home

Hillary Clinton Memo: Turncoat Strategy for Red-States

By Jeralyn, Section Hillary Clinton
Posted on Tue Dec 06, 2005 at 02:04:49 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Arianna posts this leaked memo from the Hillary Rodham Clinton campaign which, if for real, is enough for me to say "No Hillary" rather than "Go Hillary" in 2008.

But I suspect the memo is a fake, particularly due to the inclusion of this paragraph:

The Sturgis Motorcycle Rally is being held on August 7th, and we expect HRC to be the “Grand Marshall.” HRC has agreed to get three tattoos. Thoughts? Top suggestions so far: “Semper Fi,” “Live Fast Die Young”, and “Senators Do It on the Floor”. Check local chapter of Hell’s Angels for endorsement and temp renaming to “Hillary’s Angels”. Must be sure HRC’s motorcycle lessons are completed by then, and remind her to call her bike her “hog”. Also, what size bustier and leather skirt is HRC?

Update: Arianna intended it as a parody, she wrote the whole thing. In that light, it's very, very funny.

< Praise for Ramsey Clark | Jury: No Convictions for Tampa Prof Sami al-Arian or Co-Defendants >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Hillary Clinton Memo: Turncoat Strategy for Red-States | 38 comments (38 topical)
    Re: Hillary Clinton Memo: Turncoat Strategy for Re (none / 0) (#1)
    by Linkmeister on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:41 PM EST
    Grins. Which item in there was your first clue?

    Re: Hillary Clinton Memo: Turncoat Strategy for Re (none / 0) (#2)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:41 PM EST
    Fake but accurate? This must have come from the Onion or some such thing. In the words of Ahnold "That's a good one, baby."

    Re: Hillary Clinton Memo: Turncoat Strategy for Re (none / 0) (#3)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:41 PM EST
    Fake, but oh so true...

    Re: Hillary Clinton Memo: Turncoat Strategy for Re (none / 0) (#4)
    by roy on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:41 PM EST
    The non-joke portion should be sufficiently scary. She wants to expand fedgov for the sole purpose of securing her own power. Now if only I could find a politicians who didn't do the sort sort of thing, I might have a great point...

    Re: Hillary Clinton Memo: Turncoat Strategy for Re (none / 0) (#5)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:42 PM EST
    And Bob "Red" Bone will ride in the side car. ;-)

    Re: Hillary Clinton Memo: Turncoat Strategy for Re (none / 0) (#6)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:42 PM EST
    Jokes are jokes, but any Democratic candidate in future elections will have to come up with some strategy for the red states, or the Republicans will stay in power for a long time... a long, long time. They may have 3 Bushes, 5 Cheneys, 11 DeLays and 13 Libbys, but on the other hand they will also have a determined ridical base, which will be enough to sway every election in their favor. Even now, when the majority of Americans are disgruntled with Bush and his Republican peers, it is very much possible that the next president will still be a Republican. Mainly that's because the right wing voters are focused on their goal, whereas the rest of the society is still more or less indifferent. If a Democratic nominee fails to convey his/her message to a larger segment of the people (especially in those red areas), the game will be over from the start. So really, try to understand that they have to maneuver to some extent. What's important is that a Democrat should be careful not to lose his/her indentity. Lowering the flag a bit should never mean taking the flag off the pole. Sometimes it's difficult, but it can be done. Let's hope that it will be done.

    Re: Hillary Clinton Memo: Turncoat Strategy for Re (none / 0) (#8)
    by glanton on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:42 PM EST
    She is a hard-core, left-wing harpy who wants to tell everyone how to run their lives and raise their children,
    Examples? Of course not. For a "libertarian" you've been sounding more and more like Hannity lately.

    Re: Hillary Clinton Memo: Turncoat Strategy for Re (none / 0) (#9)
    by glanton on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:42 PM EST
    Meanwhile, as justpaul parrots the GOP Line that Hillary Clinton and other Democrats want to run people's lives, we get to deal with a majority perfectly represented by such as this: And speaking of telling us how to run our lives, how about the Shiavo circus. Did Hillary Clinton even show up for that silly vote? TO their credit, many Democrats did not. Last I checked, Hillary Clinton wasn't "speaking out" against homosexuality either; nor was she going on every Sunday show she could to proclaim that "we are a Christian nation." I'm not a big Hillary Clinton fan, justpaul, but people like you make her look like a Valkerie or an Iron Angel.

    Re: Hillary Clinton Memo: Turncoat Strategy for Re (none / 0) (#10)
    by glanton on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:42 PM EST
    Oh, here's the link that didn't work last time:

    Re: Hillary Clinton Memo: Turncoat Strategy for Re (none / 0) (#11)
    by glanton on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:42 PM EST
    I mean, here it is. Gruesome but worth the wait

    Re: Hillary Clinton Memo: Turncoat Strategy for Re (none / 0) (#12)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:42 PM EST
    I know that this is the standard liberal Democratic mantra for why Democrats keep losing elections, but it's still odd to see this offered up in advance of an election. The sooner, the better :). The Democrats had every opportunity to win the last election, but because the opposite happened, this really should be taken very seriously. I agree that what I had written is a standard matra, but it is also the right answer. The problem is how to make it a success, and nobody really knows it, until someone finally manages to connect the dots. Hilary has some idea - better or worse, but we can all agree that she is trying to change something. Only that the problem isn't a failure to "get the message" across to anyone; the problem is that most Americans don't agree with the message. I think the problem is how to energize the people, because half of the population doesn't give a damn - they don't vote. The Republican base is by far better organized. They have purpose-driven people, united and very determined to stand up for their beliefs. The other side of the aisle (in a broad sense) is, in my opinion, naturally inclined to follow more individualistic paths. These people are also more likely to be fed up with politics. The liberals and moderates struggle to find some issues which would really glue them. That's why Democratic candidates have an uphill battle nowadays... However that's why I wrote about lowering the flag a bit. It's important in order to find common grounds with a greater number of people. He lost because his policies made no sense. This seems to imply that, on the contrary, the guy who won, had policies which made much sense :>. When you invoke the spending you should remember that lowering taxes and waging wars do not fit well together. THIS is truly a bizarre experiment which makes no sense whatsoever - and yet, this experiment received the majority of votes... If these people get serious about going after her she might not even win against Pirro. When reading such sentences, one may get the impression that America is a homogenous country. Perhaps Bush and his supporters would want this to be true, but surely there are enough people in the USA to show them exactly the opposite. A falsehood repeated one hundred times doesn't become the truth. There are different viewpoints and anyone offering rational proposals should, and I believe will be able to convince the voters. She is a hard-core, left-wing harpy who wants to tell everyone how to run their lives and raise their children You must have mistaken Hilary for guys like Bob Jones or Anthonin Scalia. I have never met a liberal person who would like to run anyone's life. I don't know what you are affraid of... Do you?

    Re: Hillary Clinton Memo: Turncoat Strategy for Re (none / 0) (#13)
    by demohypocrates on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:43 PM EST
    Odd to see a Clinton making a run to the center in anticipation of a presidential campaign. Such is the zany world of left wing politics.

    Re: Hillary Clinton Memo: Turncoat Strategy for Re (none / 0) (#14)
    by Johnny on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:43 PM EST
    Odd to see a Clinton making a run to the center in anticipation of a presidential campaign. Such is the zany world of left wing politics.
    Uhhh... Like "compassionate conservative?" Get real.

    Re: Hillary Clinton Memo: Turncoat Strategy for Re (none / 0) (#15)
    by kdog on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:43 PM EST
    She has more in common with Bush than meets the eye. They are both frauds concerned with the advancement of their power and influence, instead of the prosperity of the nation. In other words, they are politicians. When they aren't smiling and taking pictures with babies, they are stealing their candy.

    Re: Hillary Clinton Memo: Turncoat Strategy for Re (none / 0) (#16)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:43 PM EST
    Glanton, If you need me to link to a copy of "It Takes a Village" to get an idea of how Hillary sees life, there no point in my doing so: you are beyond hope. If you need me to list for you all the security measures placed around Chelsea during her years in the Whitehouse to keep the media away and every quote from Hillary saying that the topic of Chelsea was off limits, you are one of the few people on the planet that missed it. Yes, I know that your standard response to everything you dislike is to claim that lack of links is proof it's false (hence your position that the sky is not blue and the earth does not orbit the sun), but I won't be held responsible for the fact that you are willfully ignorant on all issues. That's your problem. Hillary Clinton has a long and storied history as a rabidly liberal politico. She has played to the center very well since being elected to the Senate, so well in fact that the extreme left now distrusts her on the things closest to their hearts, but that doesn't mean anyone but the looney left (and you) takes her seriously. Call it Republican points all you like, Glanton, if that's all you can do to deny to yourself the inevitability of her going down in flames. Pump her for all she's worth. We'll all have the next Bush presidency to thank you for when you're done.

    Re: Hillary Clinton Memo: Turncoat Strategy for Re (none / 0) (#17)
    by Slado on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:43 PM EST
    justpaul You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink. Some wing nuts would say "stop giving them good advice!" But I've learned that no matter how many times you tell them their strategies and policies don't play they don't listen. Now Dean & Pelosi are garunteeing the war agrument which might have played well in 2006 will be the killer like terrorism and Iraq were in 2002 and 2004. It amazes me how democrats can snatch victory from the jaws of defeat but they always manage to do it.

    Re: Hillary Clinton Memo: Turncoat Strategy for Re (none / 0) (#18)
    by Slado on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:43 PM EST
    Correction: Defeat from the jaws of victory.

    Re: Hillary Clinton Memo: Turncoat Strategy for Re (none / 0) (#19)
    by swingvote on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:43 PM EST
    For Glanton and anyone else who spent the 90s hiding in a cave with their head up their ass: The village, in Mrs. Clinton's book, is much more than the communities in which we live--it is a metaphor for the continued expansion of government into every aspect of our lives. Beginning with the sensible if often exaggerated proverb that "it takes a village" to raise children, she ends up, in her book It Takes a Village, calling on all 250 million Americans to raise each child. Chelsea Clinton has been in the public spotlight for seven years, but the media have generally honored the first family's request that they respect her privacy. Nonetheless, the First Couple soon developed an unspoken pact with the press that Chelsea was strictly off limits. "It's the request of the president and Mrs. Clinton that Chelsea be allowed to have as normal a childhood as possible while living at the White House," said Neel Lattimore, the first lady's spokesman. What is more anger-provoking to many of us, a glaring contradiction and a gross insult to the world's intelligence, is the outrage of the First Couple that their daughter might eventually be made to face the press, and through it the world, regarding her survival in the face of a disgusting scandal created by her father. Pushed to the wall by the presidential couple's initial petulant insistence that the story be killed, and later alleged threats if People did not back off from Chelsea, many wonder why they don't think about their child before they engage in behaviors guaranteed to place Chelsea in an untenable cage of public mortification.

    Re: Hillary Clinton Memo: Turncoat Strategy for Re (none / 0) (#20)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:43 PM EST
    Sebastian writes:
    but on the other hand they will also have a determined ridical base,
    I think I will post the above comment on the bulletin board of the First Baptist church. It will thrill them to know that they are considered radicals by what they see as the “elites.” All kidding aside, you misstate the problem when you write:
    If a Democratic nominee fails to convey his/her message to a larger segment of the people (especially in those red areas),
    Actually it is because the “red state voters” understand Kerry, Kennedy, Dean and Hillary that they reject them. Witness Hillary’s attempt to become a “hawk.” However, if she doesn’t rapidly, and I mean very rapidly, dump “We Can’t Win The War” Dean, then she is doomed to failure. The red state voter’s basic belief structure is detailed here. Their value system places great value on family, church, self reliance and defense of home and country. But they are not “conservatives,” and are willing to accept things and people on face value. Historically they have suffered from “tight” money and are the only segment of our society who has a recent history of the bitter effects of losing a war. Glanton – The dust up over Shiavo was mostly over the feeling that the system failed the parents and prevented a fair and just hearing, not that the law was wrong, but that it was applied wrong. The issue was not the right to have a living will, but that in the absence of one, who should be heard? And, whether true or not, the actions of the husband raised numerous questions. Et al - The actions of family members, unless political pressure is brought to get them out of trouble, should be 100% off limits. We didn't elect Chelsea, and while it can be argued that the actions of children provide an insight to the parents, anyone who has ever raised children know that is very wrong.

    Re: Hillary Clinton Memo: Turncoat Strategy for Re (none / 0) (#21)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:43 PM EST
    sebastian... I have never met a liberal person who would like to run anyone's life. Don't get out much do you? That's all the libs ever want to do..... because you are too stupid to know what's best for you. For example...here in Chicago...the big deal now is a smoking ban.... basically forcing bar & restaurant owners to tow the line... Not learning the lesson from the New York do gooders when 60% of the people went to the burbs so they could continue to have a smoke with their beer. Bottom line? Libs need to mind their OWN business & keep out of everyone else's.

    Re: Hillary Clinton Memo: Turncoat Strategy for Re (none / 0) (#22)
    by glanton on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:43 PM EST
    justpaul: re your assertion that I demand links all the time, that's a real laugher. Anyone who's angaged me regularly knows that's a lie. I very rarely link myself--I prefer for people to speak what is on their minds and I speak mine, drawing from knowledge that is common. But I give examples of what I'm talking about when I make an assertion. To that end I linked Tom Coburn, though it could have been any number of GOP Senators or the President. Your modis operandi, on the other hand, is to make a bold assertion and expect everyone to accept it. Like the Hannityesque Talking Point that Hillary Clinton is a hard core left winger. Again. What "hard core left" bill has she voted for, sponsored, suggested? Dollars to dingleberries says you have never read It Takes a Village. It would be a break in character for to know what's you're talking about. Hint: the book doesn't put forth programs for our lives to be run by the government. That is, unless you're one of those crazy people who thinks public education is a far left concept. Does the thesis of her book contradict her desire to protect her daughter from paparazzi? Of course not. There's nothing in her book about the media calling children 'house dogs' or hounding them for a juicy quote. Finally, please stop trying to characterize me as some big fan of the Clintons. Just because I have taken issue with your ignorant assertion, doesn't mean I'd vote for her in a primary. Jim: spare us the Shiavo defense. In the end everyone saw that for what it was. And I am proud of every single Democrat who didn't botgher to show up.

    Re: Hillary Clinton Memo: Turncoat Strategy for Re (none / 0) (#23)
    by glanton on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:43 PM EST
    BB And intriguing example. I am both a smoker and a devotee of civil liberties and as such, was greatly dismayed in March when I went to California and couldn't smoke in a bar. Yes, this is the doing of a Democratic legislature, and it is very frustrating. Especially since I have logged many years in the restaurant business and know full well how possible it is to install filitration systems for the purpose oif designating smoking areas.

    Re: Hillary Clinton Memo: Turncoat Strategy for Re (none / 0) (#24)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:44 PM EST
    glanton... know full well how possible it is to install filitration systems for the purpose oif designating smoking areas. That's the rub here...if the 'owner' agrees to buy a 'certain' filtration system backed by the city council (can you say "kick-back") then they can apply for a waiver. Yes, this is the doing of a Democratic legislature, and it is very frustrating. Nice to hear someone finally admit that! Stuff like this is the MAIN reason I no longer call myself a Dem. We have repealed a 'helmet' law here in Illinois 3 times but they just won't let it rest. They are bound & determined to protect me whether I want it or not. I think the "PC correct" Dem party is out to lunch and waaaaaay out of touch with reality.

    Re: Hillary Clinton Memo: Turncoat Strategy for Re (none / 0) (#25)
    by glanton on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:44 PM EST
    BB: I am hardly alone in voting Democratic while simultaneously admitting the many foibles and inconsistencies within that party. And it's a matter of degree. As for your PC comment, if you're interested, please see my take on that, in response to Big Tex, posted on the last Friday Open Thread. And of course, to me, it's a matter of degree, and I wish you you would at least open your mind to this simple truth. If you're really bothered by government intrusiveness into private citizens' lives, then I assume you're thoroughly incensed by the Shiavo circus, by Tom Coburn's call for the death penalty for abortion doctors and the GOP desire to imvade the private space between women and their doctors. I would say I hope the Patriot Act (which Hillary Clinton, that "left wing harpy," proudly signed in her own blood) bothers you, but your posts on that have proven otherwise. I know, I know--safety before freedom. From your mouth to Edmund Burke's ear. I hope you see the push by the GOP, every election cycle, to insert a constitutional amendment banning flag burning for the crap that it is. I hope that you are aware of the GOP outcry regarding the Lawrence v Texas decision, not to mention the old Griswold decision. And the list goes on. You know, in ways I understand and respect the rabid GOP base much better than I understand some of self-dubbed "moderates" who vote Republican. All evidence to the contrary, you continue to insist that the GOP is the party of small government. Oh that it were true.

    Re: Hillary Clinton Memo: Turncoat Strategy for Re (none / 0) (#26)
    by desertswine on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:44 PM EST
    I am both a smoker and...
    You need to quit smoking. Really.

    Re: Hillary Clinton Memo: Turncoat Strategy for Re (none / 0) (#27)
    by swingvote on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:44 PM EST
    Glanton, You seem very up on a book you only learned about this morning. Or was your "request" for a link just one more idiotic attempt to change the subject? What's next? Cries about people hijacking threads? Hillary's book is a clarion cry for more government involvement in how people raise their kids. Hillary's demand that no one be involved in how she raises her kid is in direct contradiction to that call for more government involvement. Hillary doesn't want for herself what she wants for everyone else. End of story. Sorry you can't see that. Enjoy voting for her. You deserve her.

    Re: Hillary Clinton Memo: Turncoat Strategy for Re (none / 0) (#28)
    by glanton on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:44 PM EST
    desertswine: What, has my wife been talking to you lately? ;-) Seriously, I know it. Quitting is an act of courage, as I'm sure you are aware. My hiterto attempts have shown a marked lack of that characteristic. Still, I have not given up.

    Re: Hillary Clinton Memo: Turncoat Strategy for Re (none / 0) (#29)
    by swingvote on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:44 PM EST
    Glanton, I am hardly alone in voting Democratic while simultaneously admitting the many foibles and inconsistencies within that party. Got a link for that, or are we just supposed to accept it as fact? From your mouth to Edmund Burke's ear. Who'd Edmund Burke? Got a link for that? I hope you see the push by the GOP, every election cycle, to insert a constitutional amendment banning flag burning Or that? I hope that you are aware of the GOP outcry regarding the Lawrence v Texas decision, not to mention the old Griswold decision. Or that? Gee, I guess that's all just BS you made up, right Glanton? After all, no links, no validity. I hope you get the point.

    Re: Hillary Clinton Memo: Turncoat Strategy for Re (none / 0) (#30)
    by glanton on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:44 PM EST
    jp: We all knew about the book befroe this morning. I have read it. Have you? Didn't think so. (Reading blog summaries doesn't count as reading it.) I shan't be voting for her unless she gets the nomination, and then it will be out of despair, but I will fight her getting that nomination every step of the way. Again. I didn't ask for a link but an example. You have yet to produce a single basis for the your adjectives. Village dos not sanction the paparazzi tactics and intrusiveness which Jim, refreshingly, disparages upthread. It does ask that we recognize an investment that we have in one another's future; for her this translates into upgrading public education as much as possible, making sure every child (and citizen, for that matter) has access to top quality health care. These are not "hard-left" principles, though your buddies on FNC have succeeded in convincing you of the absurd. Tell you what, instead of "who is John Galt," you ought to be asking, "who is this woman I'm demonizing? What, specifically, has she voted for? What has she proposed?" Etc. But bold assertions with no support are your thing, as when you insisted that Zell Miller was a gread Democrat but could not offer a single solitary example of Miller differing from the GOP platform. Moreover, you have flamed me every time I respond to one of your posts. That is fine. Like voting Republican, it's easier than thinking.

    Re: Hillary Clinton Memo: Turncoat Strategy for Re (none / 0) (#31)
    by kdog on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:44 PM EST
    glanton, BB I think we all know both parties want to run our lives. If you cherish individual liberty, you don't have a place in either party.

    Re: Hillary Clinton Memo: Turncoat Strategy for Re (none / 0) (#32)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:44 PM EST
    glanton.... I assume you're thoroughly incensed by the Shiavo circus. Well, incensed might be a little strong... but I wasn't pleased. However, it was more about the husband than her anyway. I saw people trying to fight that more as stopping her (questionable) husband from killing her than anything else. Probably not a good example. by Tom Coburn's call for the death penalty for abortion doctors I certainly don't agree with that. But I'd like your thoughts on how the left could favor abortion and fight the death penalty. I would say I hope the Patriot Act ...bothers you, but your posts on that have proven otherwise. There are parts of it I'm not pleased about, but I do understand the need for it. Even with it the government is having a hard time making anything stick. But, am I concerned that I will be wisked away in the dead of night never to be heard from again?.... NO I know, I know--safety before freedom Well there is a fine line. I would say life above both of those. How much will my freedom mean to me if Chicago goes up in a nuclear cloud???? And the list goes on Yes it does and it's just as long on the Dem side. (See my post about the smoking ban) All evidence to the contrary, you continue to insist that the GOP is the party of small government. Well...I think they are better than the Dems at this point. I know that's not saying much.

    Re: Hillary Clinton Memo: Turncoat Strategy for Re (none / 0) (#33)
    by glanton on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:44 PM EST
    kdog: You're Nadering me. But all things under the sun are not the same. There is no perfect party, nor will there ever be. I'll take the lesser of two evils every time.

    Re: Hillary Clinton Memo: Turncoat Strategy for Re (none / 0) (#34)
    by kdog on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:44 PM EST
    Not when they are both so evil glanton. Something has got to give. I'm voting against every incumbent until further notice. Any weight the Dems had with me was lost during their pathetic showing throughout the Bush admin. They voted for Iraq, they voted for the Patriot Act...they don't get credit with me because it wasn't their idea. They are accomplices. Co-conspirators. Hillary is my senator, I was happy to learn two "real" anti-war candidates will be opposing her for the Dem slot on the ticket. They have my vote blind.

    Re: Hillary Clinton Memo: Turncoat Strategy for Re (none / 0) (#35)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:45 PM EST
    Two quick points: 1. JimakaPPJ: Actually it is because the “red state voters” understand Kerry, Kennedy, Dean and Hillary that they reject them. Perhaps it is true. Taking that into account, it may not be possible to win support of those people who understand you and reject you. They will probably vote Republican and it's natural. But there is a significant number of people who don't reject you, but are unconvinced or indifferent. They are the ones who should be "taken care of". I don't say that the Democrats should convey their message to the people being part of a strong Republican base. The message should be conveyed to the rest. And it doesn't mean that the message ought to be stiff. No, it should be modified - of course in good faith, not to manipulate someone. When I read many posts here, it seems like there is a status quo - one group votes Republican, the other votes Democratic, and that's it. Some politicians are rejected in one place, the others are rejected in another place, and it's all fixed - that's the impression. But what I'm trying to say it that everything is in motion. The people can be convinced and inspired everywhere in the country. In the Electoral College system it's not enough for the Democrats to increase their support in the blue states because this won't give them even a single elector. Aditional electoral votes are to be found only in the red states. And if you say that a Democratic candidate will be rejected there, than there is no point in having the elections, because the result is already determined. I refuse to believe that, although I know that winning would be very difficult. In the case of war in Iraq - many in the blue states believe it was wrong, and it can't be won; many in the red states think differently. It's not the solution to dump one group, and endorse the other. I mean the candidate can be inclined to support one stance, but he/she has to be able to compromise with the rest and do it truthfully, not in a phoney manner. For example when we have the idea of an immediate withdrawal of forces, it can be substituted for withdrawal of forces after the completion of specific tasks. I believe this could be widely accepted both in the red and in the blue states provided you outline the phases, the tasks, and give target dates. Don't get me wrong - I don't call on the candidates to have it both ways. What I want them is to reach out, understand the other side, and try to work out something that could be respected. 2. BB: Don't get out much do you? That's all the libs ever want to do..... because you are too stupid to know what's best for you. What you are saying here is a misguided representation of liberalism. If it happens, it is performed by misguided people - and of course there are misguided people everywhere on both sides. However the liberal idea is exactly the opposite, though when you have real life situations of course it's difficult to strike the right balance. That's why even liberal people can sometimes go too far, but, in general, running someone's life is not at all a liberal premise nor desire. For example...here in Chicago...the big deal now is a smoking ban.... basically forcing bar & restaurant owners to tow the line... You must understand that, in my opinion, what "liberal" means here is to allow you do whatever you want with yourself, but also protect others from suffering the consequences of your personal decisions. Because it's important that EVERYONE run their own lives. You should be able to smoke in the environment, which prevents other people from becoming the so called passive smokers. You have the right to ruin your health, but you have no right to ruin my health or anyone else's. It's as simple as that. I don't know the specifics of the Chicago ban so I don't give an opinion on it - perhaps they drafted the regulations badly, but maybe you just misrepresent it. Libs need to mind their OWN business & keep out of everyone else's. Everone needs to do it, and liberals are the most likely to follow such a rule in a rational and just fashion.

    Re: Hillary Clinton Memo: Turncoat Strategy for Re (none / 0) (#36)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:47 PM EST
    Sesbatian wrote:
    I don't say that the Democrats should convey their message to the people being part of a strong Republican base.
    I didn’t say that. What I said was:
    The red state voter’s basic belief structure is detailed here. Their value system places great value on family, church, self reliance and defense of home and country. But they are not “conservatives,” and are willing to accept things and people on face value. Historically they have suffered from “tight” money and are the only segment of our society who has a recent history of the bitter effects of losing a war.
    Pay close attention to that “not conservatives.” They aren’t. Many are very liberal in their “live and let live” belief, and only react defensively when they feel that their beliefs are under attack. This leaves them vulnerable to manipulation, but so does any strong belief system. I consider myself a social liberal. I support a woman’s right to choose, gay rights, tax reform, health care reform and other issues that the Left is ignoring in their head long plunge to try and win elections based on attacking the war. That’s a “lose-lose” position for several reasons, but mainly because we see the need to first have a country before we try and change it. We also understand that it is better to fight when you want to rather than wait until it is the enemy’s advantage. The problem the Democrats have is that they embraced the anti-war, far Left wing of the party. This is further complicated by the elitist statist attitudes, and phony comments are regarded as insulting. Kerry probably lost Ohio when he made his infamous question: Can I get me a hunting license here? He would have been better served to have just said, “I’d like to purchase an out of state hunting license, with a duck stamp.”

    Re: Hillary Clinton Memo: Turncoat Strategy for Re (none / 0) (#37)
    by glanton on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:47 PM EST
    I consider myself a social liberal. I support a woman’s right to choose, gay rights, tax reform, health care reform and other issues that the Left is ignoring
    And Jim, if you really believe that the "red state voters" you're defending share those concerns with you, then really, you might have lost it. They "aren't conservative." Please. "Live and let live." Double please.

    Re: Hillary Clinton Memo: Turncoat Strategy for Re (none / 0) (#38)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:48 PM EST
    OK Jim, I do agree with you that there is a significant number of voters in the red states, who are not conservative. Unfortunately the Democrats in 2004 gave up on them. Kerry conceded those areas to Bush without a fight and focused only on a few battleground states. That was a mistake, because by doing so, more and more people in the South and in the Midwest were (and are) vitually pushed towards the Republican Party. Those who are not necessarily conservative feel disheartened and thus the conservative grip on the red states tightens. This situation has to change in 2008, but how to acheive it... well, this is an open question as far as the details are concerned.

    Re: Hillary Clinton Memo: Turncoat Strategy for Re (none / 0) (#39)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Jan 07, 2006 at 10:47:04 PM EST
    what has happened to this great party? liberal influence is causing a huge problem. i was raised a traditional dem. but today i feel deep concerns about direction. i believe that the working man should have his shot at a fair shake, nice home, nice car, nice fishing boat. the problem today is the elected "left" has lost site of that. to many agenda based interest groups influence national attention to the dem. party. this has led to a serious misunderstanding about the focus of the party. this attitude caused me to leave the party. long before 9/11 i had grave doubt. local dem. elected officials were pushing welfare programs that would raise the recipient's standard of living above mine. at that time i was a union electrition working my ass off, giving part of my paycheck to the dem. party. this particular welfare program was an agenda based local vote buying program financed by the I.B.E.W!! i felt betrayed and used. the party that i belonged to for so many years side stepped the backbone working man for welfare intitlement programs please dems. my once proud party, remember the people that work hard, stop the soccialist intitlement policies that a very small minority pushes.

    Hillary Clinton Memo: Turncoat Strategy for Red-States | 38 comments (38 topical)