I think the important thing upon which both can agree----they are the presumptive nominees of their respective parties. No one else is running.

You suckasses in the press seem all too willing to play along.

Oh, there is little question that the Clinton response is accurate. He clearly isn't doing well based on substance so attacking the boogeywoman is the best way to score points with the anti-Democrat wing of the GOP.

Greg, I'm sure will see her campaign make firefighter references at some point. Maybe they're saving some of that ammunition for later.

RaymondA,
I think you're missing the point.
Hillary doesn't "rile up" the Republicans---she drives them stark raving mad. Outside of the rabid base, the kind of Hillary hate you will see from the Republicans will turn off voters. Rudy's headed down, no matter what he says about Hillary.

He clearly isn't doing well based on substance so attacking the boogeywoman is the best way to score points with the anti-Democrat wing of the GOP.

The anti-Hillary wing of the GOP.

See what I mean? We - democrats, republicans, americans, don't need to go back to the 20th century. That's the only experience Hillary offers

Rudy may or may not be losing ground to Fred in the polls. What ground he's lost he can easily make up if Fred keeps screwing up

The point lest we forget - Hillary Clinton is the best thing the GOP has going for it.

Hillary - Rudy's attacking you because you're such a fat target

First Hillary Guliani registers his/her/itself as a candidate for President under both Parties then he/she/it publicly attacks his/her/itself repeatedly. Talk about weird . . .

The quicker these two interchangable fascist plutocrats . . . sorry . . . corporate whores . . . sorry . . . splendiforous Republican-lite candidates tear one another apart and fade from the scene the better America NEEDS to elect a democrat this go around.

In this unfolding conundrum of life and history, there is such a thing as being too late. Martin Luther King

If Rudy wants to talk about "flip-flopping," we ought to welcome that.

While running for NYC mayor, Rudy was

(1) pro gun control

(2) pro a woman's right to choose re: abortion

(3) liked illegal immigrants and did not believe they should be arrested

(4) was pro gay rights.

....................................................................................................................................
Now that Rudy wants to attract the knuckle-dragging Republicans to vote for him, Rudy is:
....................................................................................................................................

(1) not pro gun control in the rest of the United States

(2) "promises" to appoint Justices to the U.S. Supreme Court "in the mold of Scalia and Alito" -- in other words, Justices guaranteed to further limit or even eliminate a woman's right to choose

(4) has a different story on his feelings about illegal aliens now

(4) is backpedaling on his support for gay rights and probably no longer hangs out with his gay friends (no, Rudy is not gay; he used to have gay friends when that sort of thing was okay with his NYC constituents but it wouldn't fly very well with his "new" constituents).

The ad is not aimed at Clinton, it's aimed at the base and its only purpose is fundraising, not even positioning.

That's my conclusion after viewing this really over-the-top production which could be summed up in two sentences: "Hillary Clinton criticized a General - a General, mind you - and did not criticize MoveOn! Oh, the humanity!"

The Republican candidates are all taking hits in the media. McCain has collapsed. Rudy hit a ceiling and is declining. Thompson has committed several gaffes during his campaign rollout. Mitt has a lot of baggage. Hillary is gaining strength in both primary and general election polls. It's reported that GOP fundraising with anti-Hillary mailings is losing steam. They are going to have to attack her to try to drive her negatives back up to previous levels of intensity. Otherwise they are effectively going to lose the 2008 election even before they get a candidate nominated. They are trying to break her momentum.

Jan -- you make some fair points that I've heard many Hillary defenders make, and they deserve a response.

First, when we talk about who has the formula for winning, it's important to note that, yes, Bill was good at getting himself elected. And Hillary's ability to get herself elected in New York state is notable but not the same as winning a national election, of course. (Hillary chose to move to New York, not because those vagabond blues were luring her there for no reason, but because leading NY Dems like Schumer cleared the field for her, and once she got that nomination unopposed, winning the state became fairly easy, especially after Rudy dropped out.)

But it's also important to note that even Bill, brilliant campaigner and public speaker though he was, never was able to deliver a message that translated into national public support for the Democratic party and hence the important progressive parts of his agenda (as opposed to the DickMorris-inspired parts of his agenda we'd all like to forget.

While Bill Clinton was, as you note, the first two-term Democrat since FDR (though surely JFK would have been re-elected had he not been killed), Bill is the exact opposite of FDR on one measure that I think matters more: FDR realigned the nation, bringing both houses of Congress into the Democratic fold.

And here's a question for you , Jan: Who was the leader of the Democratic party--the guy in charge of its message--when the Dems lost both houses of Congress for the first time since Truman? Yep, Bill Clinton. And he never was successful in getting real coattails after that.

So his message never translated into support for a set of Democratic progressive principles; it translated into support for him as a dynamic compelling person. One other thing is that no firm conclusions can be drawn about even Bill's persuasiveness with regard to the national presidential electorate, because the bizarre Perot phenomenon makes analysis of those two presidential elections difficult.

Second, I don't think Hillary is unelectable. If she gets the nomination, I give her better than a 50% chance of winning. I do, however, think that if she's the nominee, the Repub base will be more energized than if, say, Obama is the nominee. She also, rightly or wrongly, has some irrational haters.

I come from a mixed family; I'm part of the liberal branch but one branch could almost market itself as that mystical band of swing voters, who compose between 10 and 20 percent of the electorate and choose the President. They always vote for the winner, and not because that's what they are trying to do. They actually follow politics closely and make their decision early, before polls start indicating the likely winner. They voted for Bill both times and Bush both times, the second time with concern but still voted for him because Kerry turned them off. They have already said that they cannot possibly see themselves voting for Hillary. Period. Even though they have completely soured on Bush. I can't defend that, but it's real, and from what I hear from others, it's not isolated.

Finally, I agree with you on Edwards. Two months ago I would not have said this, but I now prefer Hillary to him, because she would far outperform him in debates.

This is a smart strategy for Rudy. If there's anything that can unite Republicans, it's someone who shares their hatred for Hillary Clinton.

The FACT is that it is the Clintons who have been able to get ELECTED and, then, RE-ELECTED in spite of everything the Republicans could throw at them and in spite of the media whores cooperation with the Republicans.

Maybe before you jump to conclusions about WHAT Greenspan admired In President Clinton, you should take the time to read the article and see what Greenspan admires in Clinton.

~ ~ ~
[excerpts]

[Greenspan] says [that during the Bush years], "Little value was placed on rigorous economic policy debate or the weighing of long-term consequences." The large, anticipated federal budget SURPLUSES that were the basis for Bush's initial $1.35 trillion tax cut "were GONE six to nine months after George W. Bush took office."

~ ~ ~

By the end of last year [2006], Greenspan writes with some bitterness, Washington was "harboring a DYSFUNCTIONAL government. . . . Governance has become DANGEROUSLY DYSFUNCTIONAL."

However, he calls Clinton a "risk taker" who had shown a "preference for dealing in FACTS," and presents Clinton and himself almost as SOUL MATES. "Here was a fellow information hound. . . . We both read books and were CURIOUS and THOUGHTFUL about the world. . . . I never ceased to be surprised by his fascination with economic detail: the effect of Canadian lumber on housing prices and inflation. . . . He had an eye for the big picture too."

During Clinton's first weeks as president, Greenspan went to the Oval Office and explained the danger of not confronting the federal deficit. Unless the deficits were cut, there could be "a financial crisis," Greenspan told the president. "The hard truth was that REAGAN HAD BORROWED FROM CLINTON, and Clinton was having to pay it back. I was impressed that he did NOT seem to be trying to fudge reality to the extent politicians ordinarily do. He was forcing himself to live in the real world."

Dealing with a budget surplus in his second term, Clinton proposed devoting the extra money to "save Social Security first." Greenspan writes, "I played no role in finding the answer, but I had to ADMIRE the one Clinton and his policymakers came up with."

The clang that your about to hear in the not so distant future is the anal opening to the repukeagains closing with a vengeance when they realize that for all the verbiage they have expelled denigerting the Clintons will have gone for naught, she has proved them wrong time and time again with her election to the senate. Where by the way she has accumulated an admirable record, much like our two women senators.
Washington's own Maria Cantwell and PATTY MURRAY, they weren't supposed to be electable either but ya know what, their service speaks well for their ability to fend off the Hyperbolic charades of the pukes.
Now you factor into the equation a lame cortege that espouses the lame polictical musings of a flattened duck (see Bush) there is no way the dems have to cater to a repertoire of ignorant dead beats, (see ralph nader and or green party candidates) can you say repukeagain lites??.

Having said this Rudy needs a distraction, even if he has o create his own, alibet the Betrayus pictures, its all he can do to keep newsies from examining him up close, the same can be said for Rommney, Fred the cant see the shadow Hedge Hog, (must be the balding Pate), THEY all need to have a diversion, they cant hold water with a sieve for a container, much like their candidacy's for president they are so full of holes that they appear shop worn and mouth eaten.

Fumigate the lot of em, they are wormy and bedraggled, hopefully they'll fore go the requisite need for a do ower.

I hope I can answer some of the questions directed at me.
For Richard L. Adlof@September 15, 2007 10:10 AM:
re: "we need FDR's vision of the future"
--> FACT: One of the FD Roosevelt's closest confidantes was a guy named Harold Ickes, Sr. If the name doesn't sound familiar to you in current politics, please go look it up and get back to me. FDR would be proud.

re: "Side Line: Edwards did not lose to Cheney during the debate and Edwards was polite . . ."
--> If you really believe that, we watched a different debate. Yes, Edwards was polite. And he got humiliated (as was Cheney's new BFF Joe Loserman.)

Richard, see I don't care why you DON'T like candidates. I'm having a job interview and so far I like Hillary Clinton. I've been willing to answer why.
Why don't you tell us who YOU think YOU are going to hire with YOUR vote?
--------------------------------

For Raymond @ September 15, 2007 10:13 AM:
Ray, you are going to have to go back to your own post some, because I'm going to answer every question and I don't want to make others read a whole post twice.

First, I'm not sure how old you are but you have some wrong history in your note to me.
1) Winning in NY is not the same as winning a national election. But you don't address my point, which was that she was considered unelectable in 2000.
2) Don't define her motives for her. I grew up about 10 miles from Hillary in N. Chicago, I've lived in the Hudson Valley, and and I've driven through Arkansas. If I had the choice, I'd settle down in Westchester County and run for Mohnihan's historic Senate seat too.
3) And you continue to make excuses for her win in 2000, ignoring the fact that she was deemd "unelectable."
4)You re-write history againby saying JFK was heading towards assured election. The Kennedy Haters were in FULL FORCE and his re-election was absolutely NOT a given whatsoever. JFK was assassinated while campaigning and Jackie was with him, even though she just lost a babay, because the team needed her.
LBJ won in a landslide because of the assassination, a bit like 9/11 and the 2002 election.
5) re: "And here's a question for you , Jan: Who was the leader of the Democratic party--the guy in charge of its message--when the Dems lost both houses of Congress for the first time since Truman? Yep, Bill Clinton."
--> Again, don't re-write history.
The Democrats lost in 1994 because the Democrats were caught check-kiting on the taxpayers' dimes. Period. I was there.
It had nothing to do with a) President Clinton, b) Hillarycare, or c) Contract with America.
It had to do with corruption on the part of the Fat Cat Democratic Congress in 1994.

Bill Clinton won a second term in 1996. Again, period. There's no excusing that away, the same way as there's no excusing Bush's second term away, period. Bush's second term gags me, but second terms can't be denied.

When the GOP threatened impeachment, the GOP lost the election in 1998.

And we'll not re-hash the coup that took place in 2000.

Where you blame Bill Clinton for any of those elections, I'm not sure. Bill Clinton had a weakness and he got caught at it. All that proves is that the GOP Slime Machine will go after every weakness in every politician who gets in their way.

That the GOP will use our gov't to alter elections is what is destroying the core of our democracy, imo. I refuse to bow down to the GOP Slime Machine, epsecially the Clinton Haters.
6) And, again, with the Perot comment -- "because the bizarre Perot phenomenon makes analysis of those two presidential elections difficult." -- I'll concede Perot affected the first election. But Perot was a non-factor in 1996. BC won a second term fair and square.
7) When you imply that none of BC's accomplishments translate to national change, how do you explain both his approval ratings today and his right direction numbers when he left office?

See, my problem with Democrats is it's like they can't even sell their own Party. Other than Jimmy Carter, the first Democrat I ever voted for was Al Gore.
And I'm here as the Clinton cheerleader, even though I never voted for the man!
Do you all actually just deny his accomplishments, and especially under the circumstances? If so, you deserve to lose elections because you don't appreciate the ones you win.
Were Democrats all asleep during the peaceful and prosperous 90's?
Both Clinton and Bush had six years of a Republican Congress.
Clinton's accomplishments use to be discounted as Congressional accomplishments. But under Bush, we have unending wars, debt, and both government AND persona; corruption, with hypocrisy thrown in.
Under Clinton we had successful victories, successful regime changes, surpluses, and gas at a dollar a gallon.
Can Democrats not see the success of Bill Clinton?

8) re: "I do, however, think that if she's the nominee, the Repub base will be more energized than if, say, Obama is the nominee. She also, rightly or wrongly, has some irrational haters."
--> Hey, I agree *100%*! But are you telling me that you're going to let a teeny-tiny group loud and obnoxious group of irrational haters dictate your life?
I love Obama, Edwards, Richardson, Kucinich, Biden, Dodd. I will proudly vote for them if they win the primary.
But my candidate is Hillary Clinton.

I have a lot of reasons, and I can give whole sentences of facts and statistics.
I don't ask that ANYONE vote for her, but please don't predict that the Democratic frontrunner in every catagory is "unelectible."

More history -- I volunteered for Dean. He had the national poll numbers but not all the state polls. He had the money from a new place, but not the old places. But Dean didn't have the national campaign structure. Kerry had the national campaign structure but ran out of money putting it together, but was also able to give himself a loan so he could ad-blitz New Hampshire.
Hillary clinton: national poll numbers, against both D's and R's; state poll numbers, against both D's and R's; new money, old money, the most money; and the best campaign structure of anyone R or D.
And, heck, she could even loan herself a few millions if push really came to shove.

Be careful, as well, in defining "swing voters." I am a swing voter. I am a Democrat right now because the GOP has been openly destroying our nation since 1996.
The Independent vote is 34% of the nation, and no matter what anyone tells you, D's are 33% and R's are 33% So, yes, they do swing all elections.
I never voted for Bill Clinton and I never voted for George W. Bush. That was because I demanded a balanced budget, and then because I knew George W. Bush had been a failure his entire life.
People who are gullible idiots voted for George W. Bush. Half of those gullible idiots were "swing voters."

re: "I come from a mixed family; [...] They have already said that they cannot possibly see themselves voting for Hillary. Period."

My answer: Fine.
I have never said I would not vote for another Democrat.
And, in fact, I have said I would vote for any Democrat who wins the primary.
I personally think your family is narrow-minded and wrong, but they have the right to never vote Hillary Clinton. Period.

But their "threat" has absolutely no effect on my vote whatsoever.

Thank you for this:
" Jan -- you make some fair points that I've heard many Hillary defenders make, and they deserve a response."

Thanks for listening.

Two things that all the irrational Hillogynists on this board should consider:

Hillary is a known quantity and even with her so-called negatives, she beats any of the Republican nominees in the recent credible polls. The attack machine that has slimed the Clintons for 15 years now hasn't even begun to work it's "magic" on any of the others. Hillary will charm the mushy middle as they get to see her on the presidential campaign trail.

If Hillary can build and hold double-digit leads against such excellent candidates as Obama, Edwards et al (no snark), how do you think, really, that she'll do against the Republican lightweights out there in today's political climate?

What states that Kerry carried will Hillary lose this time? Take those and add, at least, Ohio, and there you have it. Take heart, ye Hillogynists!

It is really strange that people are here (in fact this entire site) is like a blind anti-Hillary campaign. So much so one wonders if this the favorite gathering place for all quasi-Republicans.
Till right now who are the candidates who have shown any leadership:

Chris Dodd: Is he still running for president?

Hillary Clinton: but the liberal progressive democrats hate her guts even though if the primary is held today she will win handily. In every poll she only widens her lead.

Barack Obama: he is all pretty speeches where he hits it right out of the ballpark but when it comes to putting his mouth where his money is he lacks courage of conviction and substance. I mean this is the guy who campaigned for Joe Lieberman over the Democratic primary winner and now famously has taken down the ad for Walt-Mearsheimer's book from his site (why have it on if you do not believe in it and if you do believe in it why take it off. Reminds me of YearlyKos)

John Edwards: He is just phony. While in Carolina he started this Institute for Poverty and yet he did not do a single substantive thing from there. It was a front for his future presidential bid. Even now his campaign headquarters is located in one of the most affluent neighborhoods of Chapel Hill.

Maybe people in the sites need to grow up and vote for the person who will win and not give the prettiest speeches and tell people what they want to hear.

Although I'm not supporting Hillary in the primary, I can understand the attraction she represents as a candidate.

Unlike perhaps some of you, I concluded some time ago that Hillary was the political strategist and campaigner in the Clinton duo. She really is quite good at it and I think she's the reason Bill won the 1996 election and survived the impeachment mess. Good for her--she's an excellent strategist and can win elections, as she went on to prove in New York.

And, yes, Hillary did break with the traditional First Lady role and headed up a major policy initiative--universal healthcare. It bombed and Hillary has admitted her handling of it was a mistake. Of course, she now commits to universal healthcare in the first year of her second term which I simply view as totally self-serving for her own election and not a bit helpful to the Americans struggling without health insurance. I don't see that as positive for Hillary.

I've carefully read Hillary's responses early this year about how she came to support the Iraq War. What was most telling was her support for Bill's strategy in engaging America in the Balkans--it certainly was done without Congressional approval (the effort was funded by transfers until emergency funding was approved by Congress, a tacit approval of the Balkans effort). Hillary basically said she believes the Prez has to make these determinations and my opinion is that this belief is what led to her vote in 2002. In the post Cold War world, I think the Prez being able to engage our military in any action less that imminent and immediate danger to America needs to be curtailed and placed back in Congressional hands where it belongs and it only goes there after all efforts have been completely exhausted. My position will escape most voters but this is one reason Hillary loses my support.

I don't agree with her support of globalization or trade agreements and I suspect she is protecting Bill's "legacy" more than she is supporting Americans losing jobs. Another reason Hillary loses my support.

I also disagree with Hillary's defense of lobbyists who hand over fistfuls of money to politicians. It gives these folks access and the concept of the "common good" ends up in the round can. Hillary loses my support here.

In terms of Hillary's actual Senate record, it's pretty thin gruel in finding items of national significance--I don't think getting money for NY in the post-09/11 environment was any sort of achievement. Edwards also seems to have thin gruel in his one-term Senate career. Obama is very interesting since he has been able to get nationally significant legislation enacted--working with Lugar to fund the Nunn-Lugar initiative to secure nuclear materials was a real win as far as I'm concerned. This and other actions in finding common points of agreement to advance sensible national legislation proves Obama's ability to enact legislation--and I want that ability in the next Prez.

I also disagree vehemently with Hillary's 2002 vote and her arrogant "find another candidate to support" answer to a question early this year. I don't agree with arrogance and I don't want it in a Prez. We've had too much arrogance with this current Prez--don't need it again. This is my very personal gut reaction; again, it won't mean spit to the average voter.

I don't think the primary campaign is "over"; I think it's just getting started. I consider the current national polling to just be a fun thing to watch and completely unusable right now since the primary election will be very local, as it always is. There may be an annointing from the early 4 primaries, but I honestly am not as sure about that as I've been in the past five decades.

My reasons for not supporting Hillary in answer to the other responses here.