Can you make a case that the best thing for the Democratic Party or the country will be the nomination of Hillary Clinton as the Democratic candidate for president? If not, why not?
I’d like to get a sense for how people feel about Hillary Clinton. She is polling strong. What will it mean if she is stopped short of the nomination?
What’s your feedback?
If she is the nominee, we are well and truly f/ed!
The woman is divisive. You either love her or hate her…which is not a great formula for the GE.
She cannot garner the moderate Republican and right leaning Indy vote that we need to win.
That said….a resounding defeat may be just what the democratic Party needs to break away from the DLC and go back to it’s roots.
its too early….i dont care how high she is polling…..remember dean in december 03….leader of the pack…omg was it that long ago?
we wont even be discussing her a year from now.
We’re not even at the stage of the race comparable to December ’03 yet. Think Lieberman’s early edge before the season got underway.
No matter what you thought of the actual policies of the Bill Clinton years, you got to admit that principles and ethics were not overly elevated during his tenure. Indeed, his lack of such traits has opened the door to the toleration of the abysmal lack of principle and ethics from this current fascist administration.
Hillary was complicit in Bill’s shredding of principles and ethics, and does nothing to elevate the level of stature of American leaders, such elevation possibly now being the most important need of this country. Therefore, I think it best that Democrats at the least nominate a principled and ethical leader as shown by that person’s track record of the past!
Clinton’s shredding of ethics? By the scale of what we’ve witnessed under Bush, I don’t know what you’re talking about! Unbelievable. Any single person who talks about Clinton’s behavior as somehow comparable to Bush’s is playing into Rove’s hands. Bill and Hillary Clinton are politicians, yes indeed. But they are within the normal range of political ethics. Bush and co. are so far outside what anyone would have believed.
I don’t see anyone claiming she’s as bad as Bush. Nobody’s as bad as Bush. But that’s no argument for backing the worst possible Dem candidate. We already tried the “not as bad as Bush” strategy, remember?
It is a matter of perspective. The right goes nuts over Clinton while the left goes nuts over Bush. Bush surely has brought lying and lack of ethics to a new height, but the direction for such crappy trends was not helped or reversed by Clinton. Also, nothing will turn out the conservative vote like Hillary Clinton for president. Just why do we need to light that fuse?????
Surely there are good Democratic leaders with an ethical past record that if not loved by the other side, at least is not hated by them!
Thing is, the right will go predictably nuts over any Dem candidate. I want that to happen because the candidate’s so ethical and humane and thoughtful, not because she steals the right’s thunder.
I heard this conservative today say that the right just hates Hillary and for some reason Edwards (probably because he ran with Kerry).
He said they just cannot get that rage up over Obama. He just doesn’t push the buttons or stirs up the hate in them.
But, from posts on other blogs, I’d say the high octaine hate for Hillary goes to our side as well.
Me, I personally will never vote for her. I’d stay home. I just cannot bring myself to give her my vote. I;d feel like I’m voting for a republican.
…it just doesn’t seem fair to me to tarnish Hillary with some alleged ethical problems committed by her husband. While she may have been involved in many, if nost most of Bill’s decisions, she wasn’t involved in all of them (there are at last some decisions made by him in the White House that, obviously, did not involve Hillary (involving a dress, etc.))…
To me, a fairer question would be to compare Hillary Clinton’s record of ethics while serving in elective office compared to her husband.
Since serving in elective office, Hillary has not been accused of anything untoward, to the best of my knowledge, and has excellent moral, ethical and legal credentials (based on all information available to me as of this moment).
In fact, the argument could be made that, while her husband made several bone-headed decisions politically while serving in public office, Hillary’s record of service has, in fact, been impeccable, regardless of how one might feel on several partciular issues.
she’s polling strong…among democrats a year and a half before the polls really matter.
i think she would not do well w/independents and i
know for a factfeel strongly she would not get any cross-over votes from the publicans.i don’t know that i would vote for her over guiliani. seriously.
her refusal to bend at all on her vote for the war boils down to “i voted the way i did and if you don’t like it, you can lump it.”
i’m lumpin’ it. and i’m lumpin’ her. i don’t know if i could bring myself to hold my nose and pull the lever for her.
You’d vote for government by big business? Government by graft? Government by Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz? More Republican supreme court judges? Forget the personality. It’s the system, stupid.
thanks, but i’m not stupid. please feel free to disagree with me all you like, and say so, but refrain from name-calling. it severely lessens the chance i’ll take anything you have to say seriously.
I think it was a riff on Clinton’s “It’s the economy, stupid.” I doubt anyone thinks you’re stupid. A marsupial, perhaps, but not stupid.
It wasn’t personal..a quote from Papa Bush…ripped off…sorry you didn’t recognize it, and no offense intended.
(Remember, he said “It’s the economy, stupid…”
i’ll take you at your word that you meant no offense.
Sorry you didn’t recognize the pun…I wondered after I hit “send” whether the (poor) attempt at a joke wouldn’t be recognized.
That’s the trouble with this system; you can edit diaries but not comments.
We’d have a great conversation over a glass of wine. As you can see from my comments, I wouldn’t choose Clinton, and I won’t work for her. But given the choice between the Republican “machine” and the democratic “system,” I’ll choose the latter every time.
after i wrote and posted my objection to your use of the word “stupid,” i wondered if you were trying to make fun of that quote.
sorry to get all huffy about it.
…as far as having credibility on what’s supposed to be a progressive web site if you would consider voting for Giuliani over Hillary Clinton. I’ll give a bit of the benefit of the doubt and assume that you’ve been duped by those who would have you believe that Giuliani is a ‘moderate’ by virtue of his positions on gay rights and abortion (as if those are the sole arbiters of one’s political philosophy). However, anyone who is familiar with Giuliani would tell you that he has a disdain for poor people in general, and black people in particular. Giuliani can sell himself in South Carolina, Mississippi, and the rest of Dixie because he fits in quite well with the racist element of the Republican Party, even if a large plurality of them still don’t believe Italian-Americans are ‘really’ white. Giuliani also has a disrespect for civil liberties that would have you wishing nostalgically for the Bush Administration in 2010. From incarcerating refugee Haitians while U.S. Attorney, to trying to close down art musems because he didn’t like the exhibits, to being the government’s witness in an attempt to have Zacarias Moussaoui executed, Giuliani has shown himself to be tyrannical to bloodthirsty. Frankly, I suggest you read up a little on Giuliani before you say anything more because hearing you and other alleged liberals consistently try to soft-pedal the evil that is Giuliani is pathetic if not infuriating. I can now see how Il Duce Mussolini duped the masses.
I like her. I’ll vote for her. I don’t believe any of the “she can’t win” bluster — all my Republican (moderate) friends are okay with her. Old Libertarians who remember Goldwater are fine with her. I’m pretty far left and I’m for her. She’s going to be great.
I don’t know anybody who likes her — or more precisely, who doesn’t dislike her. Me among them.
Strong points: she’s female and so represents the potential for historic change.
Weak points: record as a bumbling “co-president” in a mediocre administration. Reflexive willingness to say anything her advisors think would boost her electoral fortunes. We don’t need any more dynastic politics in this country. She somehow manages to draw passionate hostility even though she never takes a gutsy stand on anything. Well, there’s much more, but it’s the end of a beautiful day out there.
I don’t think she’ll be nominated and if she is I think she has a good chance of turning what should be a sure win for any Dem into a probable loss. The prospect of a Hillary/Rudy campaign will be like a trip through a sewer. We can do so much better — in fact with any of the other announced and speculative Dem candidates.
This is pretty much how I feel about H. Clinton. The question I ask myself is, “would I vote for her if she wins the nomination?” I keep saying I probably would, and then she comes out and says some bullshit, or wheedles out of another reasonable question, and I have to rethink my whole stance all over again.
I know I am not alone and so I am just praying she doesn’t win the nomination. Too many far left people loathe her enough to refuse to vote for her.
for my taste but I did like the fact that he was a true politician (meaning that he did know the word compromise and he sought to bring ideas and people together.) Now there were times, like the disastrous midterm election where the members of his own party got trounced big time, where I thought he could have done better for us and them, but maybe not for him. So I have thought that while he was good at the job and enjoyed it tremendously, we here at home did benefit by a great economy but saw social discourse get even meaner by the repubs. And that would be true for most presnits – they have good and bad sides (except for Bush who only has a rotten side!) What Mrs. Clinton will bring to the table is a high powered mind, a lawyerly mind. She doesn’t have the charisma. She may have somewhat of a tin ear (going the DLC way may not be her finest idea!) But I think we can pretty much guarantee she will work hard at the job. I think we can pretty much guarantee that her work in the senate will help her get her agenda passed. I think we can pretty much guarantee that she knows everybody and can put together a fine group of people. I don’t know exactly what her agenda IS though. I don’t have a feel for how she will be as an executive (i.e. consensus builder or bully pulpit type). I don’t know how she will deal with the bullies on the other side of the aisle. She’ll know the beltway, but will she know the rest of us? Will she be able to lead us out of the PNAC thicket?
I will vote for her if she is the nominee. Hillary is my second or third choice at the moment, as she trails behind Edwards and Richardson. Will I volunteer for her if she is in the nominee? Yes. Will I volunteer for Edwards or Richardson if either of them are the nominee? Yes. Is she ethical? Not necessarily, and her support for Duckworth does call into question her relation to machine politics.
Ditto…
She’s currently my third choice, but I would never vote for a candidate other than a Democrat.
Don’t be so naive as to believe that an independent could win–or winning,could run a government. Look at the failure of an independent in Minnesota, with no party behind him.
I’ll vote for the Democratic “system” before I’ll vote for anything else. But before I do, I’ll donate and work for Obama or Edwards.
I will vote for the Democratic nominee, but I will only volunteer for Clinton, Edwards and Richardson. If Dodd, Biden or Kucinich become the nominees, I will volunteer for them too.
who wont you volunteer for?
Everything I’ve heard from Hillary over the last two years gives me the strong impression that she feels that the citizens of this country are ignorant, unwashed peasants. She’s way too much of a “centrist” for me. Her “tough talk” on Iraq (the people of Iraq should step up, blah, blah, blah) made me gag. Their country, infrastructure and lives are trashed, but they should fix the situation? Get real.
I’m going to be working hard for some other candidate to see that she’s not the nominee. ‘Cause I sure don’t want to have to vote for her.
If I had to vote in a primary today, it wouldn’t be Senator Clinton, but I will list some positives:
First, she has a good deal of experience with how viscious the right wing can get. She simply won’t fold during the campaign. She will react quickly to slander.
Second, contrary to what some of the commenters above say, there is a segment of the business community that doesn’t see her as a tremendous threat. Frankly, I believe she does have a good chance of winning.
Third, there are some of her positions and policies that seem quite reasonable. Pro-choice, she has expressed empathy for those who find the choices impossible to handle. (Yes, I know some progressives find this soft. I find it honest.)
She said something I really wish would happen yesterday: She would send Billy out to try to repair our relationships with other countries in the world. Lord knows, we need him…and he needs to stay out of her way.
She also knows exactly how not to implement universal health care…waiting to hear exactly what she will do differently.
My concerns: she may owe too much to the Israeli right wing, to some business donors. She may not have the sincere commitment to the working class (as opposed to the very poor) that I hear in Edwards and Obama.
Beholden or actually believes the AIPAC crap, either way she seems a bit nuts on the subject of defending Israel including being on record as saying bush isn’t doing enough about Iran and Iran’s threat to Israel and that she’d do more…pretty scary.
It makes very little difference what the left blogosphere thinks.
Short of a resounding primary run by Obama…she’s a lock.
And he’s the Vice Pres.
She will win against any Ratpub, too.
Iraq, the ongoing criminality/incompetence of the Butch admin plus the rising tide of anti-Butch media bias…read corporate-driven media coverage now that ButchCo is officially “bad for business”…will make sure of that.
Divisive, schmivisive.
She’s a lock.
Have you noticed Butch’s poll numbers? Down around 30% approval?
Now read thus:
Reuters
Fri Mar 23, 2007 6:33PM EDT
MOUNTAIN VIEW, California (Reuters) – A little under one-third of U.S. households have no Internet access and do not plan to get it, with most of the holdouts seeing little use for it in their lives, according to a survey released on Friday.
Park Associates, a Dallas-based technology market research firm, said 29 percent of U.S. households, or 31 million homes, do not have Internet access and do not intend to subscribe to an Internet service over the next 12 months.
The second annual National Technology Scan conducted by Park found the main reason potential customers say they do not subscribe to the Internet is because of the low value to their daily lives they perceive rather than concerns over cost.
Forty-four percent of these households say they are not interested in anything on the Internet, versus just 22 percent who say they cannot afford a computer or the cost of Internet service, the survey showed.
The answer “I’m not sure how to use the Internet” came from 17 percent of participants who do not subscribe. —snip—
‘Nuf said.
30%, eh?
Hmmm….
THEY’RE the ones still voting for Butch!!!
(We’ve all been wondering who it was…)
The “I’m not sure how to use the Internet” crowd?
The Ratpub’s version of netroots.
Notroots.
Do YOU see any way that the Rats can overcome a 7 to 3 disadvantage?
I don’t.
Hillary?
Divisive?
Not THAT divisive, apparently.
Her numbers when opposed by Obama and Edwards are in the high 30s/low 40s
Combined (From the above referenced My D. D. poll survey.)
Averaged totals
Clinton-39.7%
Obama-26.8%
Edwards-13.3%
Other-9.8%
Undecided-9.3%
If the 20% “other” and “undecided” follow the same track as the rest of the poll, that’s another 10% or so for Hillary.
Then she is at 50%, with the other two split about 33%/17%.
With Edwards gone…and I can see no way for him to continue given his wife’s condition because he was a weak candidate anyway…it’s down to
60%/40% between H. + O., and that’s where it will stand come convention time. Unless of course Obama makes an amazing run at the primaries. Which I doubt. Not THAT amazing, anyway. He’s fighting a pro with real establishment backing. She would have to fuck up BIG time.
Could happen…but I doubt it.
So unless Obama is REALLY nasty with her during the campaign…and his mama didn’t raise no fools, on the evidence of his political career so far…that’s the ticket.
And the ticket wins in a national landslide, netroots or not.
Sorry…that’s the way it’s going to go.
Betcha.
Watch.
AG
P.S. Gore?
Whaddayou, kiddin’ me or WHAT!!!??
He’s fat, happy celeb now.
RIGHT where he belongs.
And he knows it.
Based on the last two elections, the country is divided very closely. The registered Dems will likely vote for whoever the party nominee is, while the registered repubs will do the same for their nominee. It is the independent voters, the sling voters, who will decide the next presidential election.
I realize you are trying to take a pragmatic look at machine politics in your above post, but if winning the next election for Dems is the main goal, make sure the party nominee tends to attract more swing voters than tends to scare them away!!
A fault in your idea…this is not going to BE like the last two elections. The media is no longer cooperating with the Ratpub spin. No more rockets’ red glare over Baghdad foolishness, no more here come the big bad terrorists crap. ButchCo is now totally without credibility.
The “swing”: voters are right now, as we speak being swung AWAY from the Rats.
Watch.
It’s going to be a landslide.
Bigger than the 2006 shift.
Bet on it.
AG
AG,
Remember that Bush will Not be running in the next election. I believe you would be surprised how little of the incompetence assigned to Bush by Repub and independent voters carries over to other new repub candidates!
Don’t believe that survey!
There are still surveys conducted exclusively through land lines. Especially if these surveys have a lot of questions, they are skewed toward bored, lonely senior citizens. I’ve done them myself, and I know it’s true.
A slim majority of Americans now have broadband vs. dial-up; only the elderly lack Internet savvy, and the fraction is dwindling every month.
That is scary since Obama seems to be all fluff and no substance what so ever. The more I hear from him the less I like him even as a VP candidate. His performance at the Health Care forum was beyond uninspiring.
She reminds me of the first time I ever had the displeasure of eating gruel. It was utterly devoid of any flavor and made me gag as it went down. Sure, it provided the bare necessities of nutrition for that particular day, but it really was a toss-up on whether to starve or not.
I’m not entirely sure who I like best yet among Edwards, Obama, or Richardson, but I’d vote for any of them before I’d vote for Clinton.
And I’d vote for Clinton before I’d vote for any Republican. That’s not saying a lot, though. I’d vote for myself before I’d vote for a Republican, and I know how badly I’d screw up the job.
Amen…my sentiments exactly.
Hope she doesn’t get the nomination, but I’ll vote for her if she does. I like that she’s running, but I think she doesn’t understand where the country is, esp re: Iraq. Also, I wouldn’t be happy about Bush-Clinton-Bush- Clinton sequence. Prefer Edwards or Richardson (or both on ticket) or Obama. Any of our candidates would be a good president.
Col. Theodore S Westhusing
And it also occured to me Bill Clinton and Bush Sr were seen this weekend on TV together. Promoting something called http://www.ready.gov.
Last time I remember them together it was after Katrina, see all the good that did.
Hillary? No, I’ll write in Alex Jones first.
Silly…sorry, but that’s how I feel.
I ran into a great guy from Florida who voted for Nader. I admire him…but hate him. A couple hundred of him got us the Iraq war.
You are not voting for an individual, you are voting for a system.
Because I love this community and its ideals, I’m sending money and working for Edwards, and I’m listening carefully to Obama.
Beyond that, they had the “vote” fixed anyway two times in a row.
Hillary feels she is entitled to the presidency. She has no reason to run except for her own need for power.
She has no vision, no message and no new ideas. she has no reason.
She is of the old order. The politics of smash mouth and dirty tricks and mud sliming.
She is DLC corporate shill and republican lite.
She is a hawk and is so worried about looking tough she’ll get us into wars just to prove it.
She is a phoney.
there is much more but, I think you get the point.
Her polls run strong as she is known and been around forever. People are getting to know the others and many think if they vote for Hillary then, Bill will be president again. Talk about fantasyland.
he was not all that to begin with.
Really? I notice Obama had no health care plan or any real proposals to discuss when he was at UNLV this weekend. In fact, he pontificated about nothing during his presentation at the forum.
try checking the Illinois health care bill. The one that covers anyone under 18 who doesn’t have insurance. Sen. Obama did that.
successfully – unlike Hillary
Plus, If you are going to produce a plan and policy then I’d rather it be done well, detailed and right than wild promises made, like Hillary, and unworkable junk.
It is not universal, and he clearly learned nothing from the experience, as he could not articulate any real policy or real initiatives when speaking at UNLV. And he even had the audacity to mock those who have actual plans. But he claims we need the “political will.” More empty rhetoric from the empty suit Obama.
If Hillary is the candidate, I won’t vote for the Presidency. After Bush, we need a major course correction. HRC will be Reagan III and guilt the Democrats into giving her everything her corporations want. I would prefer a Republican WH and stalemate in DC then I would a DINO like Hillary in the WH getting everything she wants. The Dems think we are trapped, and I have been for 30 years. Well, I’m done being trapped. I do have some place else to go, and it is called staying home.
I’ve been listening to
“look out for the fascists!” for 30+ years.
I’ve actually gotten to the point that I despise the worthless shits on my side more than the fascists –
fascists, after all, are just being fascists – selfish pig fucks.
I am FED up with ‘leaders’ who ran for the job of leader, AND got donated hundreds / thousands / millions of hours and money from us peeeeee-ons, AND
all they can do is fucking snivel and lose.
rmm.
She’d lose. Every 3rd-party ringer–left, right, center, upside-down–would get a piece of that election.
At one time, way before she became Sen Clinton, this woman seemed the type to take risks & passionately speak out to defend things in which she believed. But the risk-takers spoke out, and she was silent. These days… heck, she won’t admit it’s raining until everyone else has opened their umbrellas. OK; politicians are what they are, and that might be just fine were it not for this:
We have lived under an administration that has tossed excrement on our constitution like a pack of carousing monkeys in a zoo; brought back the bad old days of illegal wiretaps and domestic spying; handed out bags of cash to every rich rat pal who happened to have his paws out; drenched our name in blood from Gitmo to Abu Ghraib and beyond. After all this, surely we have someone better–deserve someone better–than Hillary?
Face it, no third party candidate running to the left of Hillary would be given the time of day. S/he’d be mocked as a kook as the ‘rest of America’ outside the liberal blogs considers Hillary to be a mainstream liberal. Second, the GOP base is far more disgruntled with their party leadership on major issues like immigration, trade, the deficit, abortion (it’s still legal, right), and even the war. It’s more likely that there would be a credible conservative-populist candidate running from the right in the next election. Hillary is actually better-positioned to win to 2008 than most people could have ever realized a year ago.
she and bill know how to win the presidency. she is definitely electable w.t.o. those 2 complete fucking assholes, bush jr. and raygun. she and bill would not run a gore/kerry/dukakis losing campaign.
HOWEVER
she and bill had 8 years of their fake centrism.
personally, I think the center of htis country has NOT been tapped. I think that, depending on how you ask the questions, over 80% of Americans are NOT:
in favor of discrimination,
in favor of wasting tax dollars,
in favor of shitty schools,
in favor of defense dollars going to consultants, thieves and bureaucrats instead of the people with their ass on the front line,
in favor of YOUR rabbi / priest / preacher / guru / swami in their doctor’s office,
in favor of shitty schools for anyone’s kids,
in favor of transportation policies so that the rich fucking pigs of exxon get fatter and richer,
in favor of business policies that kill the next google, ford motor or ibm…,
in favor of business policies that coddle and protect google, ford motor or ibm…,
in favor of working people getting fucking peanuts for retirement cuz the rich fucks stole everything
Hillary and Bill promised a new way, AND
they they took care of themselves, first and foremost.
fuck both of them.
rmm.
she would appoint Bill Clinton v.p and then resign.
She’s always been “his mother.” She’s smarter than Bill, in the social sense.
She’ll send Bill around the world, to make peace and make friends, let her daughter choose the menus, and let good Democrats run the government.
But that’s our last stand…not our first choice.
I posted this comment in a similar thread over at fetch me my axe:
I just don’t get the ‘hate Hillary’ movement AT ALL. Prefer Edwards, or Obama, or Kucinich, or Nader? Sure, make a case. I’m inclined to go with Edwards myself.
But prompted by belledame’s blog post, I did some digging. These are Hillary’s voting scores as given by the indicated organization, with Edwards’s scores in parentheses. These are the latest scores for each person from that particular organization (and not for the same year). I picked orgs that I recognized and thought were important:
ACLU: 83 (60)
Public Citizen’s Congress Watch: 76 (45)
NAACP: 95 (94)
Human Rights Campaign: 88 (100)
League of Latin American Citizens: 100 (na)
Christian Coalition: 0 (0)
NEA: 100 (83)
Nat’l PTA: 93 (na)
Def’s of Wildlife Action Fund: 100 (na)
SEIU (union): 94 (na)
US Public Interest Research Group: 91 (81)
Friends Committee on National Legislation: 92 (50)
NOW: 100 (na)
Americans for Democratic Action: 100 (65)
National Journal Composite Liberal Score*: 80 (95)
“na” means I didn’t notice a corresponding score for Edwards.
* means the National Journal considers Hillary to be more liberal than 80% of the Senate.
Now these scores aren’t definitive — in isolated cases they went markedly up or down compared to previous years — but they accurately convey the fact that Hillary Clinton is one of the most liberal senators we have (and a lot more liberal than I realized). Like it or not, she may end up being the Democratic nominee in Nov. 08, and the only thing standing in the way of the Rethuglicans getting their ‘fifth Beatle’ on the Supreme Court.
Pissing on her now (as opposed to supporting an alternative) just seems like a monumentally self-destructive thing for a progressive to do.
YOu’ve gotten my attention…
i don’t think is a “hate hillary” movement.
i think there are thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of people who are turned off by hillary, some for legitimate reasons, others for gut reaction reasons (i don’t consider that a legitimate reason on paper, but in real life it’s gonna make a difference when that gut reaction is in the voting booth).
i think this is a big problem for hillary. the fact that there’s no focused anti-hillary movement, but that there’s a myriad of people who just don’t like her, and many don’t even have a real reason.
but you can’t really shame people into liking her (or anyone) just because they don’t have a logical reason not to.
i personally think she has too much baggage to attract the middle independent voter, let alone any disaffected publicans.
and i take her refusal to defend her war vote very personally. i feel she doesn’t give the netroots any respect at all.
i won’t even get into the corporatization of the dem party under her husband, which i would expect to continue under her regime.
…among Democrats because she is the preferred candidate of African-Americans (still), Latinos, and working class white women. Collectively, that’s enough to get you the nomination. Given that these groups are underrepresented in participation on liberal blogs, Hillary’s true support among the electorate is not reflective on these web sites.
In a general election, 45% of the overall electorate will vote Republican regardless of the candidate. Hillary would have the solid support of 45%. There will be no landslide victory by either party. It’s the middle 10% that’s up for grabs and the Clintons have been cunningly positioning themselves to promote her candidacy to that decisive 10%.
Just for my education…why not Obama? I’m a student of the candidates at this point.
He’s my senator and I support him. Check out his site. And don’t let the people who trash him influence you. Decide whoever you support yourself.
For those who trash about health care, Obama produced a workable plan here in Illinois where those under 18 got covered. Under a republican controled springfield.
He will not come out with something just to shut up those who are impatient. He will wait until it’s thorough and well done and workable.
I might break down at the last moment so this could change, but if she were the nominee, I would not vote for her. I would either vote for a third party candidate, not vote for anyone, or, if Chuck Hagel were the Republican nominee, vote for him.
When I hear her speak, I have no doubt that she has not a shred of authenticity or sincerity. (Obama doesn’t have much of either as well.) I have hated her as long as I can remember. (I never hated her husband. At times I have liked him a lot, although I have grown sick of him. I had great hopes on election night 1992.)
Still, all this is academic, since I am not very worried that she will be the nominee. For one thing, she is an awful speaker, and I can’t see her emerging from Democratic debates with her front-runner status intact.
I would love to see a woman president. (Nancy Pelosi is a great politician, even if she is too centrist. She is recognizably a Democrat, which Hillary is not.) But if it’s a choice between a man and a Lady Macbeth, I’ll take the man.
You see Chuck Hagel — someone who favors the abolition of the inheritance tax; favors cutting environmental spending; favors rendering abortion illegal (except when the mother’s life is at risk); wants to cut taxes across the board; wants to increase military spending across the board; supports NAFTA, GATT, GTO, and trade with countries regardless of their human rights violations; wants to build more prisons and throw more drug offenders in them; wants to drill in ANWAR; and votes with big business lobbying groups almost all the time — as a better alternative than one of the most liberal senators we have?
It’s true that — unlike most other prominent Republicans — Hagel has shown some sanity when it comes to Iraq. But my conclusion looking at his policy positions is that this is based less on morality considerations — I mean, trade with other countries regardless of their human rights violations?? — and more on concerns about the prospects of losing.
He might get us out of Iraq — frankly I’m skeptical — but otherwise he seems indistiguishable from your average everyday New Deal-shredding Rethuglican. I sure as hell wouldn’t want him picking my next Supreme Court justice.
Oh, and one other thing: Thomas Hartmann says Hagel was affiliated with the company that made the voting machines which tabulated the results of the “surprise upset” election which gave him his seat. Make of that what you will.
Thank you for your restraint. I realize that what I said about Hagel was very inflammatory. FWIW, I have only voted for a Republican once: for a Congressional seat in Massachusetts, against a Kennedy (who was a shoe-in). So you see, I have this thing against political dynasties.
You say Hagel is a “New Deal-shredding Rethuglican”. I would rather have a Rethuglican New Deal shredder than a Democratic New Deal shredder. Bill Clinton destroyed “welfare as we know it”, admittedly a product of Johnson’s Great Society, not of the New Deal, but you get the idea. It is easier for Dems to shred the New Deal than it is for Rethugs to do it. It is the analog of Nixon going to China: that is something a Dem could never have done.
Continuing along this pragmatic line of thought: Hillary would doubtless continue her husband’s neoliberal program. If Hagel were President and tried to do the same, he would get much more resistance from a Democratic Congress. Actually, come to think of it, that logic would work for any Republican President faced with a Democratic Congress. So a good case can be made that no matter who the Rethug nominee is, if Hillary is the Dem nominee, progressives should vote for the Rethug presidential candidate. Hillary is DLC all the way, which is another way of saying a Rethug in a Dem’s clothing. Given a Dem Congress, a divided government would be better.
Remember, Hillary said just this year that Shrub is a good guy. That makes me lack any confidence that she would do a better job of cleaning up the executive branch after what the Bushies have done to it than an average Republican, with a Dem Congress breathing down his neck, would.
…put up when Reagan and Bush I were President ? It was a Democratic Senate that confirmed Scalia and Clarence Thomas for the Supreme Court. It was a Democratic Congress that passed all the Reaganomics tax cuts. It was a Democratic Congress that approved all the Reagan military spending. It was a Democratic Congress that voted for Gulf War I. You may want to reconsider this proposed strategy.
Reagan was a very popular president. If a Rethug wins in 2008, it would only be by default, because Hillary was the Dem nominee, so he wouldn’t be that popular, and there would be huge pressure on the Dem Congressional majority to oppose regressive Rethug plans. The public is much more progressively oriented now than in the early 1980s. That’s what regressive DLC types like Hillary don’t understand, and why her getting the Dem nomination would be a disaster for the Dem Party and the American people as a whole.
As Harry Truman said: When a Democrat runs against a Republican by acting like a Republican, the real Republican wins every time.
The only feeling I get from Hillary is cautious ambition. She will stay in Iraq and keep the principle of unitary executive, because it is good not only to be queen, but empress over the Pax Americana.
:pfffft:
I am in favor of having a strong woman as President. I am blessed to have Lee as my reprsentative and Boxer as my Senator. Feinstein and I have different attitudes towards the environment, but she does support women’s rights. Pelosi is skillful and I’m pleased at her manuveuring. She’s accomplished quite a lot already. Surely other states have women in politics who are there to serve the people they represent? Who wake up in the morning with some goal?
However, as a feminist, I don’t want a woman running and winning just because she is female, but because she is good for the job!
With most of the other Democrats, I have some sense of what they stand for or what they hope to achieve:
to save the planet… Gore
to promote peace and diplomacy… Kucinich
to improve lives for poorer Americans… Edwards
to withdraw from Iraq and rebuild international credibility… Clark
Obama’s riding a wave of popularity and hope, but I’m not sure what he’d do once in office. Dodd and the others need some looking into.
Clinton? If she would just come out and stand for something instead of wavering with the latest polls, it would help. I don’t care if it is helping senior citizens and veterans, or beautifying the country, or setting up a lunar colony (peaceful use of space), or restoring our rights, or making sure that all children get healthcare, whatever, ANYTHING… to show that she believes in something other than her own electability.
as supreme leader, if the unitary executive were to continue with her administration? The Bush cult within the GOP have been committed to a power presidency for years. She hasn’t shown much opposition to the erosion of congressional powers since she’s been in the Senate. She’s not the only Dem who’s stood down, but I can’t see her holding that much power even if she wanted it or had to wield it for whatever reason.
I think her term would be a disaster, precisely because she has no recognizable plan, other than to win. As you said, why does she want the job? I’d love to hear her answers.
why does she want the job?
She needs to have something bigger than her Senate seat for her to be able to justify to herself sticking with Bill.
More basically, she wants the job because she thinks she has a good shot at it. Wouldn’t you want to be President if by some quirk of fate you had a shot at it?
I find it appalling that Hillary is taken seriously as a Presidential candidate. It’s only in Third World countries like India or Pakistan that immediate family members of former heads of state become the new head of state.
The DLC twins. My tea leaves give me the sickening message that with that ticket, even Jeb would feel safe entering the race. And with Hil using those loser DLC consultants, he’d win! I know, stranger things have happened, but everything we’ve lived the past 6 years used to pass for an SNL skit.
Hillary won’t give specifics when asked about health care, because she wants to “hear from us” first. That’s code for “I’ll poll it to death and get back to you once somebody else tests the waters and my biggest donors tell me what to do.” She also claims we won’t need a tax increase. Shades of Junior are all over that one i.e. this war will pay for itself. Edwards is willing to face the hard truth: we’ll need taxes to make this happen.
She would be the worst possible person to follow the abuse we’ve lived with. Times have changed. She hasn’t. Her record speaks for itself.
I think our answer is staring at us in plain sight: Pelosi.
I will never vote for Hillary. I will stay home. She got where she is on her hubby’s coattails. She stands for nothing, except getting elected. She is an affront to all women who worked hard to get where they are today, including me. No way. Never!
I really have to wonder about those people here who don’t know anyone who’s a Hillary fan. Who are your friends, exactly?
Look: her base is older, more female and more likely to be a member of a racial minority group than the average netroots person. These are people who decided at least a decade ago that they were going to support the First Lady against whoever was attacking her, and have stayed loyal to her since.
(On the other hand, the number of people who haven’t decided yet on Clinton, and who might still be persuaded to get on board, is a tiny fraction.)
If she’s the nominee, I’ll be happy to support her, but she’s not my first choice. Still, who’s ever taken more shit for being a Democrat than she has?
Why wouldn’t the first woman who has a serious chance to be President not be of the same cloth as the other ambitious, principle-less, money-beholding politicians put before us by the corporate Party System?
The Clinton’s were part of the problem of making politics into a celebrity game and moving it away from issues.
As citizens we shouldn’t give a shit about who politicians are as much as what they will do to us. The right went apeshit over the chimpus maximus because they bought into his propaganda that he was like them. The politics of identity is a recipe for disaster.
If Hillary wins the nomination I’ll just stay home. I will work to get anyone but Hillary nominated. right now Erdwards is my first choice.
Hillary could only win with a slight majority and has a much greater chance of losing. If the GOP picks a human like Bloomberg then Hillary is no match. The worst news for the Democratic party was what I heard yesterday concerning an interest by the NYC mayor. He has stature and isn’t connected to Bush.
As a moderate I’m sick of western and southern trend. I think we need a person familiar with winter. They may be more understanding of the realities that we face. I don’t know where Hillary lives. She probably lives wherever
it is convenient for her to be.
The Democratic Party needs someone with some stature and someone who is recognizable to the electorate. Al Gore? Paul Newman? Eliot Spitzer?
He only switched parties because there were many Dem candidates for the mayor of New York, but no strong Republican ones. By switching parties, it was easy for him to get the Rethug nomination and hence winning the general election against a weaker Dem candidate.
Hillary, in contrast, was originally a Rethug. From Wikipedia:
over 60 comments and I didn’t notice any support for Clinton. It varies from ‘ick’ to ‘no way’.
Anyone actually want to vote for her?
Not very surprising, considering the crowd here. Even at kos, I think she gets only 3% in the straw poll.
In this house, we’re not particularly keen on her, either (understatement).
Hillary is a shallow opportunist and a shill for the corporatocracy. He is a deviseve charactar that will not win an election (assuming one is actually possible). This early in the selection season we might as well support the best candidate we can. Later we’ll have to settle for something less.
To me the biggest assets Hillary seems to have are:
-hope (for all of those (i.e. non-white males) who have been historically left out as real “players” in our political process
-money
-star power
-little risk (she’s been fully investigated past (i.e. the likelihood of any so-called “skeletons” that wouldn’t already have been completed vetted, seems minimal)
-a reasonably good record in office as a Senator (including one of my U.S. Senators)
-very engaging personality (despite the demonization by those who hate her and hate everything not “conservative,” in person she is a very charming and likeable person (have met her on several occasions)
-the potential to be a JFK-like president (should she win, she would have unlimited potential in terms of trying to give hope and inspiration for progress on several fronts (the environment, for instance)
-constituencies (she and her husband have done an excellent job in developing solid relationships with all major Democratic party constituencies, except for a couple (i.e. anti-war folks and environmentalists)
-Bill
The downside:
-she’s hardly a “fresh” face, which may turn many off
-a sizeable number of people who seem to just loathe her, for some reason (i.e. reasons they may not want to admit publicly, such as a “strong, assertive female politician,” etc.)
-bigotry (there are likely a certain number of people
(am not sure what percentage), who simply do not want to see a woman as president, though they’d probably never admit it in public; this may be a small enough number, however (i.e. 5%?) that it could easily be
neutralized by an influx of many more voters inspired to come out and vote for her.
Unless she does something bone-headed (which, unlike her husband, she has never done while serving in elective office) as far as the law or ethics are concerned, should she win the nomination, she has the potential to inspire a lot of key Democratic constituencies to come out in huge numbers (minorities, women, etc.). Should she win the presidency, she will start with a clean slate, so to speak, and can create any kind of presidency she so chooses. Being a very intelligent person (have never heard otherwise from anyone), she has the potential to carve out a unique place in history beyond just gender alone that could inspire people for generations to come.
Having said that: if the primary were held today, it’s likely that my vote would go to someone other than Hillary at this point. If she gets the Democratic nomination, she would, in my humble opinion, be far superior, as far as issues of importance to me, than any of the prospective Republican candidates, so would likely get my vote in the general election.