How would you advise Governor Martin O'Malley to defeat Hillary Clinton?

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Play up your support for anti trade contracts. Harp on the fact that as tenure as mayor; outreach to Blacks.  And play up the fact that more Govs have been elected president.

[henster]

He really needs to emphasize his record, as a Governor he's done far more things then Hillary ever did as Senator or SoS. Few people can tell me Hillary's accomplishments are but I can name a few of O'Malley's.

[Fuzzy Bear Loves Christian Missionaries]

He really needs to emphasize his record, as a Governor he's done far more things then Hillary ever did as Senator or SoS. Few people can tell me Hillary's accomplishments are but I can name a few of O'Malley's.

This is the key to O'Malley maximizing what I consider to be his miniscule chances.  O'Malley really does have a record in MD, and it's a defensible record.  Whatever one would say about Baltimore's riots, etc., it didn't happen on O'Malley's watch.

Hillary, on the other hand, is a celebrity who's had some high-profile positions, but she's "just been there".  She's not been a leader in foreign policy in the manner of a John Foster Dulles or a Henry Kissinger, and she's not really been RIGHT on any key issue in a way where people could point to her and say "If only we listened to Hillary!".  She was "there" during Bill's term, but it's a fair question to ask if a President's spouse should have the kind of activist high profile in the White House that she did.  Was that good for America?  I think that's a fair question.

[Sir Mohamed]

He might attack her for the wealth of the Clintons and accuse her, to be out of touch with ordinary Americans.

[WVdemocrat]

He really needs to emphasize his record, as a Governor he's done far more things then Hillary ever did as Senator or SoS. Few people can tell me Hillary's accomplishments are but I can name a few of O'Malley's.

This is the key to O'Malley maximizing what I consider to be his miniscule chances.  O'Malley really does have a record in MD, and it's a defensible record.  Whatever one would say about Baltimore's riots, etc., it didn't happen on O'Malley's watch.

Hillary, on the other hand, is a celebrity who's had some high-profile positions, but she's "just been there".  She's not been a leader in foreign policy in the manner of a John Foster Dulles or a Henry Kissinger, and she's not really been RIGHT on any key issue in a way where people could point to her and say "If only we listened to Hillary!".  She was "there" during Bill's term, but it's a fair question to ask if a President's spouse should have the kind of activist high profile in the White House that she did.  Was that good for America?  I think that's a fair question.

These are some really good points, actually.

[Beet]

LOL at liberals criticizing Hillary for not being Henry Kissinger. Sometimes it's doing less is better, folks.

And Hillary had been right about plenty of things. How about that signature legislative accomplishment of the current man in the White House, for instance? Or the quote in my signature? The problem is she never gets credit for it when she's right.

[Fuzzy Bear Loves Christian Missionaries]

In truth, if O'Malley were actually to take Clinton down and win the nomination, he would have to do it in a way which would damage the party's chances for the General Election.  He'd have to trash her personally with stuff that would stick.  He'd have to go after her on Benghazi, and give Republicans credibility.  

If he did this, he'd be done in politics.  He'd be the guy who blew it for the Democrats, the guy who ruined their brand just when it became rehabilitated from the McGovern debacle of 1972.  He'd gut the blame for a Republican President appointing new Supreme Court Justices who overturn Roe v. Wade and who uphold Citizens United.  He'll get the blame for the repeal of Obamacare, for additional Lindsey Graham wars, for the trashing of the safety net, because if he trashes Hillary enough to win, he'll have to do it to the point where it will be a GOP landslide, with the Democrats winning only the Northeast, the Pacific Coast, and IL.  In reality, O'Malley would have to wreck the Democratic Party to be nominated.  George McGovern did it in 1972, and look what happened to the Democrats ever since.

[Beet]

In truth, if O'Malley were actually to take Clinton down and win the nomination, he would have to do it in a way which would damage the party's chances for the General Election.  He'd have to trash her personally with stuff that would stick.  He'd have to go after her on Benghazi, and give Republicans credibility.  

If he did this, he'd be done in politics.  He'd be the guy who blew it for the Democrats, the guy who ruined their brand just when it became rehabilitated from the McGovern debacle of 1972.  He'd gut the blame for a Republican President appointing new Supreme Court Justices who overturn Roe v. Wade and who uphold Citizens United.  He'll get the blame for the repeal of Obamacare, for additional Lindsey Graham wars, for the trashing of the safety net, because if he trashes Hillary enough to win, he'll have to do it to the point where it will be a GOP landslide, with the Democrats winning only the Northeast, the Pacific Coast, and IL.  In reality, O'Malley would have to wreck the Democratic Party to be nominated.  George McGovern did it in 1972, and look what happened to the Democrats ever since.

And plenty of people would be ecstatic with that outcome.
; it's what they live for.

[henster]

In truth, if O'Malley were actually to take Clinton down and win the nomination, he would have to do it in a way which would damage the party's chances for the General Election.  He'd have to trash her personally with stuff that would stick.  He'd have to go after her on Benghazi, and give Republicans credibility.  

If he did this, he'd be done in politics.  He'd be the guy who blew it for the Democrats, the guy who ruined their brand just when it became rehabilitated from the McGovern debacle of 1972.  He'd gut the blame for a Republican President appointing new Supreme Court Justices who overturn Roe v. Wade and who uphold Citizens United.  He'll get the blame for the repeal of Obamacare, for additional Lindsey Graham wars, for the trashing of the safety net, because if he trashes Hillary enough to win, he'll have to do it to the point where it will be a GOP landslide, with the Democrats winning only the Northeast, the Pacific Coast, and IL.  In reality, O'Malley would have to wreck the Democratic Party to be nominated.  George McGovern did it in 1972, and look what happened to the Democrats ever since.

The Clintons did the same thing with Obama dug up Reverend Wright, the birther stuff, Muslim rumors etc. the Clintons don't hesitate to run nasty personal campaigns O'Malley shouldn't hold back.

[WVdemocrat]

In truth, if O'Malley were actually to take Clinton down and win the nomination, he would have to do it in a way which would damage the party's chances for the General Election.  He'd have to trash her personally with stuff that would stick.  He'd have to go after her on Benghazi, and give Republicans credibility.  

If he did this, he'd be done in politics.  He'd be the guy who blew it for the Democrats, the guy who ruined their brand just when it became rehabilitated from the McGovern debacle of 1972.  He'd gut the blame for a Republican President appointing new Supreme Court Justices who overturn Roe v. Wade and who uphold Citizens United.  He'll get the blame for the repeal of Obamacare, for additional Lindsey Graham wars, for the trashing of the safety net, because if he trashes Hillary enough to win, he'll have to do it to the point where it will be a GOP landslide, with the Democrats winning only the Northeast, the Pacific Coast, and IL.  In reality, O'Malley would have to wreck the Democratic Party to be nominated.  George McGovern did it in 1972, and look what happened to the Democrats ever since.

The Clintons did the same thing with Obama dug up Reverend Wright, the birther stuff, Muslim rumors etc. the Clintons don't hesitate to run nasty personal campaigns O'Malley shouldn't hold back.

That was pathetic and I still can't believe Hillary did that. O'Malley shouldn't resort to such personal character attacks. He has a record he can run on.

[IceSpear]

Place thallium in Hillary's water during the debates.

[Fuzzy Bear Loves Christian Missionaries]

In truth, if O'Malley were actually to take Clinton down and win the nomination, he would have to do it in a way which would damage the party's chances for the General Election.  He'd have to trash her personally with stuff that would stick.  He'd have to go after her on Benghazi, and give Republicans credibility.  

If he did this, he'd be done in politics.  He'd be the guy who blew it for the Democrats, the guy who ruined their brand just when it became rehabilitated from the McGovern debacle of 1972.  He'd gut the blame for a Republican President appointing new Supreme Court Justices who overturn Roe v. Wade and who uphold Citizens United.  He'll get the blame for the repeal of Obamacare, for additional Lindsey Graham wars, for the trashing of the safety net, because if he trashes Hillary enough to win, he'll have to do it to the point where it will be a GOP landslide, with the Democrats winning only the Northeast, the Pacific Coast, and IL.  In reality, O'Malley would have to wreck the Democratic Party to be nominated.  George McGovern did it in 1972, and look what happened to the Democrats ever since.

The Clintons did the same thing with Obama dug up Reverend Wright, the birther stuff, Muslim rumors etc. the Clintons don't hesitate to run nasty personal campaigns O'Malley shouldn't hold back.

That was pathetic and I still can't believe Hillary did that. O'Malley shouldn't resort to such personal character attacks. He has a record he can run on.

I very much agree with DimpledChad.  I don't see where O'Malley gains using personal attacks.  He'll be attacking an icon, and the Feminist Left of the Democratic Party very much views it at  "their time" to provide a President.  And with Hillary, there's no excuse regarding "experience" (she's got more than Obama did in terms of time in elected office) or "electability" (she's the most prohibitive favorite at this point of any non-incumbent ever).  If he goes negative against Hillary, he'll be done in politics.

[WVdemocrat]

In truth, if O'Malley were actually to take Clinton down and win the nomination, he would have to do it in a way which would damage the party's chances for the General Election.  He'd have to trash her personally with stuff that would stick.  He'd have to go after her on Benghazi, and give Republicans credibility.  

If he did this, he'd be done in politics.  He'd be the guy who blew it for the Democrats, the guy who ruined their brand just when it became rehabilitated from the McGovern debacle of 1972.  He'd gut the blame for a Republican President appointing new Supreme Court Justices who overturn Roe v. Wade and who uphold Citizens United.  He'll get the blame for the repeal of Obamacare, for additional Lindsey Graham wars, for the trashing of the safety net, because if he trashes Hillary enough to win, he'll have to do it to the point where it will be a GOP landslide, with the Democrats winning only the Northeast, the Pacific Coast, and IL.  In reality, O'Malley would have to wreck the Democratic Party to be nominated.  George McGovern did it in 1972, and look what happened to the Democrats ever since.

The Clintons did the same thing with Obama dug up Reverend Wright, the birther stuff, Muslim rumors etc. the Clintons don't hesitate to run nasty personal campaigns O'Malley shouldn't hold back.

That was pathetic and I still can't believe Hillary did that. O'Malley shouldn't resort to such personal character attacks. He has a record he can run on.

I very much agree with DimpledChad.  I don't see where O'Malley gains using personal attacks.  He'll be attacking an icon, and the Feminist Left of the Democratic Party very much views it at  "their time" to provide a President.  And with Hillary, there's no excuse regarding "experience" (she's got more than Obama did in terms of time in elected office) or "electability" (she's the most prohibitive favorite at this point of any non-incumbent ever).  If he goes negative against Hillary, he'll be done in politics.

I agree. He should stay focused and on message. He shouldn't get distracted by sideshows.

[Beet]

He'll be attacking an icon, and the Feminist Left of the Democratic Party very much views it at  "their time" to provide a President.

As an ally of the Feminist Left of the Democratic Party, I personally loathe the notion of "their time" or "their turn" or however it's phrased (regardless of whether it's coming from a supporter or opponent). I've always supporter Hillary since I think she gained the requisite experience to run for president. I supported her in '08. It has nothing to do with "times" or "turns". She's simply the best candidate.

As far has having a woman on the ticket, I would have loved to see it in '00, '04, '08, or '16. Those years because before 2000, I didn't follow politics, and in '12, of course I wanted to see the incumbents on the ticket. Again, it has nothing to do with turns. I've felt exactly the same about that question every year.

[Fuzzy Bear Loves Christian Missionaries]

He'll be attacking an icon, and the Feminist Left of the Democratic Party very much views it at  "their time" to provide a President.

As an ally of the Feminist Left of the Democratic Party, I personally loathe the notion of "their time" or "their turn" or however it's phrased (regardless of whether it's coming from a supporter or opponent). I've always supporter Hillary since I think she gained the requisite experience to run for president. I supported her in '08. It has nothing to do with "times" or "turns". She's simply the best candidate.

As far has having a woman on the ticket, I would have loved to see it in '00, '04, '08, or '16. Those years because before 2000, I didn't follow politics, and in '12, of course I wanted to see the incumbents on the ticket. Again, it has nothing to do with turns. I've felt exactly the same about that question every year.

You can't deny that the particular "It's our turn!" sentiment is out there.  It's toned down somewhat because of the overwhelming advantages Hillary has in the race right now, but if a male candidate comes from behind, somehow, and snatches the Democratic nomination from her current grasp, it will be viewed as an affront to women by AT LEAST the feminist left, and nominating Hillary for VP won't solve the problem. 

[Beet]

He'll be attacking an icon, and the Feminist Left of the Democratic Party very much views it at  "their time" to provide a President.

As an ally of the Feminist Left of the Democratic Party, I personally loathe the notion of "their time" or "their turn" or however it's phrased (regardless of whether it's coming from a supporter or opponent). I've always supporter Hillary since I think she gained the requisite experience to run for president. I supported her in '08. It has nothing to do with "times" or "turns". She's simply the best candidate.

As far has having a woman on the ticket, I would have loved to see it in '00, '04, '08, or '16. Those years because before 2000, I didn't follow politics, and in '12, of course I wanted to see the incumbents on the ticket. Again, it has nothing to do with turns. I've felt exactly the same about that question every year.

You can't deny that the particular "It's our turn!" sentiment is out there.  It's toned down somewhat because of the overwhelming advantages Hillary has in the race right now, but if a male candidate comes from behind, somehow, and snatches the Democratic nomination from her current grasp, it will be viewed as an affront to women by AT LEAST the feminist left, and nominating Hillary for VP won't solve the problem. 

Ah, I see what you mean now. I think it really comes down to whether you view "our time/our turn" as including the sentiment "well past time" or not. I don't like the former phrasing because it implies some sort of organized top-down process where people take turns in a line or something. I don't think anyone really thinks like that.

[Fuzzy Bear Loves Christian Missionaries]

He'll be attacking an icon, and the Feminist Left of the Democratic Party very much views it at  "their time" to provide a President.

As an ally of the Feminist Left of the Democratic Party, I personally loathe the notion of "their time" or "their turn" or however it's phrased (regardless of whether it's coming from a supporter or opponent). I've always supporter Hillary since I think she gained the requisite experience to run for president. I supported her in '08. It has nothing to do with "times" or "turns". She's simply the best candidate.

As far has having a woman on the ticket, I would have loved to see it in '00, '04, '08, or '16. Those years because before 2000, I didn't follow politics, and in '12, of course I wanted to see the incumbents on the ticket. Again, it has nothing to do with turns. I've felt exactly the same about that question every year.

You can't deny that the particular "It's our turn!" sentiment is out there.  It's toned down somewhat because of the overwhelming advantages Hillary has in the race right now, but if a male candidate comes from behind, somehow, and snatches the Democratic nomination from her current grasp, it will be viewed as an affront to women by AT LEAST the feminist left, and nominating Hillary for VP won't solve the problem. 

Ah, I see what you mean now. I think it really comes down to whether you view "our time/our turn" as including the sentiment "well past time" or not. I don't like the former phrasing because it implies some sort of organized top-down process where people take turns in a line or something. I don't think anyone really thinks like that.

Well, we are a more "Balkanized" country than we were in 1915, or even 1965.  The Democratic Party is a ideology-based liberal party, but it's formula for winning is one of capturing incredibly large percentages of votes from minority groups of all types, coupled with a significant "gender gap" that places a significantly higher percentage of white females in the Democratic tent than white males.  The Democratic Party is now a collection of the Feminist Left, Blacks, Hispanics of all kinds (even Florida Cubans are moving to the Democratic Party), Asians, Muslims (which were initially a toss-up) and ideological liberals.  But it's a majority-minority party right now, and because of this, each minority group has some leverage for insisting that it's "their turn". 

This is why, despite his youth and relative inexperience, Julian Castro has emerged as a serious VP possibility; it's the Hispanic's turn, and since Hillary is a white female and Obama is bi-racial, it's their turn.  If a white male is chosen as Hillary's running mate, it may be viewed as an affront to the minority groups who support the Democratic Party that a minority isn't on the ticket at all. 

Indeed, given the dependence on the gender gap and huge majorities from minority groups, women and minorities have HUGE leverage in determining who's on the national ticket.  I predict that we will not have a Democratic ticket of two white, non-Hispanic males ever again in my lifetime.  This is the result of realignment and changing demographics.  Indeed, the GOP is becoming at a disadvantage BECAUSE of their white male-ness.  Obama's victories, I firmly believe, are a result of having a racial ADVANTAGE, and this is now the case for Julian Castro as a VP candidate.  It's not your father's Democratic Party; indeed, it's not your father's American demographic.

[CLARENCE 2015!]

Call it a day pal...

[Beet]

He'll be attacking an icon, and the Feminist Left of the Democratic Party very much views it at  "their time" to provide a President.

As an ally of the Feminist Left of the Democratic Party, I personally loathe the notion of "their time" or "their turn" or however it's phrased (regardless of whether it's coming from a supporter or opponent). I've always supporter Hillary since I think she gained the requisite experience to run for president. I supported her in '08. It has nothing to do with "times" or "turns". She's simply the best candidate.

As far has having a woman on the ticket, I would have loved to see it in '00, '04, '08, or '16. Those years because before 2000, I didn't follow politics, and in '12, of course I wanted to see the incumbents on the ticket. Again, it has nothing to do with turns. I've felt exactly the same about that question every year.

You can't deny that the particular "It's our turn!" sentiment is out there.  It's toned down somewhat because of the overwhelming advantages Hillary has in the race right now, but if a male candidate comes from behind, somehow, and snatches the Democratic nomination from her current grasp, it will be viewed as an affront to women by AT LEAST the feminist left, and nominating Hillary for VP won't solve the problem. 

Ah, I see what you mean now. I think it really comes down to whether you view "our time/our turn" as including the sentiment "well past time" or not. I don't like the former phrasing because it implies some sort of organized top-down process where people take turns in a line or something. I don't think anyone really thinks like that.

Well, we are a more "Balkanized" country than we were in 1915, or even 1965.  The Democratic Party is a ideology-based liberal party, but it's formula for winning is one of capturing incredibly large percentages of votes from minority groups of all types, coupled with a significant "gender gap" that places a significantly higher percentage of white females in the Democratic tent than white males.  The Democratic Party is now a collection of the Feminist Left, Blacks, Hispanics of all kinds (even Florida Cubans are moving to the Democratic Party), Asians, Muslims (which were initially a toss-up) and ideological liberals.  But it's a majority-minority party right now, and because of this, each minority group has some leverage for insisting that it's "their turn". 

This is why, despite his youth and relative inexperience, Julian Castro has emerged as a serious VP possibility; it's the Hispanic's turn, and since Hillary is a white female and Obama is bi-racial, it's their turn.  If a white male is chosen as Hillary's running mate, it may be viewed as an affront to the minority groups who support the Democratic Party that a minority isn't on the ticket at all. 

Indeed, given the dependence on the gender gap and huge majorities from minority groups, women and minorities have HUGE leverage in determining who's on the national ticket.  I predict that we will not have a Democratic ticket of two white, non-Hispanic males ever again in my lifetime.  This is the result of realignment and changing demographics.  Indeed, the GOP is becoming at a disadvantage BECAUSE of their white male-ness.  Obama's victories, I firmly believe, are a result of having a racial ADVANTAGE, and this is now the case for Julian Castro as a VP candidate.  It's not your father's Democratic Party; indeed, it's not your father's American demographic.

I'm just saying that people who support having a woman head the ticket aren't thinking "Gee, first we need a black man, next a white woman, next a Hispanic, etc. etc."

I'd like to see a woman head the ticket because women are half the population, and a majority of Democratic voters, and the continued male domination of politics sends a signal that solely by being born a woman, you have less legitimacy to lead. Period.

It has nothing to do with race, demographics, what year it is, etc. etc. Certainly the longer it goes on the stronger the desire becomes, but I would have felt the same way in 1965 or even 1915.