsas to a group of friendly activists urging them not to talk about Kosola and thus "starve it of oxygen," Moulitsas went berserk in a blog posting, accusing the venerable liberal journal of treason. By the weekend, Moulitsas's allies were sending each other e-mails infected with the paranoia of revolutionaries who've gained power too fast: How should they deal with traitors? How much openness could they handle? Which fellow travelers could they really trust?

The thing is Kos shouldn't never talked about his money making on the ads. That opens him up to such criticism as folks do their own Rathergate style digging on him for a change. That he would explode in rage over the deal, shows he's not (if ever) ready for prime time, or playing hardball on himself (which politicos have to bear or wash out of the game).

It's Kos and his like that will sink the Democratic party faster than even Neo-Con style Swiftboating campaigns. They're like a cancer, that eats the core from the inside out. Worse they're their own cannibalizing themselves.

Now look at that photo on that page too. Anyone of color? Anyone who's income is less than $10,000? Anyone who isn't attending college? Anyone who had to work with their hands? How can these WASP types connect to the rural Blacks? The Hispanics? Christians, Jews, Catholics? Even Libertarians?? They're so disconnected to the traditional Democratic core that they are but aliens to the party.

Hilary though is well known by those populations, and from the political talk I hear on the bus (which can be a real nice reality check to all the propaganda BS here), is their choice. They liked Clinton and they want Clinton II. They wouldn't know Daily Kos if it landed in their front yard (and probably would respond to them as aliens), but they do know Hilary and her name has clout like no other Dem candidate (including any local or state representative).

That can't be bought with "netroots" or by some money maker who wants to be a party boss himself blog king. That comes from true politicking on TV (with results) from someone even a poor rural Black mom can relate too.


Posted by: SandyK | June 27, 2006 1:16 AM | Report abuse

Hillary will find out what Warner has discovered.

Hiring a high profile blogger doesn't 'a community make".

Warner's blog has been a ghost town for months. Just about the only bloggers there are Warner staff members.

Posted by: Red State Dem | June 27, 2006 12:41 AM | Report abuse

I find it hard to fathom how the position against the Iraq War is considered solely part of the Liberal wing of the Democratic Party ... since the majority of all Americans believe the invasion was a mistake. Any politician opposing the war would be in agreement with most of both Democrats and moderates. Hillary is making a big mistake.

Posted by: BillB | June 27, 2006 12:07 AM | Report abuse

Well, that explains why the only candidates available are crooks and liars, since they careless of the exposure.


Posted by: SandyK | June 26, 2006 10:35 PM | Report abuse

Condi will not run. Here is why;

1) I don't think she wants her private life scrutinized. She has never run for elective office. She has held only appointed office. So the press has not looked into her private life. That will end if she becomes a candidate. Chris Matthews can fawn over her all he likes, the Internet will have stories.

2)I don't think Condi wants her pre Iraq War WMD claims examined. Remember the "mushroom clouds"?

Posted by: DonB | June 26, 2006 10:23 PM | Report abuse

Tina, stop with the constant Condi stuff.

Condi sucks.

Just ask W.

Posted by: Tina is a shill | June 26, 2006 10:04 PM | Report abuse

Tina - when I criticized you about continuously polluting this blog with posts about Condi on the thread about '08 candidates' PAC's, you replied:

"Ohio Guy, hey, this post site is about PAC groups promoting candidates for 2008, this is the exact place for me to be."

Even though Condi HERSELF DOES NOT HAVE A PAC, I conceded to you b/c other delusional people like yourself DO have PAC's for the purpose of promoting Condi Rice for president. What, pray tell, is your excuse for talking about Condi on this thread about Hillary Cinton and the blogosphere? Yet again you have proven yourself to be a liar b/c you said you only spout your talking points about Condi on relevant threads and now you talking about her on one that has absolutely nothig to do with her. Everyone has read your drivel about Condi and none of the feedback I have ever read has been positive towards you. Take and hint and shut up about Condi or go over to redstate where someone might care.

No one uses this blog to campaign for and/or promote a candidate except for you, and that is not what this blog is for - it is for political discussion not for campaign operatives like yourself shoving Condi Rice down people's throats.

Posted by: Ohio guy | June 26, 2006 9:31 PM | Report abuse

Interesting that Hilary avoided Daily KOS. :) She's a smart politician to avoid the extremist talk and go with a more mainstream outlet (although using another blogster to uplift her image, again shows how disconnected politicians are with the internet, let alone it's so-called "netroot"). The way for her to rally support is to pen her own blog, and use the tools like everyone else (much like Bush Sr learned what a bar scanner was the hard way). That'll show she's in touch with this newer "plugged in" generation, and all of the hassles of producing material for this generation.

Until politicians get plugged in themselves (not through others), they won't connect to the iPod generation (those critical votes that seem to escape politicians until they're in their 30s).

She better get connected quick, since the Baby Boomers will start retiring in 2010 and they'll be wanting the perks.


Posted by: SandyK | June 26, 2006 9:20 PM | Report abuse

Tina, I've seen three posts by you on here - every one of them found a way to talk about Condi. God help us if Chris ever decides to devote an entire post to her...

I am a Democrat, albeit a moderate one. I am very much for the possibility of a female president, but NOT Hillary. A good friend of mine is going to work with Carville on her campaign, and even he has his reservations, but, seeing as he is just out of college and looking to make a splash somewhere, he has little choice. Just knowing that the bloggers out there don't want her is enough to show you she can't win. It appears the 08 ticket is slowly moving towards Warner and Bayh, which is perfectly okay by me... they are both relatively moderate (in comparison to the likes of Feingold, who I love, but doubt will be elected) and Warner could help to win some Southern states. Hillary offers little to no chance of that happening (except for maybe Arkansas, which goes away if Mike Huckabee is in any way involved in the GOP ticket). If there is to be a female president, it won't be Hillary, and it won't be 2008. As much as I hate to say it, the nation may be ready for a female president OR a minority president, but not both at once. Sorry, Tina, I just don't think it'll happen.

Before anyone jumps on me for saying that, I just want it to be known that if it were up to me, I'd pit someone like Nancy Pelosi or Sen. Diane Feinstein against Condi - at least they have achieved a modestly liberal agenda.

Posted by: Jack in New Orleans | June 26, 2006 9:02 PM | Report abuse

On the issue of a woman president, please understand that another woman is being mentioned as a preferred candidate for 2008, by the name of Condi Rice.

The Marist poll of Feb. 2006 shows 66% of the Republicans interviewed support Condi running for president. And whenever her name is listed as a choice, she is equal to McCain and Rudy. Has Rudy or McCain announced if they are running? NO.

So as far as frontrunner status for the GOP, it is a 3-way tie. But the Wash Post would have all of its readers think that McCain is way out in front, which is wrong.

Glenn Reynolds of Instapundit was one of the first bloggers to mention Condi for president back in early 2005. Other websites started to promote her as well, like

Condi Rice has been on the cover of the National Republican Women's magazine which asked the question, "Can our Secretary of State be our next President?" At the national convention in Nashville, a booth promoting Condi was swamped with women and a few husbands seeking to donate money to help the group get organized across the nation.

The Chris Matthews Show this weekend was talking about Condi as the most powerful person in the White House, next to the President. 8 reporters agreed, and only 4 stated that the President listens more to Cheney. So she is a contender in the eyes of most political pundits and reporters, who are printing polling data, and even a story once in awhile about the group promoting Condi for president.

So on the issue of the 2008 blogging, I continue to find interesting statements of support for Condi on TV and in the news.
If you have a chance, pick up the July 2006 issue of The American Legion magazine which has Condi on it's cover. The title is

So if Hillary runs in 2008, fine. But I just want you all to know that she is not the only candidate who is female. Condi is a War Hawk, like Margaret Thatcher and Golda Mier. I think if Hillary was going to be seen as tough enough to be president, that was one of the largest reasons for her to vote for the Iraq war and she will not back down. Why? Hillary will be called a FLIP FLOPPER, and that is a fact. Better to have been an anti-war voice like Russ Feingold than to try to come across as Warrior Queen. The Democrats might reject Hillary as standing strong on Iraq, but that is the corner she has painted herself into and that is where Hillary is.

The blog world has been buzzing about Condi for President for almost 2 years. Nice to see Hillary getting into the blog world as well.

The more Chris Matthews talks about Condi for president, the more the buzz increases as well with Andrea Mitchell and Kelly O'Donnell adding to the news as well.

This blog on Washington Post provides a place for all of us to discuss our viewpoints, and as a Republican woman, I think it is only fair for me to come into the room and speak up for Condi from time to time.

Posted by: Tina | June 26, 2006 8:23 PM | Report abuse

count me as among those who don't want HRC to run, I'm of the opinion that Evan Bayh should be on the ticket in some capacity. Wesley Clark, Russ Feingold, and John Edwards are all on my short list.

Posted by: Rob Millette | June 26, 2006 8:21 PM | Report abuse

It simply amazes me that the media still think she is the frontrunner. I talk to a lot of Democrats and have yet to meet ONE who wants her to be our nominee. But I guess it takes awhile for reality to filter down to the level of the beltway pundits. But they'll figure it out, eventually.

Posted by: B2O | June 26, 2006 7:58 PM | Report abuse

Brian I agree. She doesn't need to run to the right she's already there. Also Chris I wonder how much HRC would have to pay you to sell out and join the gang. I thought the whole point of the blogger movement was to be INDEPENDENT. Or maybe it was all the out of work silicon valley types who saw this as the next best thing to starting a dot com.
Either way it seems these guys are now cashing in.

Posted by: Andy R | June 26, 2006 7:29 PM | Report abuse

Hillary Clinton is a classic DLC Democrat -- in favor of anything supporting corporations over people, while giving lip service to issues that favor people over business. She's never been a liberal, but is running even farther to the right in order to suck up to a conservative voter base that has been trained for a decade and a half to hate her as a Pavlovian reaction.

I'd accuse her of abandoning her principles in order to run for President, but I've never seen them to begin with.

Posted by: Brian Minerly | June 26, 2006 7:16 PM | Report abuse

Why all this vitriol against Hillary. Didn't John Kerry vote for the war? No difference between Hillary and Bush???? Give me a break. Sounds like Mike has a problem with a women president

Posted by: lola | June 26, 2006 7:15 PM | Report abuse

Clinton is for Globalizatiojn, outsourcing jobs and guest worker programs that cost American's jobs. She is for continuing to murder our children in Iraq and is even for broadening the insanity to include Iran. I cannot determine any difference between her and George Bush on anything of significance.

Posted by: Mike Brooks | June 26, 2006 6:38 PM | Report abuse

It doesn't matter who Senator Clinton hires; a vast majority of people will NEVER vote for her for president. I admire and respect her but believe me, in my circle, I'm in the minority- liberal women can't stand her I'm sorry to say.Most won't vote for her because she put up with Bill's bad behavior. Now I can't vote for her because A) she can't win and B)she is too much of a hawk!I hope you're reading this Dauo. Let's elect John Edwards and put Senator Clinton in charge of massive health care reform. She is absolutely brilliant in that area.

Posted by: Nadia | June 26, 2006 6:33 PM | Report abuse

Daou is a sell-out. I won't touch Hillary and her out-of-touch elite ilk with a pole.

Posted by: Tom | June 26, 2006 6:13 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company