Hillary is the strongest candidate

[Onlooker]

I like Edwards, though his campaign keeps slipping up. I like Obama, and he may turn out to be a winner in the end. But, the strongest candidate right now by far is Hillary. She's tough, well-spoken, knows the issues, plays politics hard and smart, is the most CiC-like of all the candidates, is tough enough to take on the Swiftboaters, has a very popular husband, and is controversial.

The fact is that controversial candidates win. Kennedy, Nixon, Reagan, Clinton, and Bush II were all controversial, but that gave them a solid base who remained enthusiastic even when their candidates positioned themselves in the center during the campaign. Hillary's detractors will almost certainly alienate the middle and when the middle begins to pay attention to her, they will realize that much of what is said about her is unfounded. Although Hillary has staked out a few positions I don't like (such as Iraq and flag-burning) for the most part she's quite good:

http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2007/Senate/senator-ratings.html

There would be something very satisfying about having the Clinton's back in the White House, especially if they made Kerry Sec'y of Defense and maybe Gore head of the EPA. If that happened, Rush, Drudge, O'Reilly, Coulter, and a lot of others would almost certainly spontaneously combust!

The claim that Hillary can't win is being foisted on us by a right-wing that's terrified of the Clintons. Polls show that Hillary is a strong candidate, despite her negatives. I think once the campaign gets under way, the myths propagated by the right wing will give way to a more objective and positive opinion of Hillary, positioning her to be our first woman president.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

1. funny. all my liberal friends can't stand her. I guess we are all wrong.

Glad to learn that so early. It is nice to be told how to think.

Having Hillary in the White House would be an unmitigated disaster

[ixion]

4. yeah, I'm not impressed with Hillary at all

and I'll NEVER support anyone who voted for the illegal invasion of Iraq.

[ray of light]

5. funny! All my Republican friends LOATHE her!

[Lerkfish]

7. right. which is part of the problem.

republicans hate her with the intensity of a thousand suns. Her campaign would be a lightning rod. Getting any sort of message out would be impossible.

and liberals don't like her pro-war stance.


so, pray tell, who would vote for her in the general elections?

[niceypoo]

54. Republicans hate any democratic presidentianl candidate with the intensity of a thousand suns

I don't let the republicans irrational hatred steer me politically. I just cannot understand democrats who do the same. "But, if I think or do this or that then the republicans wont like it." It's pathetic how chicken shit democrats have become.

[Lerkfish]

60. you calling me chickenshit?

doesn't seem to fit with your user name.

LOL

to clarify: I was saying that Clinton seems to draw irrational hatred on the right, and suspicion of hawkishness on the left. Who is left to vote for her?
not moderate republicans. the only group would be "centrist" dems, or the right wing of the democratic party. Frankly, there aren't enough of them to win the general election.


I think that's a rational discussion of her chances. You can disagree with me, but calling me chicken shit is way out of line.

[WinkyDink]

13. Oh, and which Democrats do they LIKE? Besides Joe, I mean.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

20. republic party people laugh at joe.

just not to his face. They think he is an easily manipulated, self-aggrandizing, egotistical, blow hard.

Just like we do.

[Nay]

16. Yep, the repukes I am forced to associate with hate her. They

would come out of the woodwork to vote against her, which is why the repukes secretly are pushing her candidacy and are talking about it all the time. Come on, everybody, she's their wet-dream candidate. Repuke men hate her because she's a woman, repuke women hate her because she didn't dump that philanderer Slick Willie, and they both hate her because of all the RW tripe spread about her since the dawn of time. Believe me, I hear this shit DAILY at my repukian workplace.

And she won't do the Dems any favors if she gets in, either. Al Gore as EPA head? That would certainly be one of the thousand repuke talking points from now until the election -- can you imagine the following, suitably intoned by Rush Limpballs and all his friends?

"She'll appoint Al Gore (boring, brown suit, Love Story, invented the internet) and:

you won't be able to drive your cars on Mon Tues and Wed!

There will be no corn chips for your children, because it's needed for ethanol to fly Air Force One all over the place!

Babies will die because the gov will enforce a maximum temp for residences at 63 degrees to save energy!"


Funny thing is, she'd never appoint Gore to the EPA. She'd 'triangulate' and put some repuke in that position just to be 'unbiased.' And THAT'S why lots of progressives don't want her!

[ChairmanAgnostic]

21. joe would run DOD, and some tobacco guy would run NIH

A retired Exxon guy would run EPA.

after hillary polled the positions to death.

[Onlooker]

26. That sounds like right wing blather

It's the right wing that pushed the image that the Clinton's only rely on polls. I don't think they relied on polls anymore than any other candidate. (Do you here of anyone other than Edwards calling for tax increases or talking about the poor?) Also, Hillary did not support Joe in CT; she supported Lamont, though only tepidly.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

30. actually, her own record is proof positive

she has NEVER taken a hard position, early, or on a divisive issue. Never. Not until the public has already moved to that position. that's not leadership, that is political cowardice. And in her case, cowardice with a huge war chest.


Richardson (my fave) Edwards, Obama, Gore - all of these folks take a position and the punishment that might be attached to it. Hillary is no better than McCain's pandering to Falwell and other crazies.

I did not like Bill Clinton's reliance on polls, but he never came close to being as reliant as Hillary. He led on many issues, he defanged the rabid right on many issues, and he managed to lead, despite 8 years of unrelenting personal attacks.

Hillary is far more hated by the moderates and the right. Her pandering to the center and conservative religious voters is amusing in one sense, but angering in another.

[MannyGoldstein]

56. It's Not Fair To Use a Candidate's Record

Haven't you gotten the news - that's considered "bashing".

In the future, please try to keep your comments to speculation and fantasy.

[Captain Hilts]

25. My liberal friends are split on her.

I guess I run with a more diverse crowd.

[SaveElmer]

33. Funny...most of my friends really do like her...

Hillary Clinton in the White House would be an unmitigated success!!!

[ChairmanAgnostic]

36. so we agree to disagree. nt

[SaveElmer]

38. Just means anecdotal "I don't know anyone who likes Hillary"

Stories are meaningless in determining actual support...

[Captain Hilts]

41. True. Our friendships are too 'self-selecting' to be accurate political barometers. nt

[Lerkfish]

61. but your friends are limited to those who like Hillary Clinton

therefore its a no brainer they would all like her.

Do you have any friends who do not? Which came first, the chicken, or the egg?

[Toots]

2. I certainly agree with you at the moment

There is still almost two years to go though and many things can happen in that time. I suspect it will be Hillary as the Presidential Candidate and Obama as her Vice President. Those are my suspicians and not necessarily my wants but like I say there is a lot of time until the election..

[itsmesgd]

3. Plus, with Rupert Murdoch (Fox News Corp.)'s support and millions of corporate money she can't lose

I keep reading reports that she will be the first candidate to $500 million and will hit more than $1 billion before all is said and done. I'm sure that with that many corporate backers she'll be busy her first years in office signing legislation that pays them back. Do we really need another corporate puppet president?
Can we end the Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton dynasty and bring some new blood to the White House?

(dons flame suit)

[MasonJar]

6. Why do you and your liberal friends not like Hillary? She is centrist,

but that is good. That is where the US is and where it should be. We have had the crazies and now it is time for the solid. Actually as I have mentioned here before, Hillary was the first I heard of to suggest a Palestinian state, and the right-wingers excoriated her. She is smart and she has done a superb job for New York. She definitely can win. I'd love to see a Clinton/Obama or a Clinton/Clark ticket. Of course I would love a Gore/anybody ticket.

[ixion]

9. so-called 'centrists' are really RW-lite

and still support bogus things like the so-called 'War on Drugs' and its ugly younger brother, the so-called 'War on Terror'.

I will never support these bogus PR campaigns that cause so much suffering and do nothing (but make things worse) for the population at large.

'Centrist' is the status-quo, which is, as we speak, leading us over a cliff.

[mmonk]

8. Based on?

[Onlooker]

10. Here's some practical evidence

http://www.pollingreport.com/wh08gen.htm

[mmonk]

14. Early polling doesn't take into account

how they will answer questions on the campaign trail. Early polling is just name recognition.

[Raven]

11. Too early to tell.

She is up here in NH this weekend and is getting flack from the 'get out now' progressives of the Democratic party. I know for a fact that they are going to bird-dog her. They hate her position on the war in Iraq and are very wary of her position on Iran. She has a lot of positives but her electibility is the main issue. No matter how good she is or would be for this country, if she can't win, this country is really screwed!

Up here in November we cleaned out the state legislature and unseated two very entrenched Congressmen. During the campaign I canvassed and the top three issues on people's minds were the war, health care and education. Senator Clinton's votes on the war were not very different from the two congressmen who lost. She has been reluctant to take a position on health care and I have no idea where she stands on education. She is a woman which will hurt her with neanderthals (who vote) and she brings all the Bill Clinton baggage with her (which will likely derail serious discussion of the issues in some quarters).

We need to get behind a candidate who can win. Whether it will be Senator Clinton only more time will tell.

[left is right]

23. "We need to get behind a candidate who can win."

I don't mean this as an attack but IMO that is precisely where we went wrong in 04. Kerry was pushed forward as the only won who could win (and maybe he really did win--he just didn't win big enough to keep the BFEE from stealing the election.) But, I and no one in my family was thrilled with him. We didn't see in him any passion/hunger. We wanted someone to stand up and shout that the direction in which bush was taking the country was wrong and dangerous and we did not have to go that way. We wanted someone who was not afraid of the word 'Liberal' I never saw any of that in him. I really think that his so-called electability made him far too cautious. Give me a man that isn't afraid that he might not win/and therefore, has nothing to lose.

[lancdem]

12. I agree with you

I also like Obama. IMO they are the two strongest candidates running.

I also think the electability argument against HRC is fading fast. The fact that Bush is so unpopular increases our chances of winning in '08 even more, even if our candidate isn't HRC.

[William Bloode]

15. Some one forgot to tell me.

My estimation is Hillary = :puke:

[MannyGoldstein]

17. Hillary - Putting Her Butt On The Line For The American People!!!

Oh yes, Mrs. Clinton deserves the Presidency! After all, she's been out front on so many controversial issues, such as... er... er... well somebody help me out here.

But she's in favor of the War - but not too much war. And she's in favor of torture - but not too much torture. And she's in favor of resisting Bush's stunning attack on the Constitution and our civil liberties - but not too much resistance. And...

[ChairmanAgnostic]

22. flag burning? two black coaches in the super bowl?

allowing "under gawd" in the pledge?

yeah, burning issues, all right.

[Countdown_3_2_1]

18. We have TWO YEARS! Strength now means nothing.

This is two years of Hillary not answering the tough questions, insisting on approving all interview questions in advance, and trying to weasel out of her war vote.

Its very likely that when we start the nomination process, the rank and file will be sick of all the front runners and vote in another "Unknown" or even Gore.

Smear machines are being brought out now, and my party will eat its own, giving the G*P all the ammo it needs to use against whoever wins the nod.

We really ought to just drop all campaigning until September at least.

[retread]

19. "Hillary is the strongest candidate" Oh yeah? What's her best benchpress? n/t

[Captain Hilts]

24. She's a strong candidate, but the best? It's FAR too early to say. nt

[Pithy Cherub]

27. Only someone without any good political sense would

think that the shape of the race as it exists today will last for the next year. Hillary is just like her good pal Lieberman in 2004, leading in the polls. And Lieberman isn't even a Democrat today. Hillary leading right now is perfect as it allows others to mount campaigns as she loses support because she is trying to run a general election campaign not a primary one. Hillary also is losing money from her California pot as the money is uncommitted or shifting and splitting off to Obama. Hillary needs California money and some of her staunchest prior supporters threw a HUGE fundraiser for Obama last night. Hmmmm, and later this year a Gore entry would wipe her out. So its silly to say she is the strongest candidate and believe that today's environment wil last the rest of the year.

It is why sports teams actually play the game - upsets are common. Frontrunners and their supporters get cocky and look what happens. The book, Freakonomics also stipulates that the best financed candidates are not the winners. See Tester, Webb, O'Shea Porter, and on and on... Hillary speaks to her vote for war like a five year ol caught in the cookie jar - it wasn't her. Hillary has issues and she has yet to face a tough sustained questioning yet and she is NOT a web favorite and these days that matters, a lot.

[EvolveOrConvolve]

28. Strongest? No. The richest? Yes.

Often the strongest candidate has the most money, but in this case I think you're wrong.

Obama is stronger, and fits your "controversial candidates win" theory. I don't think he has the baggage of Hillary Clinton, and is a far better speaker. I'm an Edwards supporter, but I think Obama is the real deal.

[MannyGoldstein]

31. But Why Does She Have So Much Cash?

Most of it in big-money contributions?

[EvolveOrConvolve]

51. She has a lot of corporate friends

I don't think that's enough to get her the nomination. The grassroots blogosphere support is even more important, IMO, and right now she doesn't have an advantage in that area.

[Blackhatjack]

29. Edwards will reach across the line between liberals & independents....

yet all are good candidates.

[Canuckistanian]

32. She's a powerful force for the status quo

No doubt about that.

[PhilipShore]

34. 2008 election results: Clinton 30% Jeb bush 50%

Hillary, will be probably the worst defeated Dem ever --- running for President. The chances of a woman winning, in a time of war --- are virtually none.

[skipos]

35. Do you know that non-vp Dem frontrunners almost never win the Dem primary?

Kerry, Clinton and Dukakis and Carter weren't the frontrunners.

He have never had a Pres. candidate like Hillary who has as many haters on the left and right, and I think that is ominous.

[Skidmore]

37. Hillary has the most money.

Period.

[ShortnFiery]

39. She can't win the General Election - Republicans are voting for her in open primaries. n/t

[MadHound]

40. She would lose the entire left/liberal side of the spectrum, and wind up losing badly

The overwhelming left/liberal side of the political spectrum would bolt. There would be a severe decline in the number of volunteers, and in voting, since a great many voters would either go Green or stay home.

Sadly however I think that Hillary will get the nod. She's got the corporate backing, the money, and the Democratic leadership in her back pocket. She will be foisted upon us, and all of the left will be browbeaten into either voting for a pro-war candidate under the threat of another pro-war candidate being elected.

I really hope that somebody else, somebody fresh and smart and moral gets the nod. Kucinich would be my ideal, closely followed by either Webb(if he runs) or Obama. For the good of the party, let's hope that is the case instead of throwing up Hillary. That would be a disaster.

[Captain Hilts]

43. They'll stay home rather than vote to keep McCain, etc. Out? Spoilsports. RNC counts on that. nt

[MadHound]

45. Yes, they will. After all, what's the difference. Both are corporate whores,

Both are warhawks. Sorry, but the conscience on the left end of the spectrum is not as easily bought and sold as it is with the right and center.

This same scenario played out in '68, and it will play out again in '08. Damn it all you wish, but if Hillary gets the nod, it will happen again.

And since the RNC is counting on this scenario, perhaps we shouldn't present it to them, eh. Bring in a candidate who actually unites all factions rather than blowing them apart.

[Nay]

64. Not only are they both corporate whores and "what's the diff",

but honestly, if we MUST have a corporate whore in office, I'd rather have a REPUB corp whore so at least the Repubs get the blame for this godawful mess we are in. THAT is the real problem with electing someone like Hillary -- not only would she whore for the same interests, the wingers would very conveniently have a Dem (even if in name only) to blame for everything that has gone on the past 8 years.

I will not vote for Hillary if she is the nominee. I will write in Al Gore.

Yes, Madhound, it is quite obvious to anyone who looks that Hillary is the RW dream candidate.

[Leopolds Ghost]

65. What's worse, Democrats would take credit for continued dismantling of the New Deal

As they did under Clinton I.

Hillary will impose Masscare on the nation in lieu of single-payer, just as she attempted to do in the 1994 health-care train wreck when they caved to the insurance interests -- who promptly double crossed them and stabbed them in the back, after thanking them for helping them promote the HMO concept for two long years. When Masscare goes into effect nationwide it will be mandated, private for profit HMO coverage for all Americans regardless of if they can really afford it, and the end of the Blue Cross system. And no single-payer.

Similarly, with Mass Transit we will get a new era of Road Building leavened with a series of poorly designed, gold-plated, Bechtel funded "alternative energy" and "alternative transit" projects, just as we did in the 1990s -- instead of Kerry's serious proposals to fund transit. We will get passionately silent defenses of mountaintop removal and royalty-free resource extraction in places like West Virginia and Utah, instead of Schweitzer's idea of emission-free coal from vast underground deposits in Montana.

We'll get Democratic acquiescence on harmful global schemes such as the Alaska Pipeline/Alberta Tar Sands pyramid scheme to turn the entire Canadian Arctic into a strip mine for heavy petroleum, whose refinement would be powered by natural gas extracted from the Canadian Arctic -- who needs ANWR? Gore made the first steps in concessions to this direction when the Kyoto treaty was watered down.

We'll get passionate loyalty to the drug companies and their profits and patents, among other industries with patent interests abroad that interfere with other countries industrial policies, like when Clinton sent Gore to argue on behalf of the makers of AIDS drugs against poor African countries. Gore may have changed since then, but Hillary most definitely has not. If anything she has become MORE beholden to the Upper East Side, elite power crowd.

Sort of like how the Bolsheviks took credit for "implementing" the ideas of Karl Marx.

[LWolf]

42. In whose world?!?

:rofl:

She's not going to get the moderate republican vote; the knee-jerk foaming at the mouth whenever they hear the word "Hillary" is a pretty good indication of that.

She's not going to get the liberal/progressive/left vote, even from her own party.

Who does that leave? The centrists. The corporate democrats, DLC voters. How does that equate to "strongest?" The strongest candidate is the one who can unify liberals/progressives/leftists/moderates. Hillary is not that candidate.

[Captain Hilts]

44. She'll get suburban, married women who often vote Republican. nt

[MadHound]

46. If she wasn't a Clinton, you might be correct.

However with that name, and all of the demonization that goes with it, suburban Republican women will follow their husband's lead and vote Republican.

[Captain Hilts]

49. No, no they won't. They've been breaking away. That's how 2006 happened. nt

[MadHound]

50. They make have broke some in '06,

However that is no guarantee that they'll do so in '08. In fact with the name Clinton on the ticket, I highly doubt it. I live in a very red area, and frankly none of the breakaway voters that I've talked to will do so with Hillary, they hate her guts, mainly for her association with her husband.

So, you take away the left/antiwar portion of the party, take away crossover voters, what are you left with? That thirty percent in the middle who can raise enormous amounts of cash but can't deliver the votes:shrug:

This is all preliminary analysis, but it is the outcome that I strongly feel will happen. Sadly, we're probably going to get to see how it all plays out, since Hillary has been all but annointed as the standard bearer anyway.

[LWolf]

53. Having lived my entire life

in Republican strongholds, and having plenty of republican women friends and colleagues of the more moderate sort, since there are few democrats in the community, I can honestly say that I've never met a single one who didn't express a negative perspective of Hillary. They hate her, and/or they laugh at her, but they don't vote for her.

:rofl:

[Captain Hilts]

55. Our friends, neighbors are too self-selecting and are not representative of voters as a whole. nt

[LWolf]

57. True.

Friends, neighbors, and colleagues that are not included in the "friends and neighbors" category, over the course of 3 decades, 2 states, and a thousand miles. :shrug:

I wonder what a poll of republican wives would reveal? Are there any? Maybe her obvious efforts to remake her image have born fruit.

[Beelzebud]

47. So strong she can't admit she was wrong to vote for the invasion of Iraq.

[JackRiddler]

48. The controversial "Bush II" lost to Gore (and probably Kerry, too).

Not that my opinion means anything - as one of the people who actually put Hillary into her present office - but very few of the people I know who also voted for her here in New York are willing to do it again, because of her indefensible stance on the war, her constant collaboration in the bogus terror propaganda, and her obviously "triangulated" (=faked) position on most everything (instead of presenting a program, it's "Let's talk - so I can figure out what you want to hear.")

[FreeStateDemocrat]

52. Strongest smelling with the stench of corporate control permeating her.

[meldroc]

58. If she gets the nomination, I'll hold my nose and vote for her, but...

I don't like her views on the Iraq war. She's also the human weathervane, not actually having opinions of her own, but just following what seems politically expedient. She also stinks heavily of corporate money.

Granted, she'll be better than McCain or Giuliani or any other Republican, but that isn't good enough.

Give me Obama or Kucinich. Not a corporate-controlled DINO.

[donco6]

63. I second your post.

Without adding a thing.

[Southsideirish]

59. My rightwing family members ADORE the idea of her running - they know

she's a loser for sure.

[DonkeyInChinaShop]

62. Strongest candidate at this point in '03: Loserman

He was up 40% in all the polls.

You are right though, right now Hillary is the strongest candidate too. Great company to be in!