Since those against Hillary seem to be pounding the drums today, I have a question -

[Skip Intro]

I'm not going to ask if you'd vote for Hillary should she be the Dem nom, because I'm assuming most Democrats on Democratic Underground would support the Democratic candidate in the general election. If I'm wrong on that, please correct me.

What I want to know is, what problem, if any, do you have with Hillary. There seems to be a bandwagon of strong dislike going on from time to time where she's concerned and today the anti-Hillary message appears to be, can't vote for her because nobody likes her. The strong dislike itself, it seems, has become reason in and of itself to, well, stongly dislike her. It seems to be getting to a point where it is feeding on itself, with the real reasons for the anti-Hillary contingent lost or fading. And I can't help thinking back on the influx of new Du-ers (which we all were once) back in 03, just before the 04 primaries got going. Many of those new posters, most of whom have kind of faded away, clearly had agendas to promote one candidate or the other, sometimes by trashing one or more of the other candidates. Not saying that's going on right now, but this board has become a presence I'm sure has not escaped those who engage in covert campaigning.

Having said all that, let me say that I assume most of it stems from her vote for the IWR and subsequent refusal to admit it was a mistake. Yes, I have a problem with that myself, but I also see the logic by not admitting mistake at this point, because it would appear she caves to pressure. Not saying I agree, but I can see the political logic there. Our best candidate not only has to win our primaries, but has to be able to win among the rest of the electorate in the general. As much as I don't like it, despite what happened last November, America is not vastly blue. Our candidate must have a wider appeal than just among the faithful to actually take the WH.

At any rate, I do, really do, appreciate John Edwards saying his vote was a mistake. I gave him a hard time here in 03 for not doing so then. He and Kerry both. And I can understand the animosity toward Hillary for not doing the same. I understand that.

My question, then is this: if you are vehemently against Hillary for president, why? If it is the IWR, or the refusal, say so. But if it is something else, please, elaborate.

Personally, I'd vote for Hillary if she were the nom because she'd be far better for the country than any repuke.

Just trying to get a grip on the stong anti-Hillary sentiment I'm seeing.

Thanks.

[JeffR]

1. You could start by getting a grip on the heavy-handed use of

the word "hatred".

Please?

[Warpy]

3. Seconded

I just searched back and found two OPs concerning Clinton and mild criticism of her message, mostly because the writers thought it smelled strongly of pandering.

Save the "hatred!" for the folks who really deserve it: right wing talk jocks, televangelists, Phelps, right wing pundits, and all their fascist ilk.

[Cha]

50. Thanks! I hadn't seen any "pounding"

on hillary, today, either.

[Atman]

4. Agreed. I don't hate her. I think she' s the wrong candidate at the wrong time.

:shrug:

But her supporters don't want to hear that.

In fact, no candidate's supporters want to hear it. I posted about Obama's environmental position the other day...of course, half the posts on the thread wound up being of the "well, you obviously hate Obama!" variety.

Difference of opinion isn't allowed. You either love 'em or hate 'em.

:eyes:

.

[Skip Intro]

18. Of course other opinions are allowed. Hate was the wrong word.

Hillary's not at the top of my list either. Just trying to figure out the strong, anti-Hillary sentiment here.

[Atman]

33. The "strong anti-Hillary sentiment" is because SHE CANNOT WIN.

She might make a great president. But she is HATED -- and I mean that the way you did not -- by a large segment of the country. She galvanized the opposition against her. She feeds the media's "crazy liberal democrats" meme. Everything about her is WRONG for this time in our history.

.

[Skip Intro]

39. Well, I asked for reasons, so thanks, but I'm not sure I agree.

I think it is worth noting that most of the potential match-ups I've seen so far have been too close to call, with her on top in many. Same for our other front-runners.

I think Hillary's been around long enough to know how to win a campagin, and she's not unaccustomed to having the rw unleash their dogs on her. I'm a little more optimistic about her chances than you are - I think she'd have a good shot, should she win the nom. I think a few of our current field would.

[Hieronymus]

41. Her inability to be elected is why a campaign is underway ..

for Al Gore. He can win .. again.:bounce:

[scarletwoman]

6. I wholeheartedly second that. It sounds eerily similar to rightwingers' accusations of "BDS" --

"Bush Derangement Syndrome" -- their standard response to any criticism of Dear Leader.

sw

[Skip Intro]

10. ok, done. sloppy use of the word. apologies.

[William769]

23. Never apologize for being correct.

[Skip Intro]

27. well

It seemed too strong a word to me as I wrote it, even though I'm sure it applies in some instances. I'm way more interested in finding out what is at the heart of the animosity, whatever word is used to describe it.

[William769]

20. Actually the word "hatred" is spot on.

[Atman]

36. But William, you're rarely correct on anything.

You think that the only reason people don't buy Windows-based computers is because they "hate" Bill Gates. Your track record ain't exactly stellar in this regard.

.

[William769]

45. You have yet to prove me wrong on that subject either.

[JeffR]

38. Actually, no it isn't

and the OP had the courtesy to back away from the word. Kind of inspirational, don't you think?

[havocmom]

2. She does not play well with any part of the population except

Hillary lovers and we need to win the damned election big in 08. Won't happen with Hillary as she galvanizes the right and puts them back into knee-jerk winger mode while she annoys the middle and much of the left.

And most of us don't hate her, we just deal in realities. She can't win.

[aquart]

15. "Hillarylovers"?? Is that the new pejorative. The automatic sneer?

Identify your candidate, please.

[havocmom]

16. Well, OP went on about Hillary Haters

Just showing how friggin inane that is.

[havocmom]

21. And I don't have to identify ANYTHING to you or anybody else

Here's my concept: I watch, read, listen and learn. I don't make my mind up AND THEN CLOSE IT.

Fanatics of ANY ilk are dangerous because they do make up their minds AND THEM CLOSE THEM.

[Faux pas]

5. The problem I have with Hillary is that she seems more like

a republican than a Dem to me. Also, I have a HUGE problem with slick Willy's crush on bush1. And in conclusion:

reagan/bush
reagan/bush
bush
clinton
clinton
bush
bush

Time to add a new name to the roster.

[monmouth]

7. I certainly don't "hate" HRC, but pray she does not get the nom. I don't

know yet who I will commit to but I also feel she is un-electable. If she gets the nom, say good-bye to '08. I have friends in the mid-west, and they have solid, old time mid-western parents and friends who take elections very seriously. Granted, we do too, but they are not too flexible. Absolutely they would not vote for HRC, would vote Repub first. I wouldn't go that far, I don't think. Just don't know at this point.

[John Q. Citizen]

8. I have abosultly no incentive to vote for Hillary. What issue(s) is she running on other

than nastalgia for the Clinton era?

Where does she stand on Iraq? on Iran? On health care? On Guns? On the Military industrial Complex"
On corruption by lobbiest money? On media reform? On the environment? On globalization? On privitization?

Thanks for your reply in advance.

[terisan]

48. Check her voting record. nt

[w4rma]

51. She hasn't changed one inch from when her and her husband lost the Democratic majority in 1994.

Gun control and free trade killed the entire Democratic Party for over a decade.

At least her husband is charismatic.

[terisan]

55. I have never found B. Clinton charismatic.

[John Q. Citizen]

53. I'm not a New Yorker and I'm not considering her for US Senate.

She's running for President. Why won't she tell me where she stands on the issues?

You know, campaign promisies and all that?

I have seen that she hasn't introduced or voted for legislation for universal health care, so I guess I can assume she is opposed to it. (Is that fair)

I can see that she hasn't introduced legislation or voted for the Kyoto Treaty, so i can assume she opposes it. (Does that make sense?)

I can see that she voted to give bush the power to invade and occupy Iraq and she has voted to fund the invasion and occupation everytime bush asked, so I assume she supports bush's war and the surge. (Is that reasonable)

I know she didn't stand up and object to the seating of the Ohio electors, so I guess she sees nothing wrong with systematic voter suppression and she supports privitized black box voting. (Right?)


I'm not sure if looking at her voting record is a good way to know what she will do if she wins the Presidency. The fact she doesn't put up her plans on her website makes me kind of leery of her. Are we supposed to guess?

[terisan]

56. I found review of her website and voting record very informative.

No I don't find your agreement-searching questions to be fair, sensible, reasonable or right.

Perhaps if you were to examine her voting record and rating by liberal organizations, reviewed her original statement on the Iraq War resolution vote, and compared her record to other senators and candidates you might view her candidacy differently.


Did you read website on health care? worker protection? war? I find her voting record over the past 6 years to be mostly liberal. I trust her more than any other candidate on women's rights. She has a long record of advocacy on children's needs.

I think the judges she would appoint would be quite liberal.

I also like her history of standing up to the right wing when she was stuck in the role of "First Lady."

Senator Clinton is no newcomer on the national scene, as was G W Bush in 2000.

Try calling her campaign. They seem willing to answer questions and point to the specifics in the written record.

[John Q. Citizen]

67. I want to know what her plan on health care is. I've been to her web site

and I read what she had posted under Health Care. She knows we have a problem, but I didn't see a solution, a plan, a holistic and comprehensive way to control costs and cover the whole country. I know quite a bit about the issue. I would have thought she would also, but she doesn't seem to want to share it, she seems to want to give the impression of being for universal coverage without stating how she would do that.

If she expects people to hunt to find out where she stands on the issue, I find that rather odd. I didn't ask her to run, she wanted to run. I have the same criticism for Obama, by the way. He offers no plan either.

Edwards has a very detailed plan up at his site, as does Kucinich. I don't agree with the Edwards plan, because it won't control costs, it will mean subsidizing private health insurance companies, which will mean even more incentives for those companies to raise costs. But I do give him credit for spelling out in detail what he would do. His plan is better than, but quite similar to the plan Hillary presented when she was stuck in the roll of Health Care Tzar back when she was stuck in the roll of First Lady.

I agree with you that Hillary has a fairly liberal voting record, to the right of some, but to the left of most in the Dem Senate Caucus.

I read her statement on the war a long while back. I 've seen her votes to fund the war. I've heard her statements on Iran. She's a hawk.

It's a shame, because just think of how many kids in this country could be helped if that much money, hundreds of billions, wasn't just wasted, flushed down the toilet for nothing except death and destruction. It's obscene when you stop and think about it. Obama and Edwards are just as complicit. Our top three campaign money grossing candidates are arguably war criminals for their knowingly funding an illegal war and occupation. All three have voted money to fund the illegal war and the illegal occupation. It's kind of sobering when one stops and thinks about it. No wonder we are still there all these years later.

As for American womens rights (not counting dead Iraqi women here) we need to pass a new ERA. I see Barbara Boxer and Jerrold Nedler are introducing a reproductive rights bill. Of course bush will veto it if it passes. And any of the Dems running would sign it I think.

As far as I can tell, the main issues Hillary is running on is nostalgia for the Clinton era and the fact that she's female.

[More Than A Feeling]

9. At the most fundamental level, I don't get the sense that she wants my vote.

When Hillary began running, she tried to create the air of inevitability. You know, the most money, best campaign team, the whole rigamarole. She ran a bunch of ads on blogs, then claimed to the media that that counted as a surge of support on the blogs, which it wasn't. When I heard about that, I realized that she wanted to pretend that she had my vote, but wasn't interested in earning it. The primaries were just a bother that she wanted to get over with as fast as possible so she could be properly annointed. It's a very elitist attitude, and I am sick of elitism. Then you have the whole dynasty thing. I don't want Bush, Clinton, Bush, Clinton. Another indication of aristocracy and elitism.
Then there is the matter of right-wingers de facto signing off on her campaign. People like Rupert Murdoch and Richard Mellon Scaife, holding fund-raisers for one, and putting his wallet back into his pocket after spending millions in the 90s trying to destroy her for the other. Why are they ok with a Hillary Clinton presidency?
Bottom line, I don't think she is interested in representing me, and I don't trust her. That doesn't mean that I hate her, but I definitely don't support her.

[aquart]

17. Bush Clinton Bush Clinton is a rightwing talking point.

WTF is it doing here?

But thank you for your concern.

[More Than A Feeling]

26. If you are subtly insinuating that I am a concern troll, you're way off.

If you want to have a reasonable discussion, you're going about it the wrong way.

[John Q. Citizen]

30. More foot stomping? More unsupportable accusations? The rightwing is

praying for Hillary.

That's why they give her money for her campaign.

She's a pretty good Senator, on issues that don't deal with American Empire. On that issue, she's hand and glove with the Repos.

[IndianaGreen]

82. GOP: Oppose the surge and you are a traitor. Carvillistas: Oppose Hillary and you are a righwinger

Just as the DLC's misnamed Progressive Policy Institute (PPI) is the flip side of PNAC, the Carvillistas are the flip side of Karl Rove.

[madfloridian]

11. For me it is Iraq.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/06/19/clinton.iraq/

"Former President Clinton has revealed that he continues to support President Bush's decision to go to war in Iraq but chastised the administration over the abuses at Abu Ghraib prison.

"I have repeatedly defended President Bush against the left on Iraq, even though I think he should have waited until the U.N. inspections were over," Clinton said in a Time magazine interview that will hit newsstands Monday, a day before the publication of his book "My Life."

Bill and Hillary of all the Democrats had to know most definitely that Iraq was not a threat and that we had kept them in containment.

For him to say he defended Bush against the left is painful to me.

They could have been a huge influence in stopping the war from happening. Many Democrats have said the Clinton advisors were advising them to vote for the IWR.

It did not need to happen. Instead of defending Bush against us, he could have spoken up.

[peacebird]

34. agree with you.

[scarletwoman]

12. I don't "hate" her. I just don't want a triangulating corporatist for president.

I'm sick of imperialism. I'm sick of militarism. I'm sick of the national security police state. I'm sick of corporate globalism. She represents a continuation of all of it. I don't want any of it.

sw

[John Q. Citizen]

14. Well said.

[Cha]

52. There's no support for

Corporatewarhawks in my life, either.

[Milo_Bloom]

13. Because she hurts the party more than she helps!

Which is why I wouldn't vote for her in the general election.

I don't believe that she or John Edwards have the power of their own convictions and will instead do whatever is popular at the time or say what is necessary to achieve their goal or power.

That type of leadership (or lack of it) is what has given the Democratic party the reputation of being weak and spineless. Allowing one of these two in the white house only turns control of the country back over the GOP in the long run.

It isn't just the IWR, but that is one of a series of very troubling votes from Clinton where she showed a willingness to vote what is popular over what is right. Edwards has a VERY SIMILAR track record.

Putting either of these two into the White House does, in my opinion, more long term damage to the country.

But, I honestly don't believe I will have to worry about that. The GOP is damaged nearly beyond repair... putting Clinton or Edwards up would finally bring forth a viable 3rd party that can really win, since either choice of the major parties would be distasteful to the majority of Americans.

Of course, I have little doubt that Gore is going to run, so in the end, we won't have to face that reality either.

[John Q. Citizen]

28. The problem is that third parties are structurally unviable under a two party system.

Look at the history of our country. Name a third party who ever won the presidency. There's a reason you can't.

I am in no way opposed to a system that would allow for 3rd 4th etc. parties. The problem is we don't have that system.

It's not just difficult. It's not just a long shot. It is structually impossible for a third party to win.

[patricia92243]

19. I asked this same question - worded a little differently - sometime ago - and by and large the answe

answer was something along the line of "perception is reality" or something like that - in other words people are afraid she would lose because of the negative perception of her - not because she had really done anything that outstandingly wrong.

In other words the Republicans, as usual, tell us what to do, and we fall for it like a ton of bricks. Makes me want to pull my hair out in frustration.

[primative1]

25. Mediocrity Isnt a Goal.

Hillary is so busy making certain she doesn't give people a reason NOT to vote for her that she has completely forgotten to give people ANY reason to vote FOR her. Pandering and PC only go so far.
What does she stand for again? blah blah blah ... nothing? Doesn't Nothing pretty much sum it up?
HAS she done a single solitary thing in her senate tenure to merit a promotion to chief exec? I cant see her as a leader, I don't even see her as a follower ... I'm still not certain I can see her as a New Yorker.
Being a US senator is a real opportunity to DO something for America. I'm still waiting.

[patricia92243]

31. Lost?

[primative1]

32. Nah ...

Just frustrated by how our process has largely determined our choices, long before any one of us has gotten a say; and this based soley upon dollars raised? I am still undecided but as I will not get a say in the outcome (which will be nailed down likely by February) I choose to vent now and then bemoan why I will again roboticly select that which was already selected for me.
But answer the question ... What has she done? (not said she will/might do)

[wyldwolf]

22. briefly

People on DU have their own candidates or agendas to promote. Tearing down others comes with the territory and the ends, to them, justify the means. If that includes taking up rightwing talking points, or outright lying, it is worth it if it mean she doesn't get the nomination.

Because as has been demonstrated here repeatedly, her positions on the issues of the day don't differ that much from the rest of the pack leaders.

If those who have major problems with Clinton were really honest, they'd also be rejecting Obama, Edwards, Richardson, and Biden with equal fervor and hitching their horses to the Kucinich bandwagon.

[John Q. Citizen]

40. I have problems with both Clinton and Obama in that neither will say where they stand on the issues.

Clinton seems to be running on nastalgia for the Clinton era and she's a female.

Obama seems to be running on charisma and he's a person of color.

While I don't agree with Edwards health care plan, I do respect and appreciate that he has a detailed plan. He also has some other stong detailed stands on labor, globalization, and poverty.

I'm working for Kucinich and hoping for Gore.B-)

[gaspee]

24. I have mixed feelings

I won't a woman president so badly, but not badly enough to support Senator Clinton. I feel, after years of watching her, that she is a corporatist. And to me, that's a deal breaker. I want a president who represents the people, not a president who represents corporate america.

I support, in order, Edwards, Richardson, Obama. That said, I will vote for the D nominee, whoever he or she may be.

[Bitwit1234]

29. I have come to the conclusion.

that, since Hillary is the front runner, most of those against her are upset because their candidate isn't out there. So what do they do the pan her. Instead they should be posting the attributes and beliefs of their candidate instead of panning another. If they think theirs is the best they ought to be able to do that, not slur and smear another democrat trying to gain ground for their candidate.

I know Edwards is the best candidate. But Hillary would be good also. I won't slur another democrat, unless they should do something shocking like bush has done.

[bpeale]

68. and this is exactly the reason

i won't vote for kucinich under any circumstances. he criticized fellow dems over the fox debate deal. i can't forgive that. that is unacceptable in a candidate.

[Alamom]

35. We do have a recent influx.......hopefully all here for the same reason & I

will vote for the Democratic Nominee as I have for 34 years, whomever is chosen




edgr

[earthlover]

37. I would love to see a woman president, but....

....Well, er, instead of offering us something different, the most Hillary can offer us is more of the same, only this time with a female brand name. I have read some commentary that points out that she was a "Goldwater Girl" and perhaps her views have always been on the conservative side. I prefer to see her as someone who has become more liberal in her heart but has sold her soul to what she has perceived as the political winds. Which is another way of saying she would do anything, say anything, or not say anything in order to get elected. In other words, instead of offering us something different than the male-dominated politics has to offer, she has wound up being the ultimate embodiment of politics-as-usual.

Yes, of course, I would support Hillary if she were to be nominated and would work my butt off just as I did for Kerry. Doesn't mean she has much of a chance to win.

I just get tired of being in a position to spend my time working for a candidate that isn't all that great just to prevent a Republican victory when the Dem candidate has a small chance of winning to begin with. Can't the Democratic Party give me someone I can believe in and has a better chance to win than Hillary? Seems like she is the worst of both worlds: she can't win...and in order to be more electable she is afraid to stand up for anything that would offend the republicans.

The really frustrating thing about this with regard to 08 is that...if any election should favor the Dems, this would be the year....so are we gonna nominate someone with a slim chance of winning even now? Talk about snatching defeat out of the jaws of victory!!!!

[illinoisprogressive]

42. no drums here today. But, I have a couple reasons I do not support her

One has to do with the Bush clinton dysfunctional era. We just need to get away from both families.
I don't agree with her on issues.
She does irritate me
Not crazy about her 'people' around her
She is so wrapped with too much corporations and insiders.
She hangs out with Murdoch and Ailes, et. al.

But, I have not been trashing anyone here today.
Also, with her strong negatives, I really think we will end up like the last two elections. I've lurked on freepers and see them literally praying for her to be our nominee.
They even discuss switching to dem for primaries to vote for her to pad it.
There is a reason they so want her to be our nominee and that leaves me very uneasy,.

[Clarkie1]

43. I want to win, and 48% of Americans definitely will not vote for her.

That number is unlikely to change much, because she's the most known quantity of all the contenders. People have made up their minds on her.

We have far better choices, and we ought to play our cards smart. There is no need for the next election to be another nail-biter.

[skipos]

44. Of all the Dem candidates

she doesn't have the most experience
she doesn't have the best voting record
she doesn't appeal the most to independents
she doesn't appeal the most to party activists
she underperforms most Dems in most general election polls
she has pretty bad fav/unfav ratings
she has pretty high "would never vote for" scores
she doesn't excite the youth the most
Repubs would love to run against her

The only thing Hillary excels at is getting money and doing well in primary polls.
I don't hate her, I just don't want her to be our nominee. She is my absolute last choice.

[PaDem]

46. Here are my biggest concerns with HRC..........

1. She is cannon fodder in the general election.

2. We've had 20 years of Bush/Clinton. I'm done with it.

[terisan]

47. I am not against Sen. Clinton. Troubled by McAuliffe and Carville working for her.

Also troubled by Bill Clinton and certain decisions he made, such as allowing media concentration.

McAuliffe and Carville have been destructive forces -- McAuliffe destroyed Democratic Party grass roots and built up corporate control of Dems; Carville, I believe, helped Bush in 2004.

[mtnsnake]

49. It's sheer jealousy. She's brilliant, blonde, pretty, ambitious, outspoken, & a winner

That's simply too much for most people to handle, especially considering that their own favorite candidate (or past candidate from 2004, lol) doesn't match up even close, with the exception of Obama, that is, or maybe Kucinich, not that Dennis has a realistic chance or anything.

[Stuckinthebush]

64. I really don't think that is it

I'm sure some people would have jealousy issues, but the majority of Dems haven't even declared yet. I honestly believe that it is an electability issue for most.

[BeyondGeography]

54. In addition to defending President Bush against war opponents like me

she has played the fearmongering game with quotes like this:

<Clinton also sought to draw a contrast with some of her Democratic rivals on the issue of terrorism. "Some people may be running who may tell you that we don't face a real threat from terrorism," she said. "I am not one of those.">

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/thefix/2007/02/clinton_comes_to_south_carolin.html

She went too far to the right on national security after 9/11. Whether it was sincerely felt or not, I don't agree with it. I have a choice in the primaries, and I would never support any candidate who voted for IWR in the first place. I think it's important that our party reealize it can never make this kind of mistake again. It's why I supported Dean and Clark last time around and it's why I have no qualms about supporting Obama this time around. Also, unlike Edwards, HRC has stuck to her guns on the war vote and compounded it with bogus and gratuitous comments like the one above which actually hurt our party in the service of her personal ambition.

I've also gone on at length about her unfavorables, but I would not actively oppose her on this board if her positions on the war vote and Bush's terrapalooza were the opposite of what they are.

[election_2004]

57. For me, it has nothing to do with IWR....

I don't hold candidates to IWR as a litmus test for the presidency.

The reason I oppose Senator Clinton's presidential ambitions is multi-pronged. First, she moved to a state she'd never even lived in solely for the purpose of padding herself for a presidential run in 2008. If there's anyone who can't see/realize that, I've got some beachfront property to sell ya in the middle of Death Valley.

She and Bill also used an absolute minimal amount of their influence and political networks to fight the Right-Wing Noise Machine in 2002 and 2004. They held back, obviously gearing up for '08 in the aftermath of a two-term Bush Administration. And now, she somehow thinks she can just waltz in to save the day in 2008 as the candidate who's somehow "most qualified and the most experienced" (although she never bothers to explain during her campaign stops HOW exactly she is "most qualified" and "most experienced"). Beyond arrogant!

Finally, the MSM has been pumping her up as the inevitable president-elect for 2009 ever since Bush's Inauguration Day back in 2001. The media whores distracted all discussion of the 2004 primaries by refusing to take any potential candidate seriously other than Hillary Clinton, Al Gore, and Joe Lieberman. They even tried to suggest that Hillary *MIGHT* run for president in 2004 (despite the fact that she repeatedly stated that she wouldn't). Of course, the Clintons just sat back and let the Talking Heads hatchet the entire process, so it would benefit the Clintons' impending power play in 2008.

In other words, my opposition to Senator Clinton's presidential bid can be summed up in one word: her arrogance.

[mtnsnake]

58. You're sorely mistaken.

In other words, my opposition to Senator Clinton's presidential bid can be summed up in one word: her arrogance.

You've got arrogance confused with determination.

It always amazes me how when male politicians show fortitude and determination, it's called ambition, but when a brilliant lady shows it, it's called arrogance. Funny that.

[election_2004]

59. Oh, there are plenty of ARROGANT male politicians out there....

And Senator Clinton has shown she can match any of them tit-for-tat in that respect.

Bravo for the U.S. political system! :sarcasm:

[zulchzulu]

60. This is only my opinion, but...

...you can diss me, dismiss me as a "Hillary Hater" or whatever, but there are basically two major bones of contention I have with Senator Clinton.

1. Her support and backing that would make burning of the American flag a federal crime is an absolute deal-breaker with me. You don't mess with the First Amendment...period. I've heard all the excuses about how it was to stop a constitutional amendment, but that just doesn't fly with me at all. It was pathetic pandering of the first order. Her hawkishness about the current wars pale in comparison to that issue.

2. Although she appears to want to hide the fact that her last name is Clinton by not using her last name on her web site, she would provide exactly what the Republican Party need as a unifying force for them to get out the vote for any of the pathetic clowns that are running for President so far.

If you think not only having a Clinton back in the White House as well as Bill Clinton back in the White House would be a very good reason for Republicans to show up in droves to vote on Election Day, then you haven't been paying attention. They have the ads ready to go and the willing mainstream media will play right along with them.

I do like Hillary Clinton on many issues and think she should continue being a Senator... after all, she did say many times when she ran that she was not planning on running for President.

Finally, in my opinion, Clinton will not do well in the primaries and caucuses and will not do well on February 5 either. People want a woman president, but it's just not her. Again, that is my opinion and one that others have shared with me in discussions about her candidacy. Call me anything...

[election_2004]

61. What she said...

after all, she did say many times when she ran that she was not planning on running for President.

She said she wouldn't run for president in 2004. And she didn't. She never said anything one way or the other about 2008.

Apparently, that makes her very "shrewd" and "a brilliant lady."

Of course, if a male politician follows that same formula, he's an "opportunist."

And the Hillaristas accuse us (those of us who don't support their queen's presidential run) of being the ones who are sexist... :eyes:

[zulchzulu]

62. Just this past weekend, I had discussions with young women voters about...

...Senator Clinton's candidacy.

Granted, these people were clearly for Obama and wanted to sign up to volunteer. But the same opinion came out...they were feminists, they want a woman President, but they don't want her.

These were young women in their 20s... polls have shown that married women have high negatives for Senator Clinton for a variety of reasons, but it was interesting talking face-to-face about this issue.

Also, without Google-hunting for specific quotes and links, I do recall Senator Clinton on a number of occasions saying she was not planning on running for President in 2008 when she ran for her second term. I could be mistaken, but that clearly was the impression I got from various interviews and such during that time... that's not really an issue with me.

[election_2004]

69. When she ran for reelection in 2006...

She basically sidestepped any questions about whether she would run in 2008. She basically repated the mantra that she was focused on working for the people of New York. She never explicitly ruled out a presidential run, though.

I'd love to see a female president too, but I want it to be one who has actually gotten to where she is without the crutch of her marriage to a popular former president. That means an accomplished woman like Pelosi, Boxer, Sebelius, Napolitano, Lincoln, Stabenow, or Rell (and potentially add Lisa Madigan to that list, depending on how her political future shapes up).

[zulchzulu]

73. Pelosi may in fact be our first woman President

Here's hoping!

[election_2004]

79. My prediction...

If the Hillaristas and the MSM don't succeed in hijacking the nomination for their queen, then our country's first female president will be one of these four: Kathleen Sebelius, Blanche Lincoln, Lisa Madigan, or Debbie Stabenow.

[Stuckinthebush]

63. 52% negative opinion

I like her. I like her husband. I think she would make a fine president.

Now, the reality is that it will be an uphill battle getting her elected in the General. I don't think she is so much better than other candidates that we must bet on such a long shot. I would guess that many in the party feel the same way - They like Hillary but just don't see her as a viable General election candidate.

[Skittles]

65. I'm tired of Bushes and Clintons

enough already

[ArkySue]

66. No leadership abilities

It seems to me that Hillary is always bringing up the rear in stating her positions on various issues. That's not leadership, that's following someone else's lead. Plus, she's more of the same old DLC group that laid down and rolled over for w. jmo
Edit to add: I talked with an elderly gentleman at a store and he said he'd support Obama before Hillary, and that Hillary "scared" him. He was really for Wes Clark. :)

[election_2004]

70. Very true

Her connections to McAuliffe, From, Carville, and Begala scare the shit out of me, quite frankly.

[Totally Committed]

71. I will not cast a vote for Hillary, should she win the nomination because:

(1) She's DLC. No member of the DLC will ever get my vote again. For anything.

(2) Carville, McAuliffe, and the rest of her team give me the creeps, I don't trust them.

(3) Bush, Clinton, Bush, now Clinton... again? --- Followed by Jeb, then Chelsea, maybe? No thanks.

(4) Bill Clinton (a former POTUS) taking part in her campaign. The propriety and fairness of a former POTUS getting involved in the campaign (especially this early in the process) is questionable at best, and deplorable at least. I think it is shameful, to be honest.

(5) "My husband will be a roving ambassador in my administration." Translation: "Vote for me and he comes with the package. We're a two-fer." Aside from that subliminal coersion, I find it embarrassing that, as a feminist, she still seems to feel she can't get elected without her husband's name, reputation, and support.

(6) Maxing out donors this early and then expecting them not to give to other campaigns as well. It's the equivalent of sucking up all the oxygen in the room. Plus it makes her look to be the overly-ambitious, non-team player some people think she already is... and, let's face it, it's just plain bad sportsmanship. Plus, former avid supporters have come out not only for other candidates, but have said some pretty disparaging things about her and Bill.

(7) Her lack of out-front leadership. She's playing it WAY too safe, and as a result, looks like a "me too-er" more than a leader.

(8) Her lack of penitence for her IWR vote, and her unwillingness to take the option of all-out war against Iran off the table. And, then there's her hand out to AIPAC and Murdoch... and gawdknowswho that we haven't heard about yet.

(9) Did I mention her affiliation with the DLC? A corporate-friendly agenda will not bring us a universal one-payer health care system, a hand up with a safety net for the poorest among us, re-regulation of the media, or any of the other things necessary to dismantle the Bushies' looting of America. Also, I have lost my taste for bi-partisanship, and that seems to be all-too present in the DLC's scheme of things. No thanks.

(10) Oh, by the way, I sincerely believe she's unelectable, too.

So, it's thanks, but no thanks for Hillary. If she gets the nomination, she will have to win the presidency without my vote. I will sit election day out, and stay home or maybe put in an extra day at the food pantry or something. And, please, don't bother with the staying-home-is-the-same-as-voting-for-the-other-side bullsh*t. It isn't. I'm not going to vote Green, but I'm not going to vote for Hillary, either. If she gets the nom, it's the only way I know of recording my total and utter disgust with this Party and the horrendous candidates they keep putting forward.

TC

[scarletwoman]

72. I'm with you. She will not get my vote, I'll vote my local ticket only. (nt)

[The Magistrate]

76. If You Would, Ma'am, At Least Consider A Friend's Appeal

To reconsider that decision once actually in the voting booth. Should Sen. Clinton prove to be the nominee, she will certainly be prefereable to whatever the Republicans put up. The overall margin of victory is important: the larger it is, the easier it is to get things done. The public at large will certainly perceive a Democratic victory as an endorsement of the left side of our political life, and if the victory is by a decent margin, it will be easier to press successfully for real progressive proposals.

[scarletwoman]

77. Yes, I will consider your appeal. Believe me, I've already thought long and hard about this, and

will continue to think long and hard about it all the way to November of 2008.

It's just that I'm now 57 years old. I've been voting for Democrats (and ONLY for Democrats) since 1972 (I turned 18 one week too late for the change of the voting age from 21 to 18 to affect me).

In 1972 I happily voted for George McGovern. In 1976 I dutifully voted for Jimmy Carter. In 1980 I dutifully voted for Carter again. In 1984 I hopefully voted for Walter Mondale (from my home state of Minnesota -- the only state he carried in that election). In 1988 I dutifully voted for Dukakis. In 1992 I somewhat hopefully voted for Clinton (not my first choice -- I caucused for Jerry Brown). In 1996 I dutifully voted for Clinton again.

In 2000 I ended up not voting at all because election day happened to also be the day of the funeral of my beloved partner who had died suddenly of a massive heart attack on November 4. I was simply too emotionally devastated to go to the polling station that day. I was planning on (reluctantly at the time) voting for Gore -- who carried my home state even without my vote, btw.

In 2004 I dutifully voted for Kerry (after also dutifully campaigning for him because Bush was so obviously evil).

But after all these years I've become heartily sick of the agenda of the Ruling Class, whether Dem or Repug. I'm sick of imperialism, I'm sick of militarism, I'm sick of globalization, I'm sick of interventionism, I'm sick of corporatism. To vote for Hillary Clinton would be voting for the continuation of all these things that I detest to very depths of my soul.

At this point in my life I just don't think that I can bear to do it.

sw

[election_2004]

80. Those of us in the blue states have a greater luxury...

Fortunately, I live in California now, where Hillary Clinton would easily win our 55 electoral votes with or without my piddly little vote.

[zulchzulu]

75. Well, tell us how you really feel...

I'm not so against the DLC necessarily nor even her IWR vote. It's her support for making burning or "desecrating" the American flag a federal crime that has me getting the willies, no pun intended...

But you certainly make some very valid points, especially that Senator Clinton needs to say that she will bring her husband along for the ride (I'm not a huge fan of her husband) all while she doesn't even used his last name on her own web site.

[mmonk]

74. A lot of candidates have been bashed today.

I can't keep up with trying to defend candidates from some of them. Wait 'til we get closer and see how things will heat up.

[OHdem10]

78. First of all, I do not hate Hillary, nor do I dislike her,

however, I simply have not been able to work up
enthusiasm for her candidacy as President.

I am a news and political junkie and monitor a lot
of TV--the reason being--this is where the average
American gets their news.
Sorry NYT, WT, WaPo out in the hinterlands people
are working long hours, two jobs and God knows
what to "keep it together".--therefore TV is
the mainstay. I watch TV to see what they are being
fed everyday. This is going to have influence on
their vote, IMO.

With those caviats, let's chat about Hilary.
First of all, for some of us, fairly or unfairly
her DLC Credentials make her suspect. Yes, I am
a Liberal, not a lefty. ("Lefties, I love you,
just can't walk that far, OK) Just as I cannot
go far left, I cannot go RIGHT OF CENTER either.
Believe it or not I do believe the party has a
responsiblity to Business. Here is where the
rub comes,--The DLCers and Centrists come off
as Right of Center because they are so pro business;
that when the crunch comes, most often they vote
with Republicans rather than their own party.
They are too willing to abandon the"little
guy" in favor of business. It is ok for Republicans
to do this. They have been and probaly will
always be the party of Big Business. Democrats
too can sometimes compromise--but too often,
it is a pattern, which makes them very difficult
to distinguish from Republicans. Since Hilary has
been considering the Presidency, she has been
"careful with her votes". She did not vote for
that Give Away to Big PHRMA, called Medicare Bill.
Hilary is cautious and to be fair, she has to be
People are waiting to play the "gotcha game"

We all have an issue which burns in our hearts
Mine is Social Justice. Democrats especially
Centrists seem to hide from this. This should
be the Hallmark of the Democratic Party. Edwards
at this time comes the closest to embracing this
idea at this time. I am a fence sitter this time.
Watching them all.

Nafta, Trade Agreements in General have harmed
this country terribly. I realize fully that
we cannot say, "Stop World We want to get off".
By the same token if we are such a world leader
why can we not get other leaders together and
make some adjustments. We are well on our way
to Banana Republic Status. No one is willing to
stand up to thoae TransNationals. How much do
they give Campaigns? On the Banana Republic
comment, there are economists who agree with
me. Some Lame statment about Education is not
acceptable. Yes. Education will help over the
long run. What are people supposed to do in
the next 5 years, 10 years, when the fruits
of Education Policy have not kicked in.
Since Bill Clinton passed Nafta--it is assumed,
fairly or unfairly, Hilary is in agreement.
I really appreciated Bill Clinton as President.
I thought when he pushed the Trade Agreements
he was wrong. That giant sucking sound you
heard a while back was China sucking all the
jobs we exported to Mexico. Now, Mexico is
flattened and we are building a wall to keep
them out. When, people, as well as goods, and
capital, all swirl around the world this is
not free trade. There is no way to even
determine Comparative Advantage.

As you can see, I do not think it is only one
thing, rather a composite of lots of things
which dampens enthusiasm.

Finally, may I say that the Republicans, overcome
with the power, made a conscious decision to
govern not from the
Right but from the far
Right. Tom Delay explained on CharleyRose Show
that when a bill was being developed, it was
written with as Far Right Principles as possible.
Then he approached each member. If something
simply could not be accepted, they adjusted
keeping it as Conservative as possible. When
he reached 218 votes, they stopped. This illustrates
how far Right we have moved in this country.
In order to compromise the Centrists Dems went
Center Right. There are lots of Americans like
me who are probaly center left. This I hope explains
our angst with some Democrats. Hilary probably
has gotten blobbed in with them. Some one has
to stand up call a spade a spade. We have gone
far too "Right". We have not seen Center in
years.

I think it is more than IW Vote. I gone on this
long and not even mentioned the war.

There is an underlying uneasiness--Can she win.
The RWers and Fundies see her as a rallying point
for their party. I say Fundies because they represent
the Republican Base, Yes some Evangelicals but far far
from all. There is a decided difference in these two
groups of Americans.

This is in no way intended to bash or any way disrespect
Hilary.

[Manifestor_of_Light]

81. Way too conservative and IWR.

Too worried about polls to stake out a position. I like her personally and as a First Lady. She's just as smart as Bill but needs to move further left to get my vote.

Obama slammed all the baby boomers by saying the political fights now go all the way back to Vietnam and who served and who didn't.

[Prophet 451]

83. Three reasons

1. The "triangulation" stratergy. I don't want to see the Dems move any closer to Repubs on economic issues. In fact, I'd like to see an awful lot more ground between the two.
2. The IWR vote. You already covered this one.
3. She's said and done some really dumb things as regards video gaming. Sure, that's petty but this is my personal opinion and as a gamer, that one bugs me.

That said, the Dems are blessed with an exceptional crop of candidates this time around. I'm sure that, if she were elected, Hillary would make a fine president. I just think some of the others (especially Kucinich and Gore) would be better.

[Clarkie1]

84. I'm not against Hillary, I'm for someone who had the judgement not to support the war. nt