I am extremely happy Hillary has decided to run. She has been my candidate for over a year now. So even though I knew this day might be coming, now that it is here I am more excited than I thought I would be...

I know the progressive CW is she is too polarizing and cannot win. It's a meme I believe to be wrong...I think we will find as the campaign moves along that she is going to be far more formidible than anyone dreams right now...

If I were a betting man, I would put my money on her taking the oath of office two years from now!

it's the mainstream media and average observers CW that "she is too polarizing and cannot win".

the netroots and progressive CW is that Hillary represents the "establishment" and a triangulation/centrist/DLC style of politics that will fail to motivate the democratic base.

just my two cents :)

Have managed to fuse these arguments together...they say she is too moderate which is why they don't want her...while agreeing that her perception in the country is that she is a liberal (which they argue - wrongly IMO - that she is not), and thus too polarizing...

But as a guy who hopes to have some form of political career in Virginia Beach, the last thing I want to be famous for is guest posting on the Hillary for President blog.

gets Virginia Beach residents excited?

Warner did, but now I'd say it is anyone's game.  But in Virginia Beach, you have to be able to relate to Republicans.  The last way to do that is have some connection with Hillary. 

I find it puzzling, because ideologically, Hillary Clinton isn't much different than Edwards, Obama, Gore, etc.  Do people just buy into the right-wing spin machine on Hillary Clinton?  If so, they shouldn't, because as we all know, those people are a bunch of liars and scoundrels. 

Though Hillary's record as a Senator is moderate, she has a history of liberal activism before she held office.  This gives a tiny fact-base for the Limbaughs and O'Reillys of the world to use, and from there she becomes villain numero uno for Republicans.

perception is more important that reality in politics.  The right wing noise machine tagged Hillary as a crazy liberal years ago and there is nothing that a "moderate voting record" in the Senate can do to change that.

Thus, many people don't understand this seemingly centrist positioning for either the nomination process OR the general election.  Hillary seems is trying to appeal to voters in the middle who already have an opinion formed about her and probably wouldn't reconsider voting for her no matter what the facts are.  At the same time, she has alienated the anti-war democratic base and the anti-establishment netroots who actually pay attention to her voting record. 

I really don't get the strategy.  All I can figure is that she is counting on Edwards and Obama to split the anti-Hillary vote in the primaries giving her the nomination.  Couple that that with a ton of money and a very "old school" political machine behind her, she figures she can win the general.

Her strategy could work but it's straight out of the Begala/Carville playbook.

First its the alternative history with President Jeb Bush in this Sunday's Washington Post Outlook section and now its this board saying Run Hillary Run.  I think its great that America has dynasties that have been involved in politics, but I'd like for just once to live my adult life under a president that's not a Bush or a Clinton.  I can see it now, a bunch of people will help to elect Hillary for Dubya's ascending, then a group of supporters is going to encourage Jeb to get in the 2012 race to avenge Clinton II era's repeal of Dubya laws. Then the children will get into the game.  The presidency is not a throne!

Don't worry. You are not alone. Many Democrats believe Hillary is just another flavor of Neocon. She seems to be getting by with presenting various personas to various groups without anyone calling her on it.

means?  I ask because you use it as an all-purpose insult, even if it has absolutely no relevance (as in this case).  Very strange...

I know the history of the Neocons begins with Leo Strauss. I know about their involvement in the "Team B" group during the cold war headed by Richard Pipes. Team B believed that one should act on what one imagines the enemy is doing, not on facts gathered by the intelligence services. Their philosophy was basically "If you think they are doing it they probably are. You don't need verfication."

I know about the PNAC documents. I know the general philosophy of the main members, total war, etc. I know where Leo Strauss picked up his philosophy. I know about their philosophy of creative destruction. I know that Leo Strauss taught that a country needs to be in wars so they people don't get soft and selfish, therefore war and fear are good for us because they bring us together behind a common pupose, nationalism. These are just a few things I know about the Neocons.

Again, as I have said before most of their ideas are in the PNAC documents. A PNAC members' list is easy to find as are their ideas so why ask me? This is practically public knowledge. You act as if this is a term people are just making up out of whole cloth. Many people use this term. Is it banned here? I am beginning to think so. I notice most of the posts here don't discuss the national scene or the main players in the big picture. I am gradually coming to the conclusion that I need to start posting more on other blogs where these are commonly understood terms and where one isn't challenged for using them.

What has evolved in political discussions is that anyone who has come to share the Neocon philosophy is generally referred to as a Neocon or a Neocon sympathizer. I think that is reasonable in the same way that a person is labled a Democrat once he or she joins the Democratic Party.

anything to do with Hillary Clinton?

by the way.  No need to respond.

The Democratic Leadership Council,the organization Senator Clinton is affiliated with,as is her husband "a former senior fellow at the DLC and the former legislative director for the Christian Coalition", Marshall Whitmann on its roster.  Now here at raising Kaine I thought we're opposed to the DLC and the Christian Coalition,at least I was, therefore we should be opposed to Hillary. 

Also, Mark Twain once remarked a conservative is a person who adopts the radicals position after the ideas aren't so radical anymore. Robert Novak remarked on stuff like calling for Rumsfeld's resignation, that when Hillary called for it it seemed opportunistic, in that every other person in the Democratic Party had been calling on Rumsfeld's resignation for a year and a half before Hillary thought it was safe.  Ironically if she wanted to be president, knowing that Iowa,land of anti-Iraq people, is one of the first states to hold contests, she should've been apologizing like a Catholic who goes into the confession booth to get into heaven.  Course its well known that the Clinton's are Baptists and from my understanding Baptists don't have confession booths, so, so much for wishing experience. But that's besides the point.  Infact I argue that Clinton is the Democrats' Bush. She's stubborn to a fault. And as we've seen with Bush, stubborn is not a good quality for a president.

The Whittman qutation you can research at wikipedia's article on the DLC. 

She supports the PNAC war(s).  She has never apologized for wanting America to go to war.  And she will agree to whatever war Israel wants next.  Iran?  And for that she will have a lot of AIPAC backing.