If the issue was punishment for white collar crime, Hillary be all against that, ... and probably pardon many white collar criminals to prove her point, like Bill did. This is not a fight you win, Hillary, ... face it! You don't get to pick which criminals you like and which you don't. Back off!

It's true - a lot of good stuff has been said in these posts. Too bad "Queen Hillary" is probably above reading posts like these from commoners like us! Anyway, I think people are leaving Hillary left and right because she doesn't have the guts to take on special interests, the religious right and other non-democratic influences in government. She's just another puppet with no real desire to change status quo.

URGENT REPOST:

When are the pundits going to start confronting the issue of how the primaries being front-loaded favors the previously well-known contender -- the one who was considered the presumptive nominee when the process started -- over ANY possible challenger or upstart, even one that might be at least somewhat well-known before the campaign began?

The way I see it, Obama could very well demonstrate his superior strength AS A CANDIDATE, with voters who are familiar with the candidates and have heard a lot (both + and -) about them -- winning not only Iowa but New Hampshire & S Carolina as well. This is not a far-fetched prediction, & indeed, Obama may be at least an even bet to do just that. (Of course, the results in MI, FL, and NV are another matter).

But then comes Tsunami Tuesday ("TT" I call it for short). Here, the inertia of the campaign is given full swing, & even the momentum built up by Obama with three major victories in the heavily campaigned-in states would leave him at a disadvantage in what amounts to essentially a national primary.

Curiously, the circumstances in MI and FL, the two LARGEST states to vote before TT, is such as specifically to PRECLUDE major campaigning on the part of any candidate that doesn't want to outrage the Democratic Party establishment; hence they are more like the TT states than the 'big three' of January. ALL OF THESE FACTORS SEEM TO FAVOR THE CANDIDACY OF HRC, ALMOST INSURMOUNTABLY, AND ALL ARE PREDICTABLE RESULTS OF THE WAY THAT THE NATIONAL DEMOCRATIC PARTY SET UP THE ELECTIONS.

It's time for the grass-roots & net-roots Democrats to start SERIOUSLY grappling with this issue. If this setup insures an HRC nomination, as it seems clearly to have been intended to do, & THEN SHE LOSES, I think that progressives will REALLY have to think seriously about completely overhauling the Democratic Party. And no more dancing to the tune of the DLC & their 'why doesn't the Democratic Party dump its pro-choice platform?'(Al From) after the 2004 elections.

I am currently watching Russert on MSNBC and Andrea Mitchell, true Clintonite, is suggesting that Hillary is repositioning herself to get more of the young vote. She is reporting that Hillary said she is looking out for “the next generation”.

I have not seen any of Hillary's speeches since she arrived in New Hampshire, but if what Andrea Mitchell is reporting is true, she needs to have fired Penn yesterday.

How can a candidate win if their campaign doesn’t have a central core message? Were Senator Clinton a less polarizing person, it would be a toss-up of that working. Because people believe she is calculating and disingenuous, the changing of campaign message from this to that seems calculating and disingenuous.

I feel a little bad for her. She is getting awful advice.

So the Hillary campaign has gone so far to the right, its criticizing Obama for being to the left?

You really have to dig with a pitchfork to find something that justifies a headline about Clinton attacking Obama over an issue of "harsher prison sentences".

What else is new?

Another bit of news:

"War? What war? Economy trumps Iraq in election".
This is another headline.
This is what has become of us.
Let them die.
We are given three candidates to choose from
Two of these folks have raised 100 million dollars - and if we are expected to believe it is the little guys who supplied the money - yeah. Right.
None of the three we are given to choose from has anything like a record of speaking against this war.
I'm talking now. Now fucking 2002.
Neither political party gives a shit.
So the voters slide into a coma.
And people die.

Perhaps we should just refer to her as "Hilieberman" from now on.

Is Hillary now criticizing Obama for his stance against mandatory minimum sentencing? If she is for mandatory sentencing, i am agains her. They only serve to increase the prison population to make profits. Soon they will come after you. Eventually they want care what color you are, if they can make a profit off of you.

Don't be surprised FOR EXAMPLE, if one day your child is locked up 18 months for stealing a candy bar. The minimum sentence for thief, any kind of thief could be 18 months.

I love you commenters! I got to this thread late and you had already said everything I was thinking and more. This is why Hillary is not my candidate - not only does she tack to the right for perceived political advantage, but I think that she believes this stuff too. Her core beliefs are too conservative - especially when it comes to war and crime.

Grasp those straws Hillary. You don't grasp anything else.
Certainly not the Iraq war, the economy, health care, the environment, taxes, or the risk to our nation from lobbyists and corporate greed.

"Hillary's aides point to Obama's extremely progressive record as a community organizer, state senator and candidate for Congress, his alliances with "left-wing" intellectuals in Chicago's Hyde Park community, and his liberal voting record on criminal defendants' rights as subjects for examination."

-------------

Are Hillary aides now working for Obama?
That's not an attack on Obama, that's praising him.

“Number one, we do have to go after racial profiling. I’ve supported legislation to try to tackle that.

“Number two, we have to go after mandatory minimums. You know, mandatory sentences for certain violent crimes may be appropriate, but it has been too widely used. And it is using now a discriminatory impact.

“Three, we need diversion, like drug courts. Non-violent offenders should not be serving hard time in our prisons. They need to be diverted from our prison system.

“We need to make sure that we do deal with the distinction between crack and powder cocaine. And ultimately we need an attorney general and a system of justice that truly does treat people equally, and that has not happened under this administration.

- Hillary Clinton, June 2007
http://www.talkleft.com/story/2007/7/1/135138/3573

I'm sorry, Hillary, but this is not 1968, and the country is not clamoring for law and order. We see too many people having their constitutional rights trampled. Cheney/Bush have done very well on law and order, thank you, and this is an area in which we truly do need change. The Clintons are probably sorry that as a senator, Hillary cannot interrupt her campaign and fly back to Albany to sign an execution warrant and show that she is tough on crime as her husband did in 1992 when he flew back to Arkansas to put mentally deficient Ricky Ray Rector to death.

Mandatory minimum sentences, much like the program from which they originated, the so-called "War on Drugs", have proven to be equally dismal failures as the death penalty has for stopping murder.

Sounds to me like Hillary, as with the war in Iraq, is backing failed policy.

I'll be interested to see her response to a question regarding her stand on mandatory minimum sentencing.

She should have her tap shoes ready.

Hillary shouldn't go negative. She should just go.