Question for women and women only.

[Texas Hill Country]

I mean this with the with the utmost respect and really just want to know this.

Over the last couple months I have read a large number of posts from women that support Obama that they really do want a woman in the white house, "just not Hillary."

Hillary Clinton is incredibly intelligent, highly driven, very successful, incredibly accomplished, amazingly capable, has a ton of experience, is very well liked around the world, has been at the forefront of many of the issues that we all care about (healthcare, women, kids, minorities, etc) and has achieved amazing results, as well as having made landmark speeches that spurred incredible action all over the world, and more...

And I dont want to hear all the RW talking points... that she can come off a bit steeley eyed or hard or "bitchy", OR all the bullshit about the Clintons being "shady" (dig hard enough and everyone is "shady")...

WHY?

And don't compare her to Obama. That isnt the question and that is not sentiment in the posts I see. why not Hillary?


Do you think that she isnt capable?

Do you think she is not intelligent enough?

Do you think she is not strong enough?




I am just trying to understand why women, who are smart and intelligent and, by their own admission, would love a woman in the white house, when presented with one of the most successful, intelligent, experienced and capable women in the entire world... why do you still not support her?


I dont understand and would really like to know.

Thanks.

[PassingFair]

1. She voted to authorize the "war" in Iraq.

I will NEVER waste a primary vote on
a Democrat who did that.

That goes for Edwards, too.

I also do NOT support DLC control of our
party. She is a DLC leader.

[Texas Hill Country]

2. respectable reason and I can understand that sentiment. thank you for the honest answer.

[TexasLady]

34. My first and foremost reason as well. (the War)

I was a 'Kucinicher' before Obama. I protested for 30 days against that damn war, up the road in Crawford. Sorry, I can't in good conscience back her.

Edited to add..my sister, whom I love dearly, strongly backs Hillary. I respect her decision, and because of her, I could never say that I wouldnt vote for Hillary.

[roguevalley]

110. she's dishonest, calculating in a bad way, dismissive, lies and

will use war for personal gain. She has decided that to win, she has to out man the men. she has nothing of the qualities that I expect from a strong, decent woman and as such, I find it easy to move from choice 1, edwards, to Obama. I want a woman but one I can be proud of, one that won't use service people as props to advance herself and who will be dignified, decent to everyone and not dismissive. This woman is a train wreck.

[angie_love]

156. I second this, the IWR killed it for me. But I more of support Obama than dislike Hillary

[blogslut]

3. I believe she is false

and no friend to women.

[Texas Hill Country]

4. how can you say that... she has a 35 year history of advocacy for women? she made one of the most

important speeches on womens rights in history?

i am baffled?

[blogslut]

7. Advocacy?

Do tell.

[Texas Hill Country]

21. how about her Beijing speech in 1995? heard of that? or...

what about her fighting for adoption rights? domestic abuse laws? microfinance loans for women in third world countries? Choice? Equal Pay for women? Her anti-sex trade push? Female genital mutilation?

and so much more...

[blogslut]

44. It's a nice speech

Too bad it is overshadowed by the fact that hundreds of thousands of women and children are now dead and those left are subjected to oppression in Iraq because of her IWR vote.

She, to me, is a female who speaks on "women's" issues because it is convenient. As president, I do not believe she will be an outspoken advocate for women's rights. She will go the safe, re=electable route as is her habit.

[Texas Hill Country]

56. 2 things...

1. She pushed for womens rights specifically when it was not convenient... as a matter of fact, Bill, et al BEGGED her not to make that speech in China. She did it anyway.

2. You act as if it was her vote that was decisive. In addition, it is a totally unfair and false comparison.

[JTFrog]

165. Not only was Hillary one of the most vocal democrats in support of the war,

Hillary was one of the most vocal democrats pushing for the IWR. In her infamous speech she proves that she knew she was voting for war AND she even laid out the blueprints to being able to use force the same way her husband did.

NO AMOUNT OF DENIAL OR COGNITIVE DISSONANCE AMONGST HER SUPPORTERS WILL EVER CHANGE THESE FACTS.

http://www.commondreams.org/views07/0303-23.htm

See Hillary Run (from Her Husband's Past on Iraq)
by Scott Ritter

Senator Hillary Clinton wants to become President Hillary Clinton. "I'm in, and I'm in to win," she said, announcing her plans to run for the Democratic nomination for the 2008 Presidential election. Let there be no doubt that Hillary Clinton is about as slippery a species of politician that exists, one who has demonstrated an ability to morph facts into a nebulous blob which blurs the record and distorts the truth. While she has demonstrated this less than flattering ability on a number of issues, nowhere is it so blatant as when dealing with the issue of the ongoing war in Iraq and Hillary Clinton's vote in favor of this war.

This issue won't be resolved even if Hillary Clinton apologizes for her Iraq vote, as other politicians have done, blaming their decision on faulty intelligence on Iraq's WMD capabilities. This is because, like many other Washington politicians at the time, including those now running for president, she had been witness to lies about Iraq's weapons programs to justify attacks on that country by her husband President Bill Clinton and his administration.

"While there is no perfect approach to this thorny dilemma, and while people of good faith and high intelligence can reach diametrically opposed conclusions, I believe the best course is to go to the UN for a strong resolution that scraps the 1998 restrictions on inspections and calls for complete, unlimited inspections with cooperation expected and demanded from Iraq," Senator Clinton said at the time of her vote, in a carefully crafted speech designed to demonstrate her range of knowledge and ability to consider all options. "I know that the Administration wants more, including an explicit authorization to use force, but we may not be able to secure that now, perhaps even later. But if we get a clear requirement for unfettered inspections, I believe the authority to use force to enforce that mandate is inherent in the original 1991 UN resolution, as President Clinton recognized when he launched Operation Desert Fox in 1998."

Hillary would have done well to leave out that last part, the one where her husband, the former President of the United States, used military force as part of a 72-hour bombing campaign ostensibly deemed as a punitive strike in defense of disarmament, but in actuality proved to be a blatant attempt at regime change which used the hyped-up threat of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction as an excuse for action. Sound familiar? While many Americans today condemn the Bush administration for misleading them with false claims of unsubstantiated threats which resulted in the ongoing debacle we face today in Iraq (count Hillary among this crowd), few have reflected back on the day when the man from Hope, Arkansas sat in the Oval Office and initiated the policies of economic sanctions-based containment and regime change which President Bush later brought to fruition when he ordered the invasion of Iraq in March 2003.

...much more at link


Scott Ritter served as a former Marine Corps officer from 1984 until 1991, and as a UN weapons inspector in Iraq from 1991 until 1998. He is the author of several books, including "Iraq Confidential" and "Target Iran". He also co-authored "War on Iraq" with William Pitt.

AND NEVER FORGET THAT SHE DOES NOT CARE IF YOU DON'T LIKE THAT SHE VOTED FOR WAR:

"If the most important thing to any of you is choosing someone who did not cast that vote or has said his vote was a mistake, then there are others to choose from," Mrs. Clinton told an audience in Dover, N.H., in a veiled reference to two rivals for the nomination, Senator Barack Obama of Illinois and former Senator John Edwards of North Carolina."

Do you forget that she interrupted Senator Byrd and took away his floor time allotted to his ANTI-WAR speech so that she could shove the IWR down our throats? Yes, I'd say her vote was rather decisive.

The only totally unfair and false comparison is trying to compare Hillary to some champion for women and the ever laughable goddess of peace.

[futureliveshere]

202. wow.. great info. You should post this separately. I don't think many people know this.

[hfojvt]

60. but she has a speech!

Not just a lifetime of experience, but a speech too!

I thought the speech was kinda lame with the way she bragged about all the places she had visited. Instead of giving recognition to all of the people working on these issues around the world, "In such and such people are doing so and so" it was "I have visited ..." I I I, like she put herself ahead of the people actually doing the work. It is neat that she went around supporting those people and learning about what they do, but visiting and cheerleading is not exactly more important than actually doing the work.

[Carni]

105. Nice SN

You advocate women but have the name blog slut...WTF is that? lol

[blogslut]

107. I have no problems with my name

Maybe someday, if you wish, I will explain why I chose it. You can also put me on ignore now, if you like.

[Hepburn]

161. I do not recall her being a leader in any of this.

[Why Syzygy]

88. No. She's disparaged speeches! She is a destroyer, not a builder.

very anti-female. Actions are more important than speeches. Isn't that what HilLIARy says?
She's elitist.
Too far Right.
Her husband wanders.
She is an evil bitch.

Anything else?

[Hepburn]

160. I know of NO important speech she gave on this subject.

[Honeycombe8]

180. 35 years? Ha. Every time she says that, people snicker. She has 6 years of experience...

at being in national government. That's it.

[undeterred]

5. Three things.

I believe Obama is more likely to end the war, and end it sooner than Hillary.

I believe that with Hillary Clinton we are also going to get Bill Clinton in the White House, and that as a former president it will be very difficult to restrict what he can do. Since Hillary has seen fit to amplify her first lady exerience to be larger than it really was, I have little doubt that Bill would be doing God knows what. We couldn't control the VP or the President during this administration, and I have little doubt that we wouldn't be able to control the "First Man" under a Hillary Clinton Administration.

I don't trust her. She isn't honest. She overstates her experience and she lies.

The good things you said about her are true, but these 3 bad things outweigh those.

[Texas Hill Country]

8. well, taking out the Obama thing, you dont trust Bill to keep his dick in his pants, and she lies?

do I have that right?

[undeterred]

17. I'm worried about Bill Clinton doing much more

substantial and consequential things than cheating on his wife. The latter is of no concern to me at all.

[Texas Hill Country]

23. ok, good. such as? please, enlighten me.

[undeterred]

51. When the Clintons Mine Big Bucks

He will exploit his past presidency and her presidency in every way possible.

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0804/S00059.htm

[jesus_of_suburbia]

6. MANY of them are misogynist. Oops, I'm not a woman.

Doesn't matter. It's the truth.

I'll be proud if it earns me a few more ignores.

[Texas Hill Country]

9. the women are misogynist?

[jesus_of_suburbia]

22. misogynist - One who hates women.

i'd say 50 percent of men and 40 percent of women fit this definition.

do you really not think that women are their worst enemy at times?

[Texas Hill Country]

24. i am aware of the definition lol, and i do not completely disagree.

[jesus_of_suburbia]

29. As a male, I better add this.... I think there are many women on this board

who support Obama and ARE NOT misogynist.

Probably 80%... so I should redefine my use of "many".

[Texas Hill Country]

54. i agree to that as well. I was really speaking to a select few but seem to have raised a storm lol

[Bicoastal]

10. I'm not female, but as someone who used to respect HRC greatly and defended her here...

...I really detest how she's run her campaign, or rather, how she's let her campaign define her. I'd give you specifics, but I'm sure you'll disagree with them vociferously. Which is fine--I'd do the same with Barack...

But bottom line, her being female has absolutely nothing to do with it.

[Texas Hill Country]

11. i am specifically talking about the women I have seen that say "I want a woman Prez, not her tho"

[Bicoastal]

14. You don't think *I* want a woman Prez?

And a black prez? And a latino prez? And a Jewish prez? etc.

Again, it has nothing to do with why I'm backing Barack.

But anyway, I'm out to Dinner. Via Con Dios.

[democrattotheend]

12. Not Hillary because I like Obama better

I find his message more appealing, and I work in Washington and believe that having less experience here has a lot of advantages. Obama has built a grassroots movement and fundraising base, and the fact that he has only been around for a few years means he owes fewer favors to big money interests (and I am not delusional enough to believe he is perfect in that regard), and with such a strong grassroots base, he might be able to bring about at least some meaningful change. I believe that we cannot achieve meaningful policy reform until we change the system and build public concensus, and Obama, with his superior negotiating skills and powerful oratory, has a better chance of being able to do that.

I don't dislike Hillary (though I have been disgusted with some of her tactics in this campaign), but I really believe in Obama and believe that he offers a chance for meaningful change. I would love to see a woman in the White House, and I do admire her intelligence and tenacity, but I am turned off by her sense of entitlement and disdain for grassroots activists (as evidenced by her comments today, among other things). I don't believe that being a woman obligates me to support her if I don't believe she is the best candidate.

[Texas Hill Country]

25. exactly the opposite of what I asked. why NOT hillary, without the comparison please.

[democrattotheend]

26. My point is, my decision to back Obama was not motivated by any dislike for Hillary

It was an affirmative decision to back the candidate I found most inspiring, and it has nothing to do with the right wing talking points against Hillary.

[Shakespeare]

31. I think this is important, because it seems to be the key thing Hillary supporters don't get

Their assumption is that a vote for Obama = rejection of Hillary. They can't seem to get their heads around the idea that support/enthusiasm for Obama exists completely independently of Hillary's candidacy. They support Obama because they like Obama and his ideas, NOT because they dislike Hillary.

I'm not even an Obama supporter, and this makes me a little nutty.

[Texas Hill Country]

61. I am talking about a specific set of women i see on here saying any woman but not her.

I do not think in any way that a vote for Obama is necessarily a rejection of Hillary.

[Shakespeare]

147. Okay, then on that point:

I think she's too quick to compromise. I think she acts FAR too much in her own self-interest. I think she's a political windsock, setting her positions by whatever she thinks will further her own political career, and nothing else.

Her vote on the IWR. Her vote on the bankruptcy bill. Her shockingly disgraceful vote for the Kyl-Lieberman amendment.

And all of that colored my opinion of her BEFORE she began running one of the ugliest (and most poorly run) campaigns I have ever had the displeasure of witnessing. And I'm no political novice--I used to be a political reporter, and have seen the process up close and personal and as ugly as it gets. I'm utterly turned off by her resume padding and attempts to paint her years as first lady as some sort of hardcore executive experience, when it just is not. She continually stuns me with her nasty tone and her disingenuous complaints.

There are SOME things I like about her, but there are far more things about her that I flat-out cannot stand. I do NOT think she's a great candidate, and I don't think she'd make a good president.

I'm not an Obama supporter, either--but I find him a much more pleasing candidate (on many levels) than I do Hillary. I still think Edwards was the best candidate, but that's off the table now.

But I disagree that she's wonderful and a great candidate, and I absolutely do not have any kind of obligation to vote for her because she's a woman or because I'M a woman.

Edited to add one more thing: You want to know which woman I DO think would blow everybody else out of the water? Elizabeth Edwards. We do have women who would make a great president; she's the first who comes to mind. But Hillary is not on my list at all.

[Texas Hill Country]

41. then I am not talking about you.

[Blondiegrrl]

134. Then what's the point? Seriously, you make no sense.

Are we supposed to pretend that she's not running against anyone?

[goletian]

159. discussing why people dont pick someone out of many without comparing to the many is dumb

you realize that, right?

[DearAbby]

13. I checked, and I qualify to answer

:hi:

Before her campaign started, I would have considered Clinton, but for one thing and one thing only...I am fecking sick and tired of the two same families in the white house. If her name was Smith Jones anything but Clinton I would have considered her seriously...I too would love to see a woman in the white house...just not this woman.

Since then, the way she has run her campaign gives me serious doubts that she can run the country, and of course, I feel she would run the country as status quo. Same cronyism, same corrupt politics.

[cali]

15. To paraphrase Shaw: Why does a woman have to be like a man?

One thing that has really turned me off about Hillary Clinton is that she's constantly trying to prove she's as "tought" as any male. In all honesty, I don't entirely blame her for this, but it does concern me. It's something- an insecurity if you will- that I fear wouldn't serve us well if she became President.

Yes, she's bright and well informed, though I think your superlatives are over the top, but she lacks judgment. She voted for a blank check for chimpy to wage war. And it's not like she wasn't warned by her peers in the Senate. Why did she do it? I think it was because her political ambitions were more important to her than doing the right thing. She made a political calculation on the backs of the lives of the Iraqi people and American troops.


capable? Yes, I think she probably is. Intelligent enought? Surely. Strong enought? I'm not sure.

For me, it comes down to temperment and judgment. I find her lacking in both.

And I'd love a response. I haven't mentioned any other candidate. No right wing talking points, just my unvarnished opinion.

[Texas Hill Country]

38. i thank you for the honest response... here is mine.

1. I have never seen a stronger public person in my life. I cannot even begin to imagine the microscope on their lives. They have been investigated more than any other poltical couple in history, certainly in modern times, and they have endured BRUTAL intrusion into their lives.

2. She did sign the AUMF, as did a variety of other democrats, but she made a speech when she did warning the president to use the power wisely. Chimpy did not. I don't fault her for that. I fault Chimpy. In addition, she has since apologized and come to terms with the mistake. Also, on a larger note, the AUMF would have passed with or without her... Once again, I fault Chimpy and Chimpy's lies.

3. I believe that some of the percieved toughness is not because she thinks she has to be manly to be accepted, rather I believe it is a cautiousness learned by two decades of being attacked mercilessly. I would be a bit guarded too, and I don't think most people would be any different.

[SaveAmerica]

115. If the AUMF had passed without her, she'd have a clear conscience and more Democrats voting for her

These might be your base reasons for voting for her, but how do you feel about the way she's conducted herself and allowed her campaign to go so viral this primary season?

[OhioBlue]

138. See, to me, being strong means that you have to do

the right thing even when you know it isn't popular.

[jesus_of_suburbia]

50. Fantastic answer. You do your candidate proud.

[Auntie Bush]

128. Why do you hold it against Hillary so much when Kerry, Biden and Edwards

all voted for that bill. I also want to remind you that they all voted for it to get the inspectors in...They didn't vote so we could go to war. You misinterpret those votes. More than half the Dems voted for it also.

[cali]

174. She's running. They're not. And anyone who's familiar with me

knows that I held it against all of them. Furthermore, it's dishonest nonsense to say I misinterpreted that vote. Go educate yourself: YOUR Senator, Pat Leahy, said quite clearly, numerous times, that the AUMF was a blank check for war. Hell, even Jim Jeffords voted against it. To say legislattion entitles AUTHORIZATION TO USE MILITARY FORCE, isn't a vote for war is pure Orwellian bullshit.

[roseBudd]

198. 22 did not, I would argue that Kerry, Biden & Edwards were also cowardly, reality bites,

life is not fair. Obama's appeal is something Hillary cannot match. She does not have charisma. If you want to win, choosing a charismatic nominee is quite helpful. Obama is more electable because he is likeable. FDR & JFK had charisma. See the pattern?

[mrreowwr_kittty]

16. Honestly, her resume just isn't all that impressive.

Much of her widely touted 35 Years Of Experience, prior to the Senate, was sitting on boards and kibbutzing at cocktail parties and crap like that. It's not her fault, it was the nature of her position as a political spouse. As First Lady, she didn't possess a security clearance so she could not possibly have played that important a role in foreign policy. That's not a slam on her, she just couldn't.

The one major policy thing she attempted (health care reform) failed miserably, not because it was a bad idea or she wasn't competent to the task. It failed because she was secretive and dictatorial. She clearly hasn't learned from that because she wants to hold closed meetings again.


It saddens me to see this insistence that Hillary Clinton is the most qualified woman to hold the office she seeks. It doesn't say much for your opinion of your own gender to advance this argument.

[Asgaya Dihi]

18. I'm male, but married. I'll let my wife do this one

She could create an account of her own I'd guess, but this would likely be the only post ever made to it so no point. From here on I'll let her do the talking.

She believes that the character of our President is far more important than the sex of our President. Although Hillary and Obama have similar policies she trusts him to be more likely to carry them through, she thinks that Hillary may be too aggressive because she feels she has to prove something. Hillary hasn't helped herself on the honesty issue in this campaign either. Just her opinion.

[redqueen]

19. She backed up the neo-cons' lies about Iraq.

Not just once, like when she said Iraq had ties to Al Qaeda during her IWR speech... but also 10 months into the war... when she went on some talk show and reiterated that Iraq WAS a threat. Also, she didn't even read the NIE. I don't think it's smart to put a candidate like that up against the GOP in the fall.


Also, she voted to extend Bush's tax cuts. I'm not sure McCain did. Whether he did or didn't... not enough difference for me to consider her a good candidate against him.


Also, she has repeatedly told really painfully obvious lies (NAFTA, Bosnia). That will not look good in the fall. Especially the Bosnia thing... set that up in contrast to a war hero... and IMO you've got a recipe for disasater.


I could go on but that's enough, really.

[WA98296]

20. Her support of Iraq War, NAFTA, V-Chip, are MORE important to me than gender

I supported Kucinich, then Edwards, now Obama.

I've always considered HRC a moderate republican.
Her comments today about Moveon.org only cement that for me.

[mamalone]

27. Well, first of all....

I don't see how she has all this experience... her *husband* has a lot of experience, but her? not so much. I mean, my doctor's wife is a nurse, helps him out in the office, even has assisted him in surgery a time or two. Do I want her operating on me? No way, because she doesn't have the knowledge or experience to do an adequate job. To me Hillary touting all of her husband's years in office as her own is such a throwback and an insult to the women who have achieved success in their own right. I've never heard anyone else express this, so maybe it's just me...

Secondly, she has shown a side to her character in this campaign that I find appalling. She is so petty, so negative that I feel profoundly disrespected as a voter. It's almost like she feels we don't have the intelligence to make a thoughtful reasoned choice... that we are so dim as to be manipulated by absurd non-issues.

Thirdly, the lying about sniper fire, NAFTA, etc, etc, etc has me questioning either her character or her sanity. I lived with a lying man for 17yrs and that's more than enough of that, thank-you-very-much!

Fourth, she is sadly an incredibly divisive figure... and much of this is through no fault of her own. I am acquainted with many very conservative folk and the unmitigated hatred for Hillary cannot be overstated. There will be folks crawling out from underneath every rock for the chance to vote against her... and an ample supply of folk to drive them to the polls. Even if by some miracle she were to get elected in the GE, she would not be able to be effective as leader... she is just too polarizing.

Finally, the day we invaded Iraq I was in a state of disbelief. I could not believe that our great country had stooped to such a low level. I can never support a candidate who voted for this war... or at least who is not in abject regret for their part in it.

I feel sad about all of this. There is a huge part of me that would love to support her. I feel a real kinship to her on a personal level. I have come out of a difficult marriage that has a many similarities to the Clintons. I have admired how she did what she thought was right, even though she was roundly criticized for it. I admire how she has been able to raise her daughter to be such a successful and stable person in the midst of it... She is full of wonderful qualities and strengths. But I don't think she is capable of leading the US....

[Texas Hill Country]

82. thank you for the reasoned response, i appreciate it... i would like to point out a couple things..

I have seen the IWR getting stated here many times... and she did not vote for the war. She voted to give the president the ability to take action if needed.

Now why would you do that? The reason is that the information they had said that Saddam had WMD's. We all know it was a lie now, but they didnt then. Saddam was not cooperating and allowing inspections, and was feeding the WMD lies and encouraging them. What the AUMF was intended to do was to ratchet up the pressure on Saddam to open up and cooperate.

She even made a speech warning him to use the power wisely. Chimpy abused it and jumped the gun.


I don't really blame her, I blame Chimpy.

[Oilwellian]

173. Excuse me, but...

Inspectors were allowed back in and they were finding nothing...not even the stockpiles of weapons that Colin Powell described at the UN. Just what exactly does "Authorization To Use Military Force mean to you?

She also loves to antagonize Iran. She says she won't talk to them, then she says she would, now she's saying she won't again. In the debate she talked about an umbrella of security in the ME and massive retaliations to Iran should they attack Israel. Our military is broken and the country is broke yet she's talking about increasing our military presence in a very volatile region and which, IMHO, is one of the reasons why WE are being attacked here.

Hillary & Bill profit from the Colombian government, a country that supports death squads & kill union organizers and peasants, where 75% live in abject poverty while the multi-national corporations steal their natural resources and pay slave wages. That is the policy Hillary Clinton supports. That is what NAFTA does, signed sealed and delivered to America by Bill Clinton, and heavily endorsed by Hillary Clinton behind closed doors.

No thank you. Hillary will be more of the same where our foreign policy is concerned and that is why I don't support her. We are heading off of a cliff if the status quo continues and that's exactly what Edwards referred to Hillary as being in one of the debates. Obama has also promised to have his Attorney General investigate the crimes of the Bush administration. Hillary Clinton has made no such promise.

[mamalone]

177. Pardon me...

but I see that as kind of a cop-out. Imagine if my 9yo son came home from school and told me that there were some kids who were picking on him, who were planning on beating him up. Imagine if I sent him off to school the next day with a switchblade... warning him to "use it wisely";) Now if there ended up being some type of disaster and my son ended up doing some other children an injury, would I be blameless? Of course not. As a matter of fact I think any reasonable person would hold me primarily responsible. Considering that my 9yo son has shown significantly more maturity and self-control than our dear POTUS, I think we can reasonably hold those who voted to give him such power to be responsible for the consequences.

I hope I don't seem harsh... I really really appreciate you asking this question, and I appreciate your answering my concerns and thoughts in so measured a fashion. It's great to be able to actually dialog instead of just throw accusations and venom:)

[powergirl]

191. Other brave senators voted against IWR and Clinton finally admitted she regretted her vote

Also the IWR is worse than a Congressional declaration of war. By voting for the IWR, she placed, in the hands of George W. Bush, absolute authority to invade Iraq without getting ANYONE's permission. This is why it is insidious.

Also, if you really want to know the reasons women are not voting for Clinton, you need to just LISTEN. Don't argue with them. You betray the intent of your original post.

[tishaLA]

28. She's capable, intelligent, and strong

But maybe the strength is the real problem for me. I really don't like the way she overinvests in patriarchal models of power and politics; it seems more regressive, to me, than even her husband's politics. I should be clear that by patriarchal politics, I am not referring to anti-feminist politics, but on models of politics that are primarily top-down, authoritarian, and led by strong central figures. Non-patriarchal models, on the other hand, are characterized by horizontal relationships, non- (or anti-) authoritarianism, and a diffuse power structure. Part of Hillary's decision to embrace this patriarchal paradigm, undoubtedly, is a result of the fact that she is a woman; it is easier for men to embrace new political paradigms, just as it is easier, in many ways, for white candidates to be progressive on issues of race than non-white candidates. But I also believe that part of her investment in patriarchal politics is that she thinks it is a proper, effective way of governing; it is the model of politics she "grew up" under and the kind of politics that taught her many lessons.

I could say more, but it would be received even less well than this will be. So I'll stop here.

[mcctatas]

149. This is a great analysis...

It echoes what my mom and her freinds have been saying, and I think it adresses the "I would love to vote for a woman, but not this woman" sentiments I feel. Plus it is much more grown up than my response was:)

[MH1]

30. I don't trust her.

I think she has some good policy positions going in, but I think she will fold under the right-wing pressure.

I base this on little glimpses I've had of her character over the years, but especially since that day in 2006 when she stuck the knife in John Kerry. She didn't have to do that, she shouldn't have done it, and the only possible reason for it was to help ensure that he wouldn't run against her for prez in 2008. The worst gawdawful political opportunism I have seen in my life. Well, from a supposed liberal Democrat, anyway. But here's the thing: Kerry probably wouldn't have run anyway; even if he did, she might have been able to beat him fair and square just by focusing on her own positives; and the Hillary-fan excuse that somehow she was "doing it to save the 2006 election" just totally doesn't wash with me, I think it is ridiculous. You see, there are these two words that are very important to any leader: integrity, and courage. She threw both of those under the bus that day with John Kerry - assuming she had them to begin with. So, what kind of courage will she show under actual fire as president? I don't think I want to find out.

edited for silly typo.

[Texas Hill Country]

93. i missed the Kerry shanking... please describe.

[MH1]

113. Late October 2006....

John Kerry is barnstorming across the country campaigning for Democrats. Doing so many stops his voice is going hoarse. Gets to California and gives a speech for Angelides. Leaves the word "us" out of "if you work hard and study you can do well, if you don't you could get (us) stuck in Iraq." (I may not have it exact but that is pretty close). Note that this was after a series of jabs at Bush. The press had an advance copy of the speech, and that line contained the word "us" as I indicated. In other words, in the transcript it was clearly a jab at Bush. However without reading the as-prepared, it sounded like "don't fuck up or you might be out of options and end up in Iraq." (not exactly untrue, right?) Then the right wing spun that to Kerry insulting the troops and saying that all of the troops in Iraq were stupid. (Tactic sound familiar?)

I am sure this is all coming back to you unless you were in a coma during that time.

Anyway some Dems running for election in challenging races, notably Sestak and Casey, defended Kerry (at least lukewarmly, I don't remember their exact words). Of course Bush and McCain attacked Kerry.

After it had been going on for a couple days and might have been dying down (we'll never know now), some reporter cornered Hillary and asked her. Her response? Not "I haven't seen the context so I won't comment", which would have been a wuss answer but understandable; NOT the best answer which would have been to point out how ridiculous the media's interpretation is, and oh by the way Kerry has authored (and had passed) numerous legislation to help military members and veterans. Oh, no, she couldn't be troubled to say all that. SHE SAID: "His remarks were inappropriate" - i.e. the "vast right wing conspiracy" that she once decried, had applied the correct meaning to Kerry's words. WTF?! (Or was she really saying that it is inappropriate to make a bad joke about George Bush in a campaign speech?)

Ok, let's review:

* either she hadn't heard the comments in context, then she could have said that;

or

* she had paid attention and knew the facts, and she lied.

Either way she threw Kerry under the bus. The courageous thing would have been to defend Kerry. The harmless thing would have been to wuss out. But no, she had to join with the right wing and give credibility to their smear.

That episode was the epiphany for me, when I felt I saw her real character. But to be honest, if I never saw anything else like that from her, I think I could have written it off as "just politics". I think the world of John Kerry and I will always be angry about that episode, but if it was the only case then I could just see it as an unfortunate moment for her.

But, I have seen other incidents that reinforce my conclusions from that day. And this goes to the question of how she would operate as President: what would be her priority? In her first term, being re-elected, and in her second term, her legacy? What other drivers does she have besides ambition? What would she put first?

I know you like Hillary and I am sorry if I have been too blunt. But you asked, and that is the best explanation I can give of why I don't trust her.

[CreekDog]

32. Your question contrains people's ability to answer

they can't talk about Obama

you are basically saying she doesn't have good qualities, why not vote for her as if she was the only person in the race...but she isn't.

there are two people in the race, they can like one and decide to vote for the other based on comparison.

what's so complicated about that?

[Texas Hill Country]

40. no, i am specifically talking about the women on here that have stated that they want a woman

in the white house, just not her.

they are not saying that they like Obama more. they are saying that Hillary would never get their vote.

very different.

[Orangepeel]

33. I don't support Clinton because I support Obama more

It's silly to say "don't compare her to Obama." Those are the two people still in the race, so I made my decision of who to support based on comparing them. I don't support her because I'm supporting him.

Clinton and Obama are very similar on positions. That's part of the reason why it's gotten so personal between camps. There's not much to argue about policy wise. So, to me, that's basically a wash.

I think that both of them are capable, intelligent and strong. So, that's a wash.

In my mind, Clinton gets "bonus points" for being a woman. The ability break down barriers and inspire is a factor that I consider when deciding who to vote for, as long as I feel the candidate is qualified and supports my policy positions. (I wouldn't vote for a republican woman, but if I like two candidates, gender is a plus).

But Obama also breaks down barriers. So, he gets as many "bonus points" as Clinton. Wash.

So it comes to the fact that, in my opinion, Obama is more inspiring. He has the gift of charisma. He has run a much better campaign. I believe that he is better able to beat McCain. And, he has managed to do what other politicians I strongly supported haven't been able to do -- increase participation in the democratic process *cough*howarddean*cough*

[cyberpj]

35. The Clintons have become way to close to The Bush Family - And only two families ruling this country

since the 90's is NOT good for any of us.

I believe she has been corrupted by her own ambition to be one of the D.C. powerful and I don't believe she would put people before corporations.

[Texas Hill Country]

91. i find that really interesting since she championed NHI and gave corps a heart attack 10 years ago

[LisaM]

36. For all the woman who say they want a woman, but not Hillary

Please consider donating money to women candidates (such as Darcy Burner in Washington state) so that we can start building the pool.

I think there is a certain segment of people in this country who just don't want a woman. I asked my boyfriend about this, in fact, I asked him straight out if he cared if we ever had a woman as president. His answer was honest, but disappointing: no.

I then put up a poll here and asked men to vote on whether it mattered to them if we ever had a woman president. I didn't get a huge response so I can't speak to the statistical accuracy of the people here, but only 19% voted yes.

[Willo]

133. Its probably a bad time to conduct that poll

hard for people not to think of Hillary themselves or think that is what the poll is asking.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

193. LisaM, I'm a woman, and a feminist, and I would answer no to that question

I certainly want to see a woman president but I want the best person to win, every time. If she's a woman great. If not, oh well. I'm not going to vote for a flawed or mediocre candidate if there are better choices available out of some misguided sense of gender loyalty. Part of what's turned so many feminists off to Hillary is the constant argument we hear that you MUST support her because she's a woman and this is our last chance to see a qualified woman as president blah blah blah....My response to them is that it doesn't speak highly of your opinion of your own gender if you believe that Hillary Clinton is the only woman on the planet who is qualified to lead this country.

That said, you are quite right about supporting women candidates. There is a woeful lack of women in most local offices. This is not because there are no qualified women, there are plenty. But no one asks them to run or grooms them like they do men. The more women there are in state legislatures, governor's mansions, and the Congress, the more women who will be able to run, and win the Presidency.

[Hepburn]

197. I am female and frankly, I don't give a shit if we ever have a female prez...

...my interest is the best PERSON for the job. Race, sex, color, sexual orientation ~~ who the hell gives a flying fuck. I could not care less if the BEST person was a mixed-race, transgendered atheist if I thought that person could do the best job.

Stop being so sexist, OK? It is about more than a person's plumbing viz the job of POTUS.

[blm]

37. I think she and her husband are TRAITORS to the Dem party and have protected BushInc for decades.

They have undermined and sabotaged every other Dem leader who has stepped up to oppose Bush the last 8 years. And throughout the 90s they deep-sixed all the serious outstanding matters that should have seen most of BushInc in jail by the end of 1994, and instead the GOP was gaining control of Congress and Senate and BushInc was planning its return to the WH.

It doesn't matter to me that one is a man and one is a woman - they are both Bushprotecting fascists and the biggest COWARDS in the Dem party - Cowards, because it is EASIER to roll over for BushInc and the powerful elites as the Clintons did - and courageous and risky to uncover the government corruption of BushInc - risky for life and career.

[Texas Hill Country]

63. you mean like Pelosi? Reid? please, tell me how Hillary undermined them...

[blm]

79. Every Dem leader who stepped up to OPPOSE Bush - Gore, Kerry, Dean. Clintons protect BushInc

They always have and always will - and they're getting their bank accounts lined by the tens of millions by those they protected throughout the 90s when they were siding with the secrecy and privilege of BushInc and the powerful elite.

[Texas Hill Country]

89. ok, how did the Clintons undermine Kerry? or Dean?

[blm]

96. Hard to believe this is the first you've heard of it.....

Douglas Brinkley is a NOTED HISTORIAN - he made these comments in April 2004:

http://www.depauw.edu/news/index.asp?id=13354

This is Bill DEFENDING Bush's Iraq decisions REPEATEDLY for 3 solid weeks in summer2004 when Kerry was criticizing those decisions.
http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/06/19/clinton.iraq/

This is Clinton loyalist Carville sabotaging Ohio Dem voters on election night:
http://www.tpmcafe.com/blog/coffeehouse/2006/oct/07/did_carville_tip_bush_off_to_kerry_strategy_woodward


This is Hillary validating Bush's smear against Kerry in 2008:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dk1k0nUWEQg

And where were you when Clintons' goons Carville, Begala and Ford were trying to get Dean kicked out as party chair since 2006?

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

39. Several reasons -- here are just a few.

Yes, she's smart, successful and competent. However:

1) I oppose dynasties on principle. The fact that somebody is related to or married to somebody who was a President shouldn't entitle them to be President, too. In fact, I think it pretty much disqualifies them.

2) I do not care for her triangulating, DLC "middle way" approach to many issues. I do not regard her as a progressive, but fundamentally a corporatist. She takes an enormous amount of money from corporations, especially drug and insurance companies. I don't want a president who is beholden to corporations and lobbyists.

3) Her experience is somewhat exaggerated. In reality, she has relatively little experience in government. Having been First Lady for eight years isn't the same; she didn't have a security clearance and she was not involved in high-level policy decisions.

4) I am increasingly finding her to be rather untrustworthy. She was not honest about her support for NAFTA, and the Tuzla thing was downright embarrassing. And her campaign tactics have been disturbing, to put it mildly.

5) She voted for the IWR and although she now claims to oppose the Iraq war she refuses to repudiate or apologize for that vote.

The fact that she is an intelligent and successful woman is not enough to make me support her, given these reasons.

[Texas Hill Country]

47. thank you for the response.

[UALRBSofL]

42. I would never vote for someone who voted for IWR

Woops, I voted for Kerry in 04, I suppose I should retract my header, LOL

She is an advocate for women, ie women's health which is a whole subgroup of healthcare of it's own. She's very trustworthy. She's been vetted during Bill's presidency. And actually, she leads among women voters. She started a free mammogram program for women based on income and strengthened women and children's health as my first lady in Arkansas. She increased funding for the battered womens shelters in Little Rock and across Arkansas.

I'm not a woman but I felt it would be OK to give an answer to the question. I mean, after all, if I'm picked as an At-Large delegate or an alternate for Florida in May to go the the convention in august I might decide to beat back my face and go in drag one of the 3 days.

[MagickMuffin]

43. She is part of the DLC, and I HATE the DLC.... I don't TRUST her,

She has proven that with this campaign. I would have loved it if she had waited until after Mad king Boy George left office. I think she would have swept everything that has happened the last 8 years under the Oval Office rug, just like her husband did for the Boy king's father.

I would have LOVED it if Carol Moseley Braun had gained traction back in 04. Of course being a Black Woman, no one would take her seriously, hell she couldn't even get the press to write articles about her experience.

I was more than happy to support John Kerry after all he KNEW about all of Poppy's dirty dealings of over a quarter century of his Black OPS, which Bill Clinton ignored.

Why do you suppose that was anyway?.?.?

I lost ALL respect for Hillary after her negative campaigning. I would NEVER vote for her in the future, if she ruins Obama's chance in the fall.

[Texas Hill Country]

53. see, i dont understand that last sentence... ruining Obama's chances...

regardless of the fact that I am not talking about Obama in this thread...

how exactly is she ruining his chances?

by bringin up things in a much lighter and softer way than they would be brought up in the GE regardless... and thus giving him time to vett and to answer these questions in a FAR less hostile atmosphere?


Dont you think that Wright would be brought up by the RW? Dont you think the attack would have been MUCH more brutal from the RW?

Ayers?

Khalafi?

Odinga?

Rezko?


If anything, she is actually helping him IMO.

[MagickMuffin]

75. Fair enough, although we won't know for sure if any of this would have been brought up in the GE

But it will be used now. These tactics have NEVER been played out this way within our party. I don't approve of Rovian politics, NEVER have NEVER will. No Democratic candidate should be "Swiftboating" each other.

I can only HOPE that this kind of campaigning will be downplayed in the future. I think the American people ARE tired of gotta ya politics. Especially since this last 8 years have left our country in shambles.

Dont you think that Wright would be brought up by the RW?

Yes, they will try but it has been discussed already. And this issue was brought up by Hannity, then it started to die down and Hillary brought it back to life.

Dont you think the attack would have been MUCH more brutal from the RW?

The RW will do what they always do, Obama has done a great job addressing the issue, over and over again. The American people will be soooo tired of this by the GE.

Ayers?........ Khalafi?........ Odinga?........Rezko?

Guilt by association. NOPE, I don't consider it an issue. I'm sure a lot of people will come to Ayers defense if he is attacked by the media. Funny that since Sean wasn't going to be able to ask Obama this question, he had Georgie Boy to do it for him.

I guess we'll have to wait and see what the RW throws at him. But he has shown that he can take the heat.

[merh]

45. I don't trust her and I don't think she is as qualified as she touts.

She claims the majority of her experience from being Bill's wife, she has said she was his apprentice. If that be the case, she accepts his failings along with his successes, but she doesn't.

Bill's administration, though better than what we have had, was not all that terrific, what he did "because he could" harmed our party and our nation, it lead way for the likes of GWB and the ilk that has damaged our nation. Not to mention a lot of his foreign policy and domestic policy allowed for where we are now.

The article that is the subject of this thread also reflects how I see Hillary. http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=5068457&mesg_id=5068457

See my response in that thread at post 32.

edited to add: She is a neo-lib, see her comments in the debate about the "umbrella of deterrence" and "massive retaliation"

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x5564117

I don't know about you, but imperialism is not what I envision for the future of our nation.

.

[ScarletSniper]

46. I don't like her. She sickens me. That's it.

[Texas Hill Country]

48. why?

[Rosa Luxemburg]

49. Gender doesn't enter into it

I want someone who is sensible and not conniving that isn't linked to the Bush crime family.

[helderheid]

186. Thank you.

[Glimmer of Hope]

52. I have problems with her IWR vote and think her campaign is horrible (surprisingly so).

I am acutally sad that she has been such a disappointment.

[Texas Hill Country]

59. so if her campaign had been better and she still had voted for IWR or

the opposite, you would have voted for her?

or would it have to be both?

[NoBushSpokenHere]

55. My reasons:

2004 election. I suspect Carville was working for Hillary when he made that phone call to his wife in the middle of the night. The next day Carville was on the news explaining that Kerry just wasn't a good candidate. We knew the fix was in on the election. I question if there was Clinton involvement in this because of their close association with Carville. No, I have no proof of the above except for the Woodward account of the phone call which has been linked here many times. So, yes, on this issue it is unfair of me to judge on guilt by association.

Even though I had those suspicions I believe in the beginning of February, I was still undecided. Because I was undecided I listened to both candidates. I may not have really listened to Obama had I already chose her. I believe many of her supporters would realize it is not about gender or race, if they would step back a bit, pretend they haven't made up their mind and actually listen to him. But, yes, you said this wasn't about him... so I will try to explain a bit more of why I am NOT for her.

She hasn't ran a good campaign.
The McCain moment was over the top. I am first, a Democrat, and cannot support a candidate who can make a statement as she did regarding McCain.
Bosnia.
NAFTA.
Iraq and Iran votes - could have probably forgiven the Iraq vote but not the Iran vote.
Too many years of Clintons/Bushes in power.
Too much money taken from drug and insurance companies.
Too much mudslinging.
Health care plan - doesn't take into consideration the AFFORDABILITY factor. I know many who CANNOT afford ANY premiums who direly need insurance. It isn't the availability it is the affordability.

It isn't about gender. It isn't about anything other than trust and who I believe is less corrupt. I believe it is more important to decide who can best turn around what has happened to this country and I believe someone who hasn't been in DC for so long is the better choice to do such.


And, this comes from someone who defended her for many years.

[BlooInBloo]

57. What a pathetic question. As the only thing women should care about is voting for a woman...

... By your "logic", there's historically little-to-no reason for black folks to vote at all. How shitty a line of thought.

[Texas Hill Country]

58. no, I am asking about a very specific sentiment. Women who say that want a woman, just not her.

and i am asking why.


Its not my shitty thought, its theirs

[sandnsea]

62. She accepted being cheated on for political purposes

That is not a feminist. It gets worse from there. She is not a role model I would want my daughter to follow. Her ME "security umbrella" should be enough for any woman to understand she does not represent feminist values.

[Texas Hill Country]

65. I dont think that has anything to do with her Feminism, which means being treated fairly and equally

IMO, her and Bill genuinely love eachother. They had problems. They worked it out. Good for them.


A woman does not have to leave to still be a good woman. It is the reasons why you stay or go that make the difference.

Besides, NOW seems to disagree with you.

[sandnsea]

72. Now there's a fairy tale fit for the Big Dog

She's an opportunist and always has been. Did you read that they had put Bill on a "diet" for the primary? He's the same pig he's always been and she puts up with it. Sorry, not my idea of a feminist. They were wrong when they let Bill get away with sex with his staff too, that had always been considered sexual harrassment, until Bill did it. So I don't really care much what the feminist groups have to say on the subject. They're ignoring an awful lot of shit, just like her supporters here at DU, in order to keep supporting her.

[Texas Hill Country]

87. well, i respect your opinion.

[PA Democrat]

64. I would love to see a woman in the White House

Hillary is intelligent, a great debater, and I like many of her policies.

My concern is that she has been in Washington too long, and is too much a part of the whole Washington insider elite. I think she and Bill owe too many people political favors to always do what is in the best interest of the people. We desperately need a president with as few ties as possible to lobbyists representing multinational corporations and foreign governments.

I have a problem with political dynasties. My 18 year old son will be voting Tuesday in his first presidential primary. For his ENTIRE LIFE either a Bush or a Clinton has been president. I was very much bothered by what I perceived to be an air of entitlement to the nomination based upon her last name.

I was adamantly opposed to the war in Iraq from the start. I have a big problem with her vote for the IWR, and an even bigger problem with the fact that she has yet to apologize for that vote. It is not a sign of weakness to say you are sorry, especially considering the price that too many are paying for that vote.

I don't like how she has run her campaign. I have seen more than 20 commercials run by her campaign on TV this week. Every single one has been a negative attack ad. I'm sick of politics as usual.

[Texas Hill Country]

68. Well, thank you for the response... one point...

I dont agree with the whole insider thing. In the last 50 years we have elected 2 "outsider" Presidents... Jimmy Carter and Chimpy. Both of which turned out to be complete and utter disasters.

(I love Jimmy, he is a good man at heart, but damn does he suck at politics)

[PA Democrat]

78. But the influence of special interests has grown exponentially over the last 20 years.

It's destroying the country.

[Texas Hill Country]

84. interesting. I will have to think about that. Thanks for the equitable discussion. appreciate it.

[PA Democrat]

100. Thanks for the discussion

I don't think any candidate is perfect. They all have flaws, and we each have to make our own judgment as to who is best, but I'll bet that members of both camps have a lot in common as far as what they want their candidate to deliver.

[quakerboy]

158. as a man, I was interested in seing the answers to your questions

It is an interesting question. Why not this woman?

That said, how can you qualify Chimpy as an outsider? His dad was the most recent former president while he was running. I understand he participated heavily in his dads election bids. As well as being a governor, and brother to a governor. By that standard, how would Clinton not be an outsider? or others?

[PA Democrat]

178. I was just about to make the same point, realizing I'd missed it in my earlier response.

You are right in that W was the ultimate Washington insider. Without Poppy Bush's inside connections and access to the big Republican fund-raising machine, his son never would have been elected to the position of dogcatcher, let alone president.

And then once in the White House, his administration has proved to be the epitome of insider pay-to-play politics. Just look at all of the unqualified political appointees. Just look how every nook and cranny of the federal government has been politicized for the purpose of serving Bush's base. Look at the no-bid contracts, the Medicare prescription drug plan that was written by the pharmaceutical and insurance industries.

Bush wrote the book when it comes to Washington insider politics.

[indie_voter]

184. Chimpy was not an outsider. n/t

[Tatiana]

66. Words cannot describe how disappointed I am with Hillary Clinton.

I say this as a former supporter who donated money to both of her Senate campaigns.

She is capable. She is intelligent. She is strong. But I want more in a President. Perhaps that may have been enough in 2004, after the incompetence and lack of intelligence demonstrated by Bush. But 2008 is a whole different ballgame. That stakes and standards have risen.

I want someone who will be honest with me, as a citizen and tell me the truth even when it hurts. I do not think Hillary will do that.

I want someone who can look at themselves and acknowledge their own failings. I do not think Hillary can do that. She has exhibited traits similar to Dubya: never admitting failure (IWR vote), believing she knows what is best despite contrary feedback (derision towards progressive groups like MoveOn, pushing "out of touch" comments to a union in spite of being chastised for pursuing that argument, mandates for PRIVATE insurance).

In short, I think her point of view is that the ends justify the means. Sometimes they do, but in this case, they don't. Hillary enjoyed double digit leads nationwide early on in the race because she was campaigning on her platform--what she would do as President. She sold herself. That is why people responded to her and why her negatives were pretty low at that point. I was proud of that candidate and that campaign, even though I loathed Mark Penn. It seemed like Hillary was in charge of her own destiny and was making wise decisions.

Then enter her strategists Penn and Husband-Clinton. "Change you can xerox" came straight from Penn. Bill Clinton's divisive comments in SC originated from a Penn email. At some point, the very smart, very capable Hillary Clinton should have said, "Hey, we're not going to go there. We're going to run a tough, but aboveboard campaign and let the people decide." That's what got her those leads. Edwards, by far the most progressive, still could not pull ahead of Clinton for that reason. Hillary sold herself and her future Presidency better than he sold his own.

Just the fact that Hillary tried to boost her resume by claiming credit for things she did not do (S-CHIP, peace in Ireland, and dodging sniper fire) illustrates that she didn't really think her own Senate record was enough to persuade voters that she should be the Democratic nominee. She started claiming credit for her husband's accomplishments, instead of distinguishing the times when she disagreed with his policy (NAFTA, DADT). Hillary is to the LEFT of Bill Clinton. I know that. But somehow, she began to try to convince me that she would be more of the Clinton era we had in the '90s. I don't want that, and I think in her heart, if Hillary was President back then, she would have done MANY things differently. Do you remember the debate where one of the moderators tried to catch her up on a policy difference between herself and Bill Clinton? Hillary said something to the effect of "Well, he's not running for President; I am." The crowd burst into thunderous applause. THAT is the Hillary I wanted and that's not at all what I'm looking at today.

At some point in this race, Hillary stopped selling herself. It's not about how good she is, it's about how bad her opponent is. That's no way to win, especially when the opponent is a fellow Democrat. Most of all, Hillary has destroyed all chances of a unity ticket. Her opponent would never put her on the presidential ticket after the way she has conducted her campaign. Nor would her opponent over want to be on a ticket with her at the top. That is so sad. Because even Hillary has admitted she would like a unity ticket on the stump. They could have made a FORMIDABLE and UNSTOPPABLE team. Now, that is no longer a possibility.

[polichick]

67. Hillary = bad politics and bad decisions...

Obama was 100% accurate when he pointed out during this week's debate that she learned the wrong lesson from the right-wingers who rolled around in the gutter to attack her ~ now NOBODY gutter rolls better than Hillary, except maybe Bill. (Barack said it much more politely of course.)

Then there's her ignorant and dangerous positions on Iraq and Iran, which were enough to take her out of the race for me even without all the hatefulness.

[Blue_Roses]

69. I've always admired and liked Hillary

and I was even ready to support her. I even felt for her as I watched the Barbara Walters special a few years ago (when she said she wouldn't run in 2004) while she spoke of the hurt she felt after Bill's affair. I laughed when she said, "only Barney the dog wanted to be around Bill that weekend, even though Chelsea and she were there." (They had gone to Martha's Vineyard with the Cronkites and the Kennedys.) I remember her talking about playing cards with JFKjr and others till late in the night. It was a very warm and likable interview.

When this primary started, I knew we had a great selection of candidates and I stayed neutral. I watched all the debates and I still remained neutral. While I liked and respected Obama after 2004 Dem convention keynote speech, I wasn't sure if it was his time, but I wasn't totally sold on Hillary--mainly 'cause I didn't want to see her go through all the crap the repubs would throw at her. I genuinely liked her and my 88 year-old Democratic mother and I talked about it all the time.

I really sat on the fence for a long time. It wasn't until after super Tuesday when she started to lose that I saw a side of her that I didn't like as woman, but also as someone I wouldn't want as my President. I agree that she is intelligent, capable, "battle ready" but there was still something not quite right.

Then she did that big "scolding" in Ohio and that's when I knew, I didn't want a President who would act like my mother. She talks down to those who disagree with her. We've seen that for seven years in Bush. It's not Presidential and it's down right annoying.

As far as voting for a woman, I can say, I don't vote gender first but who I think will make the best President--first. I think Barbara Boxer would be an awesome candidate (I'm sure she wouldn't want the job though) as well as a few others. It's a not a woman/man thing but a Presidential thing. Hillary thinks she is the only woman qualified to be President but she's not. She's just the only one hungry enough for it even though the majority are not hungry for her.

With that said though, I still keep an open mind and try to give her the benefit of the doubt.

[Texas Hill Country]

77. thank you for the fair response... and just to be clear, I was talking about women that want

any woman BUT Hillary specifically... and like I said, I dont get that.

[Blue_Roses]

81. I guess it's like that friend in the group that grates

on your nerves, but you tolerate and love them anyway.

[Texas Hill Country]

90. fair enough. lol.

[SaveAmerica]

127. I don't understand the confusion/ some were excited about the poss. first woman president

then we did our homework. It's very much like me telling my latino friends to look further into Gonzalez' record and history before celebrating the first latino/hispanic AG.

[ourbluenation]

70. For one reason and one reason only. She can't win in the GE.

Btw, as a woman, who works with all women, there are many women I know who aren't people I'd want in my life. Just because two people have similar chromosomes does not mean they're all in some buddy buddy club.

[Texas Hill Country]

73. why?

[ourbluenation]

76. that's really a topic for another thread, no?

[Texas Hill Country]

85. perhaps.

[Emillereid]

71. Last year she gave a speech to AIPAC and totally pandered to the Israelis and made

it very clear she was totally on board for bombing Iran. She also made it clear that NO WEAPON was off the table (code for nuclear). That's when I knew for certain that she did not represent my core values. Also she has run a very nasty campaign which I think reveals a lot about her lack of character. Also there is no doubt in my mind that she lies and I don't trust her.

How about Barbara Boxer for President - that's my kind of lady.

[Texas Hill Country]

74. i like Boxer, but i also dont really disagree on Israel.

[ecstatic]

80. She lacks integrity and character and I can't trust her

If you look up my posts from last year: I was a huge supporter of hers. As I got to know her, I realized I was wrong. She is a liar. Nowadays, when she's speaking, I just assume she's lying. I do not trust her and I will not rejoice if she is the next president.

[Texas Hill Country]

94. this saddens me.

[scarletwoman]

83. I refuse to vote for an AIPAC-ridden servant of the MIC and Establishment insider.

Not that I don't consider Obama to be pretty much prey to the exact same predators. But he's not yet totally in their grip -- pretty close, and no doubt bound to go all the way over should he "win".

But, on the ridiculously small off-chance that an Obama presidency (most certainly in spite of his actual intentions) could actually empower all the currently deluded progressives who support him into creating a formidible force in U.S. politics, I'm inclined to prefer Obama.

Hope that made sense. Probably not. Oh well.

:P
sw

[fedupinBushcountry]

86. Untrustworthy

as simple as that.

[mcctatas]

92. I won't vote for an asshole just because it has...

a vagina!

[LiberalAndProud]

95. Against my better judgment, I'm going to answer this question.

Not this woman: my reasons.

I expected Senator Clinton to be a voice of opposition in the Senate when she first arrived on the Hill. I was initially surprised and then gravely disappointed with her go-along-to-get-along demeanor. She seems to be at peace with the power structure as it is now defined. I have the impression that she is more concerned with protecting big business, lobbyists and special interest groups than she is with the 'little people'. Her evident comfort with triangulation and capitulation makes me uneasy.

Her top-down, because-she-says-so management style is problematic. I wonder how effective she would be in winning friends and influencing people, so important to be effective as Executive in Chief. In trying to promote a universal health care program in the 90's, she effectively killed the movement for over a decade. This historical perspective doesn't speak well for her ability to promote important legislation from the White House.

I find it distasteful that the reason she is in a position to run for President is that she is married to a former President. I want a woman who got to this pinnacle under her own power and as a result of her own strengths. Much of the experience she claims comes under the auspices of her husband's tenure. This doesn't speak well to the issue of gender equality.

There is the deja vu factor. Names and faces of the power-grid from 8 and 16 years ago have reappeared over the course of this campaign. I didn't love Bill by the time I voted for him the second time. I don't want him anywhere near the White House again. I don't hate him, I just don't want him on my t.v. on a daily basis again.

I really don't like the tone of the campaign she has waged. First the inevitability and now the negativity.

Finally, I had a dream last night that I was elected President of the United States. My opponent was Hillary. The not-so-subtle message I garnered -- EVEN I could beat Hillary. I don't think she can win -- not against Obama and not against McCain.

[Texasgal]

97. I appreciate the tone of your post.

Thank you for bringing up a topic that we can discuss without flames.

Here is my thang:

First... just because Hillary is a woman dosen't mean that I should vote for her or not on that very premise alone. I think that would be a bit shallow? No?

I was an Edwards fan, when Edwards dropped... I really researched the candidates. I don't dislike Hillary, I just prefer Obama. I am not a one issue voter, there are things about BOTH of them that I agree/disagree with.

Hillary being a female dosen't change the fact that I prefer some of Obama's plans more.

Does that make sense?

To put this is context (and I know this is NOT what you meant...) but this is akin to asking Black Hillary supporters why they support HER and not the black candiate... Just some food for thought.

[Generator]

98. For many reasons but I'll say this again

Yes, I dare to mention the truth. I am also a woman and a feminist but DAMN it if she wanted to run for office-why did she wait until her husband had his turn? Why does she use his money and name recognition and all the rest-if she wanted to be in office so damn bad-why didn't she run twenty years ago? OH YES-Bill came first. That calls total bullshit on her entire femnist line.

Also-all her "advoacy" for women-nothing and I mean nothing is worse for children than war. It makes orphans, and it rapes their mothers and takes away their land and their childhood. She supports this war and the next war.

So-she's not in my eyes-pro-women or pro-children. She is a fake-not in her heart of hearts-she believes she means well-well so does John McCain-that doesn't make their actions-he's against torture but does nothing to stop Bush-he has to be the fucking hypocrite of the century- make it okay.

She cares about herself more, than this country, more certainly than any idea of the Democratic party. She's proven that time and time again-oh fuck me Hillary-now the group that started to defend your husband-Move On is your biggest enemy? Oh why? Because you are not worth defending.

England had Margaret Thatcher. She didn't have to wait for Mr Thatcher to be prime minister first. Case fucking closed.

[yourguide]

99. This is why...

I think she will do anything and everything she can to fulfill her political ambitions and nothing more. She doesnt give a shit about me or average american voter.

Oh and then there's that pesky iraq vote, the dirty politics, and the lies.

[TheDoorbellRang]

101. I find it odd that anyone claiming to be a feminist would vote for her because she is a woman

I am a mid-fifties white woman -- supposedly in Clinton's demographic, but I do not support her. I consider myself a feminist, in that I believe people should be advanced acording to their merit, not their genitalia.

I was living in Missouri in 2006 when Claire McCaskill was running against Jim Talent. I did phone banking and the door-to-door thing for her because I strongly believed she was about a thousand times more qualified than Talent, not because she was a woman. When she won, I cheered because we had put a Dem in the Senate from Missouri -- I didn't even think much about the fact that she was a woman; that was irrelevant to my support of her. I believe that is considered a post gender attitude.

OTOH, I never liked Bill Clinton but did like Hillary back in the nineties. I thought he was a smarmy SOB and never voted for him. I thought Hillary and especially Chelsea got an unfair pile of crap from the media.

Flash forward to today. Here's Hillary talking about how she's been fighting Republicans for decades. The question is, when has she ever won in a battle against a Republican? Certainly not in healthcare. And since she's been in the Senate, I have yet to see her leading the way in any battle against Republicans that she's won. Why would her presidency be any different? We'd have eight years of Hillary fighting Republicans and then shrugging when nothing changed because they're just too tough. Meanwhile, Bill would be doing Gawd knows what. No, thank you.

I will gladly vote for a candidate in the future whose character and policies I admire who happens to be a woman. Not Clinton.

[Raineyb]

102. She voted to authorize the Iraq war

She hasn't apologized for it the yes vote. She voted for Kyl-LIEberman when all good sense should have told her not to vote for anything that the wanker could use as an excuse to go to war with Iran.

She does not listen. When the Iraq war vote came up millions of people protested against the war in NYC, where the Twin Towers used to be but she paid her constituents no mind and frankly she uses the word "I" way to often.

This country should be about we the people. I would prefer someone who collects from millions of people who expect to hear from the people about which way the country should go than to deal with someone who sees change as something that is done from the top down. We've had enough top down politics from "the decider."

In addition, I don't like the way she's running her campaign, I didn't like the nasty Jesse Jackson diminuation of Barak Obama's victory in South Carolina by her husband who I did vote for in 92. It reminded me all too much of the "Sister Souljah" moment from'92.

She also is too close to too many lobbyists.

Barak Obama is too centrist for my tastes but he listens and that's the first step in getting someone to move towards a more progressive position.

I can't wait to see a woman in the White House but HRC is not that woman.

Regards

[abbyg8r]

103. I think she's intelligent and strong, BUT

capable? Not so much. I think she has been incompetent, to say the least, in running her campaign. If she can't run a campaign, how can she run this country, especially in times like these?

I also believe she is incredibly dishonest. She flat out lied about Bosnia. And why? If she is willing to lie about something that is so easy to verify, what else is she capable of? Does she believe the American people are so stupid to fall for her I "misspoke" line? I've had enough of lying over the past 8 years.

And while we are on the subject of lying and the past 8 years, I'll go so far as to say that I think a Clinton administration would be quite similar to a Bush administration. It's all about loyalty and surrounding herself with "yes" men. Hence, the incredibly disturbing reaction to Richardson's endorsement. How DARE he betray the Clintons! Bush surrounded himself with "yes" men and look where it got us. I think she is just more of the same.

With that being said, if she is the nominee, I will begrudgingly vote for her. However, I will again feel like I have to choose between the lesser of two evils.

I personally believe that if this country does not choose Obama, then it gets what it deserves. It's now or never.

[boobooday]

104. Number One: Dynasties are NOT democratic

Number two, she is an enabler of the warmongers.

[psychmommy]

106. hillary is way too conservative for me.

a black female author said we will will have a woman in the white house-we"ll have 3 beautiful women in the white house. i don't like her divisive politics. she is too embedded with big business. she has been courting the right wing lunatic fringe-trying to take obama through the ringer.

[Melinda]

108. HRC: DLC, IWR, Kyle-Leiberman, Patriot Act, Cluster-bomb votes, did I mention DLC?

Supported Flag burning amendment
Voted yes on 2001 bankruptcy bill.
NAFTA
Mark Penn

No apology for her IWR vote

And that's off the top of my head. Oh, and at the age of 53, I am one of those "older female" voters she counts as her "base".

[gateley]

109. I question her integrity and motives.

My first real concern was when she voted in favor of Kyl-Lieberman. Since then, step by step, she just lost any chance of winning my trust.

[Lucky 13]

111. A long, rambly, honest response

It has nothing to do with steely eyed, hard, or bitchy. I've been accused of all of those things.

The shady part starts to bother me... but then like you say, who hasn't had SOMETHING shady in their past dealings?

I will not compare her to Obama. I don't feel the need to and I was not originally an Obama supporter.

Do I think that she isn't capable? No. She is quite capable. And certainly more capable that Bush. And certainly more capable than McCain. And certainly more capable than most democrats out there.

Do you I think she is not intelligent enough? No. She is brilliant. Truly.

Do you I think she is not strong enough? No. Her strength is definitely not in question.

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

It was just a couple years ago that I remember literally PRAYING (and I am NOT a religious person) that we just somehow, someway get a Democrat in the White House. Any democrat. I didn't care who. That's not what mattered.

I don't know about you, but the way things are going is killing me. It eats me up inside. I have trouble sleeping. I think of our guys in Iraq. Stop-lossed. Tours extended. Limbs lost. PTS. Dead Iraqi children. Gitmo. Abu Ghraib. Collapsing US economy. Plummeting dollar. Layoffs. Outsourcing. Home forclosures. Recession. No healthcare. Tent cities. Corporate Greed. Government corruption. Waterboarding. Wiretapping. And some dumbass motherfucker seems to be trying to start a THIRD war with Iran!

It must stop. We must have a democrat in the White House. It's the only thing I care about in this election. I am officially a single issue voter.

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

When the race started, I supported John Edwards. When he left, I initially supported Hillary.

But Hillary herself began to change my mind when she built up John McCain and condensed the front-running Democratic candidate, Barack Obama down to a single speech he gave in 2002. I was stunned.

I wasn't supporting Barack at that time, but knew he was much more than that. If I become 1/2 the person he is, I think I could feel pretty damn good about myself. He is the best and brightest young democratic star. And you do not EVER PRAISE REPUBLICANS while deliberately tearing down Democrats. In my world, this is a cardinal sin. This means you are Zell Miller. This means you are Joe Lieberman.

I mean is she crazy?!? WHY? WHY after 8 years of Bush? WHY would she do this? McCain is a HORRIBLE MONSTER.

It just got WORSE from there. Every time I thought it couldn't get any lower... it got LOWER.

Does she think I am stupid? Does she think it doesn't bother me when I am LIED to? And then LIED to about being LIED to? Does she think I'm an LOLcat? Does she think I become easily distracted by shiny objects or manufactured "non-troversies"? Does she realize that her tactics remind me of a slimy Republican's?

And another thing. I don't like someone to tell me I'm not bitter. I am. I'm a college graduate who spent 10 years building a career. I am making $15,000 less than I did a year ago... AFTER I finally found a job. Don't tell me I'm not angry. It shows you have NO GRASP of what's going on in America. Just like the Republicans.

And another thing. Carville calling Richardson "Judas". That one kills me. Your endorsement is not OWED to the spouse of the man who once appointed you to a position. THAT IS CALLED CRONYISM. Do you not recall Katrina with Bush and Brownie? It's this quid pro quo shit that has fucked up Washington to begin with. It's the Republican way!

She does share my core value of getting a Democrat elected at all costs. She wants to get herself elected at all costs. She is tearing down a man who is the front-runner and our seemingly inevitable nominee. She is tearing down the party. Her donors threatened Howard Dean and Pelosi. She's manipulating MI and FL. Someone suggested there would be "blood on the convention floor". She's distorting the truth. She lies blatantly. She slanders anyone who endorses her opponent. She's playing gotcha politics. She's put her own ambitions ahead of the greater good of the party and of the nation. She seems to think the only loyalty owed is to her.

She's acting COUNTER TO THE BEST INTERESTS OF THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY.

SHE'S ACTING LIKE A REPUBLICAN.

As a citizen of planet earth who has even slightly been paying attention, I cannot in good conscience cast a vote for her for all the reasons listed above.

----------

I hope I didn't offend. I truly do respect you, THC, despite any differences of opinions. Just trying to be honest.

[Undercurrent]

112. Many reasons

Kucinich was my candidate before he dropped out, and I continued to donate to his House campaign even though I live in another state.

These are a few of the reasons I don't support Hillary.

Iraq
The Patriot Act
NAFTA
Iran resolution
Real ID
(The John Warner) Military Commissions Act

Other reasons:

Also, in my personal opinion, I don't respect someone who stays in a relationship for decades with a person who is a serial adulterer. It is an abusive relationship, and a poor example for the children.

More reasons that are not policy based:

Dishonesty
Rovian campaign tactics

[cbayer]

114. There is a very interesting piece I found on this topic.

I have also been puzzled, not just by the lack of support, but the outright hostility towards Hillary Clinton displayed by other women.

http://www.hillaryclintonquarterly.com/womenwhohatehillary.htm

Some info from this article:

"It was just a matter of time. Given Hillary's roller-coaster ride in the hearts and minds of Americans over the last 18 months, the appearance of a new Hillary backlash is not surprising. What is surprising is that the backlash appears to be coming from women. Which raises the question: what kind of women hate Hillary, and why?"


"Why professional women hate Hillary.

If you're a professional woman, it doesn't matter how smart you are, how much money you make, how many men you turned into sawdust to get to the top, Hillary is smarter, earned more, and mashed more men than you have. Professional women have started to hate Hillary because their roar of accomplishment sounds like a pathetic "tweet, tweet" when compared to the First Lady."

Why feminists hate Hillary.

They hate Hillary precisely because -- like most men -- she is willing to do whatever it takes to succeed, whether it means changing her name, her hair, her clothes, her values, or her disdain for certain members of the Republican party.

The rest of the article is very interesting as well. Good question. Glad you asked it.

[tammywammy]

116. I don't trust her

[ProSense]

117. She is capable of lying, intelligent enough to be manipulative, strong enough, well,

she does shots.

Honestly, after her lying and dirty politics, there is no need to go any further.

[Lone_Star_Dem]

118. They are very similar in many ways. For me the deciding issue is the war.

When I set down and weeded through who they both were and what they both had stood for it came back to the war every time.

1. She voted for the war.

2. She either lied and said she bought the Iraq is a threat BS when she was really just not wanting to rock the popular opinion boat, or she was stupid enough actually believe it.

3. Of the two I trust her the least to get us out of Iraq as quickly as possible.


There was no way in hell I was going to support a candidate I felt this way about in a primary. Not on an issue that is this important to me.

Edit to add. I live in the Hill Country too. :hi:

[IndyHatedByBothSides]

119. She sounds like my mother nagging me...

- the dirty politics
- the way she cries wolf with the sexism charge hurts all women
- and most importantly for me as a survivor of sexual abuse, the callous way in which she and the Clintons demonized Bill's victims

[Undercurrent]

129. YES!

IndyHatedByBothSides
"She sounds like my mother nagging me...
- the dirty politics
- the way she cries wolf with the sexism charge hurts all women
- and most importantly for me as a survivor of sexual abuse, the callous way in which she and the Clintons demonized Bill's victims"
---

It angered me greatly that both Clintons demeaned the long list of women Bill preyed on.

I'm a survivor of a rape over 40 years ago when I was 16. Well I grew up, got strong, forgave and moved on. Hillary using the "poor beat-up woman" ploy is embarrassing.

So add this to my previously posted list (which is still incomplete).

[IndyHatedByBothSides]

145. Thanks. I'm glad somebody understands.

I'm getting savaged on another thread for speaking out.

[Coexist]

120. Not Hillary - because even before this all began

she was too divisive. I remember the first time someone, at a DEC meeting told me with much excitement in her voice, "I saw so many Hillary 2008 bumper stickers" at some event, my initial gut reaction was dread. I defended the Clintons fiercely, for a very, very long time. Even when I was not quite sure they weren't wrong. The thought of having to do it all again, for another four or eight years made me ill. They call it Clinton fatigue, and it is very real.

I enjoyed the Clinton years, but I paid for it, and I don't feel like I owe them anything.


Then her campaign got ugly, and I began to dislike her. A few things she did made me see her as my Republican friends did, for the first time, I felt dislike, not just endlessly weary, when I saw her. I now actually have flashes of intense dislike, bordering on hatred, when she attacks other Democrats as if they were 'evil Republicans'.

That is why. There are so many other strong Democratic women out there - a better question would be, "WHY Hillary."

[GetTheRightVote]

121. She voted for the war, nafta, and negative, can not vote for her, do not trust her

and with a candidate like Obama in the wings, I have to vote for him.
He is running a classier campaign, end of story.

[jenmito]

122. I don't want a woman to be president. I want the best PERSON to be president. And Hillary ain't it

[Thickasabrick]

123. Me too - I don't care what gender - as long as I trust them to do a

good job - gender shouldn't even be an issue.

[Medusa]

124. Because she is an incredibly polarizing figure

and she can't win us this election. In recent months however it has become about the tactics she has used to try and win this nomination or to destroy Obama in the process.

[DawgHouse]

125. But, I DO support her!

:pals:

[Willo]

126. My problems with her is not about her abilities

but how she has chosen to use them.

Her motto should be: "Its all about me, damn the rest"

She gets high negatives from me in some very key areas.

Honesty - she's has proven herself to be liar in every category from little white ones to full-blown smears.
Integrity - she has absolutely ZERO. She doesn't care about anyone and that include her daughter. If nothing else would have made Hillary come clean about Bosnia, it should have been upon hearing her own daughter lie to defend her.
Power - I have no respect whatsoever for people with power, who use it to hurt others.
Those are my ultimate biggies.

She is also an instigator and an agitator. Across the states, she has created animosity between people and groups that did not exist before she came through town. She makes war zones out of sitting gardens. Not once, have I heard her say (much less do), anything unifying. I would love to see a "where are they now story" tracing the people in the states before and after Hillary Clinton visited.

She's a one-stop-shopping, documentary -- for girls, teens, and young ladies -- of all you should not be and why.

On a down-to-earth level...She's the neighbor that makes a 6' solid fence and a rottweiller, necessary.

[TayTay]

130. Because there are other considerations that go into picking a candidate

besides just gender. Sen. Clinton has a history that also shows her to have political opinions that are not shared by others. There are women who do find her to have the qualities you suggest she has but who have decided that, politically, they want someone else to be President.

Your statement presumes that the vote should be based only on background and qualifications which would then conclude with a choice based on gender. Sen. Clinton is qualified to be President. But, politically, I prefer another candidate. This other candidate is also highly qualified to be President. His views are more politically inline with mine as are his views on grassroots politics and his view on how to move the nation forward on the issues.

It is a political choice. It is based on who I think would make the best President and provide the impetus to real change, for men and women, in this country. It's a political choice.

[TexanDem]

131. Hillary is smart enough, I give her that. But simply put, it's her character.

[Blondiegrrl]

132. Your post is insulting.

I am just trying to understand why women, who are smart and intelligent and, by their own admission, would love a woman in the white house, when presented with one of the most successful, intelligent, experienced and capable women in the entire world... why do you still not support her?

Because she's not the better candidate. Period.

Do I want a woman in the White House? Sure; why not. However, my FIRST priority is to have the BEST candidate. Not a merely a female candidate who is intelligent, strong, etc. In other words, I won't vote for her merely because she's a woman.

I also happen to think she's a slimy, backstabbing, lying crook. But you said that answer isn't allowed. :eyes:

[OhioBlue]

135. I think the Clintons move the Democratic Party to the right

I think Hillary speaks with Republican frames. The Clintons seem to cozy to the corporations, fought for Nafta and most favored nation for China, she voted for IWR - from my pov - to boost her hawkish creds for her future run. She disappointed me. She should have been a liberal leader in the Senate, but she wasn't. She was an accomplice.

Also, I'm not crazy about Bush Clinton Bush Clinton.

I think Bill overlooked many of the Reagan/Bush crimes and I suspect Hillary to do the same.

In spite of all of those things, I still could have supported Hillary if she had made the case to me that she was going to be a liberal leader. she never did.

From my perspective, she has campaigned like a Republican, she attacks Obama on things that she knows she agrees with (such as "values voters" that have voted against their own economic best interest).

But, what really turned me against her was when I was convinced that her campaign was using a deliberate strategy to exploit racism to their favor. As a Democrat, as a Liberal, I was and am appalled. It convinced me that the Clintons are more concerned with their own power than advancing any liberal agenda. It truly changed my views on a lot of things - the Clintons, Politics and the Dem Party in general.

[grace0418]

136. The problem is that you make an assumption that everyone believes her to be as

successful, intelligent, experienced and capable as you do. I simply don't agree.

I don't think she is evil or stupid or completely incapable by any means. But I think she's too focused on winning the job rather than actually doing the job. I think she's too entrenched in old school Washington politics have the ability to stand up to her old school Washington friends. And, honestly, I think she's willing to say anything to win but I don't believe she'll truly follow through when push comes to shove.

I think it's a dangerous road to go down to support a woman for President just because she's a woman. I work in an office with several woman in management positions. In fact, I have three direct reports who are all women. All three are intelligent, experienced, and capable women. And yet all three are absolutely terrible managers for different reasons. I love the idea of having so many female managers, but it's still more important to me to have the right PERSON for the job, regardless of gender.

[GrandmaJones7]

137. No answer here - Just support for our HRC!

-and I really like this part of what you wrote:

"I am just trying to understand why women, who are smart and intelligent and, by their own admission, would love a woman in the white house, when presented with one of the most successful, intelligent, experienced and capable women in the entire world... why do you still not support her?"

well put! Keep up the good fight!

[Patchuli]

139. I'll answer you

Do you think that she isn't capable?

She has an unremarkable record as a New York Senator. So the answer is: No.

Do you think she is not intelligent enough? Yes, but her ego gets the better of her and she has made (as demonstrated frequently lately) really bad gaffes in the truth arena.

Do you think she is not strong enough? Yes, but also stubborn. We've had 7 years of stubborness, ego and lack of track record (except for being able to turn everything to $hit like *)

I've answered your questions to which I will add that Hillary is not honest, is calculating and way too much for the monied types to represent me and help me as a voting, taxpaying American. She is an elitist and should not have thrown that label around.

Sorry. I just don't think she's presidential. From what I hear, her constituents in NY aren't too pleased with her either.

[karynnj]

140. Because she is not honest enough

and lacks the integrity that I look for in a President. I also do not see her as capable as you think she is. I see someone who has been in the position to do great things, but has had personal limitations that prevented it. Think of the healthcare proposal. She had a secret task force and for a while refused to even say who they spoke to. The problem is that this cut all of Congress out. Had it been an open process - she not only would have had more ideas and input - many of the people involved would have been co-opted to support it. Instead, she rejected a bipartisan proposal that Bill Bradley had that he said he could get passed. The secrecy and arrogance are still there - and no amount of intelligence can compensate.

On intelligence, I think that she is extremely smart, but not brilliant and not creative. I have never when hearing her speak on any subject - stopped and realized that something she said led to me rethinking how I viewed that issue. It's not that she is wrong - it's just that I see little that is original.

[PetraPooh]

141. Because she behaves the way she does, and I don't trust her to do what

she says she'll do.

[gabby garcia]

142. being a woman has nothing to do with it.

I would look past gender, skin color, religious background to the mind and heart of my candidate.

Hillary's mind and heart are a million miles away from mine.

[BootinUp]

143. They say it because she competes against their true love. nt

[mrreowwr_kittty]

148. You're a sexist ass. nt

[Hepburn]

164. I'd call you a dick, but...

...a dick is a useful object and you are not.

[Undercurrent]

144. One more thing...

The OP said, "I am just trying to understand why women, who are smart and intelligent and, by their own admission, would love a woman in the white house, when presented with one of the most successful, intelligent, experienced and capable women in the entire world... why do you still not support her?"

If being a smart, accomplished, experienced woman were the only reasons to support a candidate why not support Condasleeza Lies?

NO! While that is a logical extension of the OP's statement, it's insane!

The reasons for not supporting Hillary are many, varied (yet with certain themes), and the vast majority don't have a thing to do with her being a woman.

[appleannie1]

146. I have thought she was a feminine version of George Bush since

before she even announced she was running. I do not think that her vote to authorize the attack on Iraq was intelligent at all. I feel that the main reason she voted for that was to appease those that donated for her Senate run. Have felt that way for years. She knows the political ropes, just is not as smooth about it as her husband. I fervantly hoped she would decide not to run but I think that was a forgone conclusion by those really in control. This year they have put two candidates on the board. They thought that way they would win whether Clinton won the general or McCain won it. I am tired of the corporate power addicts choosing who is in the White House.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

150. In rereading your OP, I realize it was a contrived setup.

You were never going to accept anyone's reason why they don't support Clinton. From the get go: We're not allowed to say we'd prefer another woman besides Hillary. We're not allowed to say we prefer Obama for his attributes. Hillary is the null hypothesis to you, and we (women who don't support Hillary) are deviations who need to be brought into line.

Sorry, I ain't buying.

[Avalux]

151. The War. Her Lies.

I wish I could explain why I dislike Hillary Clinton in a way that won't sound like bashing. Let me give this a try.

I am an intelligent, successful woman who has not resorted to what I consider "soul selling" behavior to get ahead. I believe Hillary has done this. It has been proven on numerous occasions through the years that she will say and do things out of political calculation instead of what she knows is the right thing to do. Hence her IWR vote.

Hillary has never given me a reason to want to follow her; I can't trust she is sincere when she talks to me. It's a feeling I've always had and I can't get over it. Part of it is probably tied to what happened in her personal life and I can't help feeling the way I do; she made a decision to stay married to a man who repeatedly cheated on her because she thought it would benefit her politically. Personally, I would not have made that same decision so it's difficult for me to have respect for her.

So yes, I am one of those women who would love a woman in the White House, just not this one. I want a woman who has integrity, conviction and who has gotten there on her own merit, not because of her last name.

[OnionPatch]

152. She's strong, capable and intelligent.

But my impression has always been that she's not liberal enough. At least not enough to be my dream candidate or something like that. Her support for the flag burning amendment and the IWR bothered me. I had assumed (right or wrong) that she supported NAFTA and all the other free trade agreements her husband did. Now she's bashing the party activists, of which I am one. It's all these little things added up together.

If I could choose a woman for president, I would choose my senator, Barbara Boxer. :loveya:

[PADemD]

153. Six reasons...

1. She voted for the Iraq war.
2. Her lie about being under fire in Bosnia.
3. Her ties to lobbyists.
4. Her support of NAFTA.
5. Her support of outsourcing.
6. I sense that she feels she is entitled to the job.

[powergirl]

154. She energizes Republicans to vote against her and Obama is more electable

What I want more than ANYTHING is a Democratic PRESIDENT. My opinion is that Obama is the more electable and the polls now bear that out by over 30 points. Republicans will crawl on shards of glass to vote against her. It is more likely that Republicans will stay home if Obama is the nominee.

Also, as a professional woman (I'm an attorney and over 40 years old) - a lot of us women don't give gold stars to women who ascend to "greatness" on the coattails of their husband. I didn't have that advantage and worked twice as hard to get there. Clinton attached her star to her husband. Obama's struggle to become attorney is closer to my story.

[windbreeze]

155. I do NOT want another Clinton in the WH..after another *...

I just know she strikes me as sneaky and underhanded....IMO, she misused the people of NY to get where she is now...and for some reason that pisses me off...I want the first WOMAN to hold office...to look like a woman, and be proud of her gender...not look like a woman trying to be a man..wb..jmo...but basically, I just don't like her...wb

[CakeGrrl]

157. She plays dirty and is totally untrustworthy

When things started getting interesting after Iowa, I thought it would be something else, in a positive way - either way, the Democrats were sending the first African-American or the first woman to the GE.

Then she said that Obama wasn't a Muslim..."as far as I know."

That was it. And it just kept going. That she would push such a nasty hot-button to try to cast doubt on her opponent's character threw me back to all the bullshit we've had to endure since Bill Clinton's impeachment. Had she been able to take the high road, there might have been a tough choice for me to make. But I will not overlook her increasingly blatant smear tactics out of any sense of female solidarity. She's Machiavellian without the benefit of the charisma to even make it perversely fascinating. It's just offensive.

[Left coast liberal]

162. Yes, she is capable, intelligent and strong.

But, Obama has more of what we need right now.

Hard to explain if you don't feel it.

[Hepburn]

163. I don't care about the gender of the person, the color of the skin, the religious affiliation...

...or the sexual orientation of the person who is POTUS. The number one factor is trust...and I cannot trust Hillary Clinton. She is an opportunist and I believe that she would do what is best for herself rather than do what is right. She has always struck me this way. One of the reasons I feel this way is that I have less than zero respect for her for staying with a cheating husband so she can hitch a ride on his coattails. That is totally disgusting to me and it tells me that she has little or no self-respect for herself as a woman and as a person. She is more interested in what she can get for herself ~~ even to the point of clinging to a cheating man.

I do not want anyone like that in the WH making decisions which have an impact on my life.

JMHO

[goldcanyonaz]

166. Many women don't like to see another women succeed.

[Hepburn]

170. Especially if she is a liar...

...because it makes it harder for all of us.

[Withywindle]

167. I respect her a lot for her guts and ambition and determination and intelligence.

But So many things that she has done, ranging from the IWR vote to the Kyl-Lieberman amendment to her ridiculous pandering and time-wasty grandstanding on things like video games to her participation in Prayer Breakfasts with the Family: http://www.thenation.com/doc/20080331/ehrenreich, a religious/political organization far more scary and offensive to me than anything in Jeremiah Wright's nightmares, convince me that she's just not a Presidential candidate I'm inclined to trust all that far, regardless of gender. I'll vote for her in the extremely unlikely event she's the nominee, but I'm not going to weaken my standards when it comes to POTUS primary candidates.

Being smart and gutsy and experienced isn't enough. Many smart, gutsy, experienced men have tried for the job and failed - that doesn't disqualify men, does it? I hope for more gusty, smart, experienced women willing to try and fail if it happens, because that will pave the way for the one who eventually succeeds. (Who I hope is the right one-- on the other hand, maybe paradoxically, I do NOT believe women are inherently morally superior to men, and if we wind up with another Margaret Thatcher, well, so be it. True equality won't be real until women are just as free to be assholes as men.)

[k8conant]

168. I don't agree on your assessment of Senator Clinton

"when presented with one of the most successful, intelligent, experienced and capable women in the entire world... why do you still not support her? "

I have seen her constantly tearing others down, she is very hawkish and only acts otherwise to try to get elected, she lies about her experience, and comes across as old-politics, just plain nasty.

I think she isn't capable of being a leader or mediator, just a fighter (and for what?)

I think her intelligence is misused.

I think her type of strength is just stubbornness.

[nbsmom]

169. It's a shame

I recognize in Hilary many things I'd like to see in a President. She seems to be an extraordinarily smart human being. But I have not been a huge fan of the Clintons for quite some time now. It always seems to be what's best for them and doing things their way...not necessarily to our country's benefit.

Five key points spring to mind:
1. The Clintons have been about parlaying power for themselves, not for the Democratic party or for the powerless. There may have been a time when it was otherwise, but it always seemed to me that as a national candidate, Bill (and by extension, Hillary) has never been a populist: think of Bill's campaign vs. Jerry Brown's back in 1992. And if you need to be reminded about how crummy the Clintons were for the Democratic party, you need to look no farther than how in 92 Bill was elected and had both houses of Congress, plus a majority of governorships. Within 2 years, the majority in the House was gone, and although the Dems hung on to the White House in 1996, it was all over in 2000.

2. She may be the nicest person in the world, but she doesn't appear to be a great consensus builder. Let's face it, if she had been able to build a coalition around her health care plan back in 93, just imagine how the world might have been different today.

3. Not sure why she allowed corpulent types to set the stage and the strategy for her campaign (e.g., Mark Penn.) If you're trying to show how women can do it better, why let corrupt men set your agenda.

4. She voted to send thousands of mothers' children to their death in Iraq, and yet that wasn't enough: she handed over additional authority to Bush re: Iran

5. I'm still trying to understand what she thought she was gaining by throwing John Kerry under the bus in 2006 (re: that lame joke he made.)

Our country is ready for a woman president. But not one with the last name of Clinton.

[Aloha Spirit]

171. She reminds me of a mole.

There are a lot of thoughtful posts here I agree with, and/but I will definitely vote for/campaign for Hillary in November if it comes to that.

My point is however, that she seems like a mole who's been undercover for too long and does not remember which side is up.
This is the narrative by which I live with my disappointment in Hillary.
She seems like someone who qualified her principles in order to gain access to a system so that she could change it. But what change? As a spy, she doesn't understand leadership. Only manipulation.
She has 35 years of experience using lies to manipulate people and situations.

[fortyfeetunder]

172. I think she would have done just fine...IF

she had leveraged her negativity toward the GOP and not to Sen. Obama. What her campaign did was just uncalled for.

When she made that statement about she and McCain being of the same caliber and Obama was just a speech, she lost my credibility.

It's almost as if she lit the Mission Impossible fuse and is waiting to self-destruct.

[Jamastiene]

175. Hillary supporting woman here.

Kicked and recommended.

[JTFrog]

176. I do not support Hillary for excellent reasons.

She has run a horrible, nasty, swift-boating, republican propping campaign. But it goes much deeper than that.

I'm ashamed that I share gender with this monstrous politician. If she has something to be done in the name of women, let it be to AVOID AND END WARS, not to vote for WAR and MORE WAR. Let it be in the name of better EDUCATION for our children, not a vote for NCLB. Let it be to uphold the CONSTITUTION and rights of the citizens, not a vote for the PATRIOT ACT or remaining silent on Telecom Immunity. Let it be to reach for true UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE, not a mandatory paycheck to the INSURANCE INDUSTRIES. She voted NO against banning cluster bombs for god sakes.

Now she is trying to drag us down with her by throwing a kitchen sink full of racist injections and sexist manipulations at her opponent and the voters, and by suggesting that any state or demographic of citizens that support him "don't count". She has played the victim card and tried to use her sex to sway voters in her direction. She has done me and my daughter NO FAVORS.

We will not have the onus put on us for Hillary's tactics and imminent failure. We do not need Hillary Clinton to be president to validate us as women. Quite the opposite in fact.

[Honeycombe8]

179. You are assuming that others are looking for the same characteristics in a woman that YOU are.

It's simply not so.

I am looking for:
Honesty
Integrity
Change
Intelligence
Common Sense
Didn't vote for the Iraq War

No matter what gender, what race, those are the traits I am looking for in my new President.

Hillary Clinton does not represent MOST of those traits. Obama does, however. That is how I ended up in Obama's corner, and will remain there. The more the Clintons have "Rove'd" Obama, the firmer I have become in my support for him against the unethical, dishonest couple known as the Clintons.

The Clintons do not represent change, which is the PRIMARY trait I'm looking for. They are part of the reason our country is where it is right now. NAFTA, the Iraq War, are two main evil things that the Clintons had a hand in.

Obama has won the nomination. The Clintons need to get out and get behind Obama. The Clintons will not be the Vice President, either (I hope). They have ruined their reputation at this point. All they have left is a couple of lines in history books about some good things about his administration, along with the impeachment and NAFTA repercussions.

[Reader Rabbit]

181. She believes that the end justifies the means. I don't.

Her political behavior is no different than most of the male legislators in D.C., and the conservative males at that. The fact that she has ovaries instead of testicles makes no difference whatsoever. Senator Clinton is a business-as-usual, meet the new boss--same as the old boss politician.

I also feel that a woman should succeed in politics on her own merits, not based on who she was or is married to. Too many women step into positions of power as a result of who their husbands were (Mary Bono, Jean Carnahan, Elizabeth Dole, Hillary Clinton), as if the only value they have is their connection to that man.

I want the first woman president to be someone who made it on her own, not because voters view her as some sort of surrogate for her husband/father/brother.

[treestar]

182. I would be happy with Hillary or Obama

I just think Obama has a better chance of beating McSame.

[npincus]

183. she's an opportunistic liar who voted for the Iraq War Resolution

and would not even do the right thing and admit it was an error when others were.

[helderheid]

185. She's capable, intelligent and strong. Just not honest and I don't like her dirty politics.

[Rosemary2205]

187. This is fucking idiotic.

If I back one man over another man, no makes the assumption I think the other man is incapable, not intelligent, not strong enough.

Why preferring someone other than Hillary causes people to make that assumption I do not understand.

[Kajsa]

188. In a nutshell- I don't trust her.

From her " John McCain has more experience" statement
I concluded that there a few things she won't say in order
to get elected.

I could cite many more examples of this.

It saddens me, to be honest.

During Monicagate, she conducted herself with grace and dignity.
Both she and Chelsea were great examples of women holding their
own with grace under fire.

;(

[stillcool]

189. She has proven herself to be..

a liar with no conscience. The only thing Senator Clinton is interested in is her own lust for power. Not traits I want to see in a Presidential Candidate. She has proven that she will say anything, and do anything to get what 'she' wants, and will attempt to demean, debase, and destroy anyone who gets in her way. And she will keep doing it, knowing it isn't working. She will have no problem continuing the policies that are bringing this nation to it's knees.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

190. Too much sleaze. Too much deception. I personally get the

feeling she is deceptive. After Bush, we want someone who
we trust. Too many close ties to Bush. Too Machiavellian.
Voted for war - stupid to trust Bush.

Too bad, because I agree she is all the things you say.

Bottom line - people just flat out don't like her.

[powergirl]

192. Do not ask people their opinions and then argue with them

If you want honest opinions and answers you should not attack the posters here. "I get this all the time from people who say - I just want to know where you are coming from," etc. etc. And then they argue with me! You will never get an honest response if you pretend to ask for an honest rendition of why we vote the way we do. But lie and then attack the persons opinion. You can't have it both ways.

[slinkerwink]

194. I initially supported Clinton at the start, even though I was "meh" about her Iraq vote

and I knew she voted for the war solely to look Presidential. I supported her candidacy at the start, and I was excited by the idea of a first female President. However, when she started race-baiting, bashing caucus states, primary states that went for Obama, and started talking about her husband's record as if it was her own, she lost me. I wanted her to run on her Senate record because that would have been her real accomplishments to cite and to be proud of. It puzzles me why she's gone on and on about thirty-five years of experience, and only claiming the good from her husband's administration and disowning the bad from his as well.

[Lisa0825]

195. DLC, NAFTA, IRW, etc

I have no warm feelings for her, and do not want to see her in the White House

[roseBudd]

196. For me, top reason from beginning was Hillary's unfavorables, whether it is fair or her fault

as Bill has as much to do with her unfavorables as any Right Wing Conspiracy

It's about "I did not have sex with that woman"

It's about "the meaning of is"

It's about charisma.

It's about the chance to build a lasting new and young voters to the Democratic party, a generational shift that will make Rove and the RNC very uneasy.

It is about talent. Hillary may be Seabiscuit. Obama is Secretariat. It is about a winning strategy. It is about SCOTUS because winning is Job 1. Lose and women are fucked.

[WyLoochka]

199. She doesn't "get it"

I want to move beyond the "politics of personal destruction."

She scores a zero in this area, which is at the top of my list as far as importance goes.

As a woman, I am mortified by her all too eager capitulation to the "whatever it takes" methods she has displayed since Feb 5.

[dbredes]

200. 1st Woman President won't be from Mine and Hillary's Generation

Okay...Number one...your question is based on the premise that I believe that she is all those wonderful things that you listed.

I don't

But the number one reason why an over 50 yr. old lady...doesn't support Hillary...when she and I have so much in common...Yep I trained my college educated young male bosses to be my boss...I get it...really get it...

Look at history...those that fight for the cause...cannot be the ones that finally unite and lead...

I believe that the first woman president...will NOT be from my generation. It was our job to pave the way...fight the fight...

Do you honestly believe that if Martin Luther King had lived...that we would elect him president....How about Jeremiah Wright...Okay..how about Jesse Jackson...

Why?...Because they carry all the scars of the "war"...they cannot unite and lead...the scars color their choices...their interactions with you know "the enemy"

All of us fighters..in the woman's movement...raised strong daughters..like Chelsea....Heard recently about the number of woman vs men graduating college?...

My daughter doesn't really get the Feminist's movement. When she applies for a job...she's way more qualified than her male counterparts of the same age..The roles are reversing..Equality IS happening...

The first woman president will be from our children...not my generation.

Number 2...

Why do I seem to hate Clinton...Well I'm mad as he11 at her slash and burn...attempt at destroying our party...If she can't win...no Dem will...makes me mad as he11... I'll be glad when this is over...so I CAN remember her in all the positive ways...that you list above...that I used to feel about the past 1st Lady Hillary...You know...in the past..where she belongs.

[NashVegas]

201. We Are Conditioned to Obsess With Perfection

As long as there are women, there will be women who will resent other women who do not have that same obsession (we'll disapprove) and there will be women who are hated for seeming to obtain it (we'll never measure up).

We have our image of the ideal woman, and for someone who has it relatively together, she's someone who does things the way we'd do them.

Hillary Clinton, OTOH, represents the image of the girl who sat in the front row, who handed in her papers in neat binders. The over-achiever who was teachers' pet while the rest of us schlepped through because we wanted to look more smart-ass than smart.

[fed_up_mother]

203. I could and would vote for her if she "wins" the nomination

I think she would be strong on women and children's issues - especially those related to healthcare, poverty, education, etc. I do think that is part of Clinton's true core, and if she were president and had a democratic house and senate, I think she could accomplish quite a bit.

However, I view her as a chameleon who is willing to do things to get elected that I don't find tasteful, let alone ethical or right. Like the war. :(

Finally, I'm just ready for a change in Washington. I'm grateful for the economy, etc. we had during the Clinton years, but that doesn't automatically translate into wanting them back in the White House, so I prefer Senator Clinton in the senate.

I know you don't want us to talk about the other candidate, but that's kind of hard to do, because the fact is, I just plain prefer the other candidate, so I'll leave it at that.

[kwyjibo]

204. She has too many corporate ties.

I loved the idea of seeing a woman become president, but that's a bit selfish I think. It really doesn't matter in the end if the candidate is a woman, man, black, white, minority, young or old... what matters is what kind of person they are and how much integrity they have. I just don't trust her enough to always keep the welfare of the American people at the top of the list when wealthy corporations are challenging her to do otherwise.

[madwivoter]

205. I don't trust her

The Iraq war vote is enough for me.

Your paragraph bumping her skills is nice enough, but not completely true:

Hillary Clinton is incredibly intelligent: true
...highly driven: true, almost to a fault
...very successful: true, which also makes her seem somewhat out of touch. She hasn't made herself available in any of the places I've seen and heard ALL other candidates for the last year and a half (AAR, Colbert, Daily Show), and her appearance on the Colbert Report the other night was only because she needs it.
...amazingly capable: that's your opinion and you are welcome to have it. All I have to say is Iraq.
...has a ton of experience: again, your opinion and you are welcome to have it.
...very well liked around the world: possibly, but we don't really know that.
...has been at the forefront of many of the issues that we all care about: mostly true. I don't know about the "amazing results" part of that statement, but again, you are more than welcome to your opinion. You are also welcome to post each of her amazing results for me if you want.
...having made landmark speeches that spurred incredible action all around the world: I have no idea.

To answer your specific questions...she's probably capable enough, I question her motivation...she's definitely smart enough, no argument there...she's probably strong enough, but I haven't really seen her stand up on her own much lately so I don't know.

I would love to see a woman in the white house during my lifetime. But I will not vote for someone solely because that someone is a woman.

[Chalco]

206. It's called self-preservation.

Women have been vilified, raped, put down, put in their places, excoriated, hit, murdered through witch hunts, murdered when pregnant, murdered during the crusades, murdered for millenia. It makes perfect sense that when the most powerful country in the world finally has a viable female candidate that not only the men hate her guts but half the women do to. A woman in charge connotes a dramatic shift in power. It's called women eating their own. They're scared.

The fear is so great it causes women to project their fear onto the woman candidate for president and misperceive reality. She is a viable candidate. Her values are the same as the male candidate. She is a democrat just like the male candidate. She actually has more experience in the senate and in life than the male candidate but out of irrational fear she is being rejected by the very people she hopes to serve.

It is a very sad state of affairs.

[SoCalDem]

207. It's the same reason why people choose a life-partner..

There are MANY people out there to choose from, and you just pick the one you like best..

Hillary is (or may be) all the things you (and others) say she is, BUT that alone (and the fact that she is a female) does not make HER electable.

It's all about CHOICE..

It's like when you say you want a dog or a cat..You go to the pound with a mental image, and while you are there, ONE specific cat or dog will be the one you pick.. Does that mean you HATED all the others? You may have gone in there planning to bring home a German Shephard, and yet come home with a rascally little Jack Russell.....

We should never elect (generic female here)..

There has to be a "love-connection"

[Citizen_Penn]

208. She fucked up health care when her husband was

President.


Her approach was secretive and disruptive. She singlehandledly set back health care reform with her TACTICS.

She lies.

She lies.

She lies.

She lies.

Turns out that character does matter.

Oh, and yeah, SHE LIES.

[bain_sidhe]

209. I don't think she can win the G.E.

I've turned intensely pragmatic of late. Even though I'm only 52 years old, I firmly believe that if another Publican administration gets in to build on what bushit has done, this country will not recover in my life time.

I love Hillary for all the reasons you state. But I don't think she can win the G.E.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not sure Obama can either. But I think he has a better chance than Hillary.

IMH(and admittedly amateur)O, we won't be able to win using the same strategies we used in 2000 and 2004 - the "15 state strategy" with a candidate that the media hates and mocks. That's Hillary.

The only path I can currently see to winning is to CHANGE THE GAME. Only Obama is on a path to do that.

And, I have to add, way off in the feminist corner of my mind, a little voice is saying, "I don't want her loss to be taken as 'evidence' that women can't win the G.E., and we shouldn't bother to consider nominating one ever again."

[Arugula Latte]

210. I am a caucasian 42-year-old mother

Thank you for asking the question in a polite manner. I'll try to answer as honestly as I can.

I have many reasons for not supporting Hillary. They are, in no particular order:

* I've long been turned off by the arrogance of the Clintons as they acted for years that OF COURSE Hillary would be our nominee and HOW DARE you even question that? I knew she had lots of baggage, was a terrible public speaker and that she came into this thing with very high negatives -- not exactly a dream candidate. So why was I presumed to be excited about her candidacy just because I was a woman?

* IWR vote. Unforgivable, IMO. It also speaks to her willingness to bend whichever way she perceives the political breeze to be blowing. When she speaks, she comes across as phony and calculating, like she's trying to recall what the focus groups said about a particular issue.

* Her DLC affiliation. I fucking hate the DLC.

* Her willingness to align herself with McCain against Obama. Also unforgivable to me.

* Obama is a fantastic candidate -- smart, inspiring, funny, media- and internet savvy. When I think of him, I get an overwhelmingly positive gut feeling. When I think of Hillary, I feel get an overwhelmingly negative gut feeling. An overwhelming negative gut feeling is what I sense millions of other people feel about her. Selling her in a general election would be an uphill climb. This election is too important to squander on Hillary just because she' feels it's her time.

[Inuca]

211. Many reasons, I'll mention just a few

- I would like to see a woman president, but that does NOT imply that my choice is or should be based on gender, unless in the hypothetical situation when all other things are equal (and they never are)
- as somebody else mentioned upthread, I do not think she possesses the creativity and ability to think outside the box that is required from a good president. One can be very intelligent (and she undoubtedly is) and still be only a good implementer of other people's ideas. Intelligence is difficult to define, and can take many shapes and forms; hers is an intelligence without sparkle, or so at least it seems...
- character MATTERS, and so does integrity, and she is sorely lacking in both. Most people running for president are very intelligent (in some perverted way, this may even be true about you all know who...). Most on the democratic side also have ideas and proposals that I generally I agree with, some more than others, but I am not looking for 100% agreement nor for perfection. Similarly, everybody seriously (as opposed to, say, Gravel) running for president is extremely ambitious and have a (usually justified) very high opinion of themselves. But you can be ambitious without being blinded by ambition. You may think that you deserve the highest position in the land and fight to get it because that's how you would be empowered to do the most good, because you actually care, and you think, rightly or wrongly, that your talents, your intelligence, etc. would make it possible. And in Obama's case, he seems to have a special talent to motivate others, it is his oratorical skills, but I think also something else that I cannot quite put my finger on. IN any case, Hillary seems to be motivated if not exclusively at least primarily by personal ambition, a rather scary in my view combination of being power-hungry combined with some deeply seated psychological need to prove herself.

In any case, to conclude and sum up, I do not think she is trust-worthy, she lacks character and integrity, and though undoubtedly intelligent I do not think she has the RIGHT type of intelligence for the job. IN view of all this, the fact that she is a woman becomes COMPLETELY irrelevant.

[JerseygirlCT]

212. She's not strong enough - ethically

She's not ready to challenge the status quo. She's shown in her campaign that she's more comfortable with divisiveness and win at any cost politics and governance than what is best for the party or the country. She voted for the IWR, and she supported Kyl-Lieberman.

I distrust her to be a strong representative of Democratic values (not DLC values, but the party at large - which may differ). I dislike her way of operating. I distrust the involvement of her husband - we've been there, done that, and I'd like him better if I thought he'd be content to step off out of the spotlight. His big mouth during the campaign tells me that's not going to happen.

She portrays herself as a fighter, but I just haven't seen enough evidence that's so.

She's strongly disliked by nearly half the US public. That would be very hard to overcome.

I won't make my choice based only on gender. It's long past time for a woman in the white house. But I don't think this is the woman, and I don't think she'd get us to the WH anyway.