Here is why I do not want Hillary Clinton to get the nomination and become President

[Zodiak]

Here are the specific reasons I do not want Hillary Clinton to become President of the United States (in a way, this is an argument to vote for Obama in the primaries, but more of an argument by omission).

1. Hillary Clinton has proven time and again to be craven for power. She will pull out dirty tricks, she will deliberately mislead, and she will sick attack dogs on whomever dares to stand in her way. This may be desirable for a Republican, but it is not desirable on this side of the aisle because many of her gutter-snipes have been against her fellow Democrats, both during this campaign, and during other campaigns (c.f. John Kerry, Ned Lamont). This is not a time for such tactics because they piss off the public, who are looking for something beyond those kind of politics.

2. Her progressive voting record that is often touted suddenly disappears when one considers the important bill passages and nominations that have transpired over the last Congress (I have not analyzed this Congress, yet). According to the record that I keep on our Senators, Clinton falls in the 50% range (53%). That basically means she votes the opposite way a DUer would almost 50% of the time. Obama, by contrast, is with progressives 63% of the time. The full methodology and the complete list can be found here
So Clinton is indeed more to the right than Obama when one considers the IMPORTANT issues (things like the Patriot Act, IWR, etc.)

3. Clinton is a member of the DLC. This is singly the most important reason that I do not want her to be President. With her comes this odious organization, who will suddenly become the TV media "experts" in everything Democratic and will nip the 50 state strategy in the bud. If you think progressives aren't listened to now, wait until the DLC takes control of both the Senate and the White House leadership. We will have nowhere to go as the corporate Dems trash what it means to be "left" in this country and we will take the blame for being allied with them. Remember, the DLC is one of the reasons we have PNAC (Will Marshall), and if you think Hillary will not appoint her DLC allies to important government jobs, remember that Hillary has said that her cabinet during Presidency will look like Tom Vilsack. Obama is not a member of the DLC and has publicly proclaimed to have no ties to them.

4. As many here already know, she has higher negatives than any other Democratic candidate. Her appeal to independents is very limited. If you saw the reactions of the various members of the focus groups during the Hew Hampshire debate, you would see that her response only came from Democrats...the independents responded to Obama and Edwards very strongly. If one were to think strategically about winning, nominating Hillary would be a tremendous handicap to undertake in a "must win" election. Many DUers, recent converts from the Republicans, independents, etc. just will not vote for her, and we absolutely KNOW that the media will cast McCain as a "maverick"...that narrative will pull in a lot of people if either his opponent fails to distinguish themselves from him or lacks charisma. Clinton fails in both of those categories, and the image is indelible in the American mind...they already know her and have an opinion of her.

5. Her war vote and subsequent support of the war in Iraq does make her vulnerable as hell to McCain's positions. Not only does she fail to distinguish herself from McCain in any meaningful way by her vote on Kyl/Leiberman, but she cannot speak for the 70% of the population who are against the war, either. When you have an issue that is as big of a winner for Democrats as the Iraq War, why be forgetful and play the same John Kerry game we did before. If anything, we should have learned that we can be beaten this way.

There are other minor reasons, but many of them are based on her husband's record, not hers. I will not go into any detail on those at all, but I'm sure other DUers can enumerate them far better than I.

I see a split Democratic party, another threat from a third party, a media narrative that will be tough to counter because of failure to distinguish ourselves (again!), and ultimately a disappointing loss if Hillary is nominated. The Republicans have been ready for her for years. Even if we are VERY LUCKY and win the White House, we still get the DLC reinforced into our party for another decade and very little results for our effort.

I promise to shut up about this as soon as a nominee is clear, but I am sounding off a warning while I can. If we nominate her, I see disaster.

I will never vote for the DLC nor for a Republican, so I am praying that Obama wins. Former Kucinich/Edwards supporter here.

[EmperorHasNoClothes]

1. Your reasoned, considered criticism has NO PLACE on this board!

Where's the blanket statements? Where's the overblown, imagined slights? ;)


Oh wait, I think I see them coming now...


Great post. K&R

[Zodiak]

5. I do not start threads typically

But I want to speak my piece before it is too late to do so.

[Tellurian]

49. What happened to 2007? All the data collected and posted if 2006?

[janetblond]

2. Good points ...

Unless Obama can get the latinos, this race is over!
Unfortunately.

[katmondoo]

3. The Republicans have done a great job as usual

with the politics of personal destruction.

[Zodiak]

42. My information comes from extensive reading

Like any other DUer does.

I study votes, I watch campaigns, I listen to answers, and I study who these politicians are in bed with.

If this sounds like the Republicans arguments, then this should give you pause, because in this case, there is truth to these accusations. "But Clinton did it" has been an excuse for Bush to get away with much, and it will be used in the future to make McCain into a saint if we are so short-sighted as to nominate Hillary.

[virgdem]

4. You have just clarified..

exactly my reservations about Hillary. I'm an Edwards supporter and I've been going over all pros and cons of Hillary and Obama. There are some reservations about Obama, but not as many as I have with Hillary. I am in total agreement about the DLC association. I fear what that will do to our party and I want no part of it. It might just come down to my voting for Obama and hoping that he has the chops to beat the Pukes in November.

[Zodiak]

8. You are in the same boat as I, my friend

Populism was resonating in the south. I was hearing it from my relatives, all former Republicans or conservative Democrats. It was hopeful...it could reunite this country again.

All I can say is this...do not make a commitment yet. Make them put something on the table for us before they can count on our vote. It is the only power we have left with Edwards gone. If we droid out and fall in line, then they do not have to give us anything. Make them compromise with us instead of the pukes.

[LSparkle]

10. Amen, I agree completely, especially about the DLC

We've made such progress under Howard Dean and that will all be lost if Hillary is the nominee (not to mention that we'll have less of a chance to retake the WH).

[Zodiak]

14. We will have less of a chnce for many, many things.

The business interests that have their puppet strings over the DLC will wiggle their fingers and whammo! "bipartisan", neoconservative legislation sponsored by all of the Republicans and the same bunch of DLC characters on our side. That is how we got NAFTA...that is how we got the Telecom Act of 1996, etc.

For progressives, this is a fight for our lives. I don't want us to jump in with Clinton's camp just out of fear of Republicans. We have to think about our future.

[lyonn]

29. She showed her contempt for the DNC by claiming delegates

from Michigan and Florida where it had been agree they would get no delegates from those states many months ago. It was the states' decision to go their own way and defy the DNC.

[Hutzpa]

54. There was a post earlier calling

for Howard Dean to retire or if Hillary becomes the nominee, Howard Dean would be replaced,
anyway, it was something along those lines. It just shows you how the pukes can pull
a trick out the magic bag.

Here are couple of names to savor; James Carville and Steve McMahon remember them?
two shady characters to look out for, already Steve was on CNN yesterday indirectly
endorsing Hillary, stop short of saying it loud.

:puke: :puke: :puke:

[truedelphi]

66. I watched Bill Maher last night

And it seemed that the audience really lit up when asked if Obama was a possibility for them.

The discussion panel (except for the woman who was The President of NOW) all believe that Obama will draw from the ranks of disillusioned Repugs and from the huge pool of indies.

tghese two groups are who you will need if you want to win in the fall.

Hillary won't get much from either of these two crowds.

She will get (I believe) a majority of the Latino vote, but many Democrats do not understand the demographics of the population there - that in the last twenty years for instance, the population of Latinos has expanded greatly - but most Latinos fall in one of two different camps, (at least in California):
One) they are under the age of fifteen,
or
Two) are old enough to vote but not legally allowed to vote.

[DrFunkenstein]

6. She Thinks Militarism Equals "Tough"

As bad as her IWR vote has been, her repeated sabre-rattling in the years since make me even more apprehensive about what she would do in office.

[Zodiak]

Her words in the debate were awful to hear for me.

The fear-mongering was disheartening in a Democratic debate. We will fail to distinguish ourselves, which is the chief reason the pukes can steal elections.

[depakid]

7. "she will sick attack dogs on whomever dares to stand in her way."

This is actually one of the better arguments as to why she should be the nominee, rather than Obama -who it appears is ready and willing to be steamrolled by the far right.

If we've learned ANYTHING over the past 20 years, it's that the "high road" inevitably leads to defeat.

How many more times do we need to see that before people finally get a clue, and stop being naive about what has to be done?

[Zodiak]

11. It does not work for our side

and here is why....the media

If both of you use the same tactics, then the framing of the debate becomes the focus, and that is controlled by the media. The "Clinton did it, too" argument would be resurrected from the dead and the people would collectively turn away in revulsion. That is playing into the hands of our enemies.

[depakid]

21. Hogwash -that's just more defeatist talk

These sorts of rationalizations are precisely why the Dems became perennial losers... even though on issue after issue, progressive positions have substantial- sometimes overwhelming support.

The trouble is that people perceive that Dem candidates (and Congress) are too weak -or too cowardly or complicit to stand up and fight toe to toe- to pull out all stops for what they believe in.

THAT, more than any other single factor, accounts for their losses.

[Zodiak]

24. On the issues

Hilary is weak, cowardly, and complicit in many ways.

So I do not see how she is going to be strong for the People's interests over the interests of her DLC friends. She never has been.

I disagree...I say failure to distinguish ourselves from the Republicans is what accounts for our losses. Not having a clear message accounts for our losses. Not acknowledging the plight of the millions of Americans as we sign their livelihoods overseas is what accounts for our losses.

Hillary acts much like a Republican in an election, and her failure to distinguish herself in style is only going to underscore her failure to distinguish herself in substance as I enumerated upthread.

You can affix any moniker to my form of speech as you want, but it does not invalidate my points.

[depakid]

28. I don't necessarily disagree with that

or many of your other points.

The bottom line though is that to win, we need someone who's prepared to fight- and fight dirty if that's what it takes to win.

While it may not be so in sports- it surely is so in politics:

"Winning is everything."

[lyonn]

30. It's what she will fight for that bothers me

From the different quotes from her before the IWR vote and since, she has been more on the side of the opposition/repubs than the Dem party as a group. Her latest vote in the Senate to irritate me was the Iran Resolution. She again said she voted for it to get sanctions against Iran. Does that sound familiar?

[RC]

33. Your issue is hog wash.

Hillary is too far to the right for her attach dogs to do the country much good. Hillary is a cooperationest. She will not do much more than lip service to coral the corporations world domination.

[rodeodance]

9. Obama will get away with what he can when he can. How is that for reasoning.

Obama is not a member of the DLC and has publicly proclaimed to have no ties to them.

..

[Zodiak]

15. That means he is malleable

A tie to the DLC is a tie with not only the more odious members of that organization, but also the business interests that fund that organization. We already know what those interests are, and they are not the interests of progressives nor the People.

If Obama wants to bring "everyone" to the table...then that means progressives, too. The DLC will only bring their friends and call it "Democratic" or "bipartisan". We have already seen them in action and know what they are about.

[ErnestoG]

25. Obama's lack of ties to the DLC is one of his biggest plusses.

[Metric System]

12. "Hillary Clinton has proven time and again to be craven for power."

I stopped reading after this.

[Tarc]

16. Same here

One can still embed a whiny screed within pretty prose and multiple paragraphs, and we've had far to much if this Orwellian "Obama GOOD, HILLARY BAAAD!" bleating lately.

[Zodiak]

17. Considering your avater, I figured you would

Your mind is made up and you want to move on. That is fine.

This thread is for those, like me, who just lost Edwards/Kucinich/Dodd/Biden (maybe Richardson)

[Invidious]

18. The truth is hard to read isn't it? n/t

[in_cog_ni_to]

19. Me too. n/t

[kimmerspixelated]

13. Thanks Zodiac,

I'm really glad you brought up the DLC point. These and other reasons and the fact that DLC and PNAC can even work together in the same sentence has always made me not want to support her at all. In my opinion, the difference in her and a republican are so small, and because of this, I see her as being able to pull off a theft herself, and I say that, because those eyes tell me she would do ANYTHING to win. I have never trusted her. Your points are quite valid.

[Zodiak]

20. Thank you

I do not like to participate in baseless invective and gutter-snipes, and I do not do this "start a thread" thing very often, but this is how I feel. I do my homework and I think strategically as well as idealistically. I had something to say, and I've said it to my like-minded DUers. I feel much better now that I have said my piece and hope a few give it some noodle-time.

[grantcart]

22. for me point # 4 out weighs all the rest

esp when compared with this
http://www.chicagomag.com/Chicago-Magazine/January-1993/Vote-of-Confidence/

[ErnestoG]

23. Well put, perfect!

[Dogmudgeon]

26. But there is no evidence

How did you come to your conclusions?

There are a lot of points that I recognize as NOT being reasoned at all, since they are simply untrue. For example, the very fact that you think that the DLC has political power speaks to this lack of information.

There is the general accusation, which is, in your words, "Hillary Clinton has proven time and again to be craven for power. She will pull out dirty tricks, she will deliberately mislead, and she will sick attack dogs on whomever dares to stand in her way." But her "dirty tricks" depend on whom you are talking to. She is no more misleading than most politicians, and probably more quantifiably honest than most of them, due to the scrutiny she has been under since her own Day One as an attorney.

Your evidence is probably the popular acclaim of those who despise her. She's "not cool", so she's been judged to be bad. But that is nothing new.

You are entitled to your opinion, and I do not say that sarcastically. And you need not shut up. Nor do I expect you to change sides on my say-so. But it is extremely common around here to assume what we have heard to be the gospel truth as long as it conforms to an attitude we have copped. "Hillary-is-crooked" has been a popular attitude with hipsters for 16 years, and it's just as bogus now as it was then. Nobody likes to go against the in-crowd, but they are so frequently wrong that you should beware of their judgments.

I'm still waiting to read the mother lode of evidence of Hillary's deceits that her detractors assure me exists. What little is sent my way is usually spin. The record shows errors, conflicting policies, blunders, and politicking, but there is no hard-core dishonesty or (in Counterpunch-speak) "thuggery". If you are acting on the basis of the "Bad, Uncool Hillary" assumption, I urge you to question it.

--p!

[Zodiak]

34. My arguments are based on my own readings/research

We all saw the antics of Bill.
We all saw what went down in Nevada.
We all saw the snubbing of Lamont by the refusal to campign for him.
We've seen the jumping the of the DNC to get delegates in uncontested states

Her campaign is unscrupulous...whatever you want to call it; it is more Republican than Democrat and will suceed only in confusing the American public when it comes to party identity...plus the media gets to cast McCain as the poor victim. With her policy positions already indistinguishable to the masses on key issues of the war and trade, it is going to be a hard sell against the backdrop of media framing.

I am sorry that I did not go dig a lot of links up. I did my homework on the votes, and I provided a link for that. The rest is a stream of consciousness of the political landscape as I see it.

[soleft]

27. Dammit, just when I was getting comfy on the Hillary love train

You have to go and put a cow on the tracks!

Points that cannot be ignored. What to do, what to do...

[Zodiak]

44. Just withhold jumping on any bandwagons just yet

Read apenty, and see if you are comfy with voting for her...DO NOT rely on any DUer to tell you what to do. I know that for many of my fellow Dems, they will swallow it and vote for her. If you are one of them, I do not begrudge you....but at least I know I've said my piece before you did so.

Eyes wide open and all that...

[Clintonite]

31. Are you a republican? Reads like a Rush Limbaugh memo.

[Zodiak]

35. If you have nothing to say

You attack the messenger....that is not going to fly on this thread. This discussion is not for you; the romper-room is elsewhere.

Just so you know...those that behave like you are right now are not getting any converts; you are just squawking as background noise and making DU a very stinky place for those of us that actually want to have a discussion.

[paulk]

38. the whacko left and the whacko right

have a lot in common.

[VenusRising]

45. They do indeed.

Especially the ones who name call and add nothing of substance to the discussion.

:eyes:

[paulk]

48. and who would that be?

:eyes:

[VenusRising]

50. Oh, gee, I wonder.

[paulk]

55. I wonder....

do you think it makes someone a "right wing whacko" when they announce that they will not vote for the Democratic candidate under any circumstances?

[VenusRising]

58. No.

Just because you disagree with someone's reasoning doesn't make them "whacko". It just means they have a different opinion than you do.

And I don't think you further a discussion when you start labeling or calling people names when at the heart of the matter, we all want the same thing for our country. We, as DUers and citizens, may take many different paths to that same destination, but the destination is the same.

[paulk]

61. I would argue that someone who refuses to vote for the Dem

nominee, thereby indirectly helping a Republican get elected, doesn't want the same thing for the country that I do.

Decisions like that have real consequences. The eight year detour of George Bush's administration that the OP's thinking was a result of is a path that lead off a cliff, not to the "same" destination.

I would also argue that posting that decision on an internet message board (and doing it repeatedly, as the OP has done over the years)is an attempt to influence others into making that same decision, and is to be derided.

[VenusRising]

62. I disagree.

One vote or non-vote is not going to secure the Presidency for a Republican under the electoral college system.

You aren't going to make progress with anyone if they constantly are derided. People don't really like that.

[paulk]

63. Bush won Florida by 525 votes

100,000 people voted for Nader.

The "your vote doesn't count" thing is bogus. I can't believe anyone is still pushing that sort of nonsense.

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

I don't care what people like - politics isn't some goddam beauty contest. If someone is too stupid to understand that cutting off their nose to spite their face isn't much of a political strategy, then their feelings are secondary to pointing out that their actions harm not only themselves, but everyone else also.

[VenusRising]

69. Bush didn't win Florida.

He was installed by the Supreme Court. I can't believe anyone is still pushing the nonsense that Bush won Florida.

You don't care what people like, yet you try to push what you like on them. Its a bit hypocritical and disingenuous.

[paulk]

70. ok, that's enough

talking to you is clearly a waste of my time. And btw - before you say the same, remember that you started this conversation.

have a nice day.

[VenusRising]

73. Bye!

:hi:

[bvar22]

64. There are many "SAFE" states where voting for a 3rd Party

will have absolutely NO EFFECT on the outcome of the election.

Obama is certainly the lesser of two conservative Democratic evils, but I won't vote for either one (Hillary or Obama) unless my state is "In Play".


Voting for someone simply because they have a "D" after their name is the strategy that has gotten us into this mess.


"There are forces within the Democratic Party who want us to sound like kinder, gentler Republicans. I want us to compete for that great mass of voters that want a party that will stand up for working Americans, family farmers, and people who haven't felt the benefits of the economic upturn."---Paul Wellstone

[Jed Dilligan]

32. You misused "craven"

More comments to come

on edit: I pretty much agree with all you have to say.

[Zodiak]

36. I would not be surprised if I did

I am not some kind of word-smith.....just an Edwards supporter with some stuff to say.

But you get then picture of my intent...she will do anything to gain power, and progressives are the favorites of her poltical allies to throw under the bus.

[elixir2]

37. It's hard to read the entire post when the first graph includes "craven", "dirty tricks" ....

[Zodiak]

40. Sorry, but how else to describe what has gone down to this point

It is the most recent in news, so it is the first point. I apologize if you do not like the words, but the overarching argument remains the same.

Her dirty tricks will be broadcast far and wide...McCain will get a pass. Failure to distinguish oneself is the cardinal sin of this party in general elections.

[BootinUp]

39. dont believe everything you read on the internets. nt

[onenote]

41. If you're not going to vote for someone, don't complain when they don't win, okay?

To be honest, folks who predict disaster if this candidate or that is nominated and simulataneously state that they won't vote for that candidate irk me because they are saying, in effect, that they want that candidate to lose, which, like it or not, is pretty much saying that you want the other candidate to win (in the real world, one or the other will win, there is no middle ground).

If you're not going to vote for someone, don't complain when they don't win, okay?

[K Gardner]

43. K&R

[BeyondGeography]

46. Here's to clear thinking

:thumbsup:

[TexasObserver]

47. I second that emotion.

I'm not inclined to write such a statement myself, but you hit the key problems with a Hillary candidacy. I believe we have a chance to add the next generation of stimulated Democrats to the party, and if we miss this opportunity, we're going to be wedding the party to the past, not the future.

[VenusRising]

51. Welcome to DU, TexasObserver!

:hi:

[TexasObserver]

52. thanks

[Zodiak]

53. Welome to DU, TexasObserver

You are from my home-state!!

Howdy! :hi:

[TexasObserver]

56. The Lone Star State!!

Why are there no trees on the Bush ranch in Crawford?

The trees died because their sap was in Washington.

[Raster]

67. OMG! Molly is that you!

[Iktomiwicasa]

57. Anyone....

who actively seeks power should be viewed with mistrust, especially one so mercenary as HRC.

[mmonk]

59. #3 is my reason for not supporting her for the primaries.

The thing that will motivate me to vote for the presidency in the general election will be to keep another Republican from getting the office if she wins the nomination. But I wouldn't mind being able to vote for someone rather than vote against someone, so I hope Obama wins the nomination instead.

[Zodiak]

60. It is my biggest reason, too

As we speak, the DLC is working hard to make sure the telecom immunity deal goes through.

The actions of the DLC see in the Senate to undermine the Democratic party and the People while propping up Republican positions is precisely the reason I can no longer call myself a loyal Democrat. WHICH Democrats we elect has tremendous meaning, and I refuse to reward incompetence and collusion.

I am a progressive, and I vote through that prism.

[bvar22]

65. Thanks, ZI. Another Kucinich/Edwards Democrat here.

Excellent analysis that mirrors my feelings.
K&R

I have appreciated your work in the past, especially your "weighted" system for evaluating votes by our Senators. (Bookmarked)

You have proved beyond doubt that on important votes, it has been the DLC Senators who have betrayed the Democratic Party and joined with the Republicans to help implement the NeoCon agenda.

[Zodiak]

68. Much appreciated

I am a firm believer that blind party loyalty is an undesirable trait because it is easy to exploit, and the DLC takes advantage of it. We have to survey the landscape within our own tent as well as at the level of the overall body politic.

[cooolandrew]

71. Hillary runs a very clean campaign she can be proud of. To be positive and gracious.

[cooolandrew]

72. Yep you summed it up well DLC is dragging democrats right and they win we lose the party.