Why don't people like Hillary Clinton?

[Onlooker]

We have a country that has never had a woman President. They're too shrill. They're too soft. They're too whatever. For the first time ever, there's a woman who is not only in a position to be a candidate for President, but she has great qualifications. On the whole, she's at least as moderate as Kerry or Clark, and on domestic issues she's generally more liberal. But, many people in this forum still oppose her.

Some oppose her because she's too divisive, but she's only divisive because the right-wing made her so. Divisiveness may be her biggest asset. Consider that the divisive candidate generally wins, whether we're talking about Bush II, Clinton, Reagan, Nixon, Johnson, or Kennedy. Republicans frothing at the mouth is bound to make more sensible people give her a second look.

When Hillary runs for President, she will bring to the campaign the same thing Bush II brought -- an enthusiastic, indeed almost zealous following. The baggage she brings is the same as any other candidate brings -- controversial votes. I can understand Nader supporters opposing her; I can understand true leftists opposing her, but the only reason I can see why liberal and moderates don't like Hillary Clinton is because the right-wing has told them not to.

[thebigidea]

1. where's the zealous following? I don't see much of it here.

And we're the most zealous of the zealous...

[Onlooker]

6. See, for instance

http://www.pollingreport.com/2008.htm

The fact that she leads other Democrats by 2 to 1 and gets at least 40% support from the general public makes her a very strong candidate. I don't know why so many in DU oppose her, except that many DU people alrady have their own favorites and fear Hillary will derail those people.

[CWebster]

10. Not like there is much of a choice

when she is being set up as inevitable.

[BlueEyedSon]

17. Americans are ignorant (our shitty news & education don't help!)

but Hil has name recognition, I think that explains her edge.

[brainshrub]

21. I think that reflects name recognition, not real support.

Most Americans are not politics-wonks like DUers.

[Larkspur]

34. Those polls also showed Lieberman in the lead during the 2004

warmup.

Hillary is in the lead in those polls because of Name recognition, just like Lieberman was.

[Onlooker]

92. Link? n/t

n/t

[Telly Savalas]

130. Here

http://www.pollingreport.com/wh04dem2.htm

[oneold1-4u]

64. Have voted other parties

And I would even change party affiliation if the Dems run HC at the top of a ticket. I don't believe she has any more morals than her husband who should never have been the president. Two wrongs don't make a right and she would likely, totally destroy the party by a major split. If we need a split, it needs to be one re-enforced within the republicans.

[cally]

67. Could you please explain what morals she lacks

I think you bought into the Repub. rhetoric about Bill and Hillary. Neither are perfect human beings but both are trying to help. I don't see either seeking huge personal gain, lying to us about public policy, making arrangements against our country's interests like * with the Saudis, nor pursuing legislation that helps them financially. Remember all the investigations. How many convictions? Were Bill or Hillary found guilty of anything? Bill was for lying about a consensual sexual liaison. My own values are that is between Hillary and Bill and not the county's problem.

[hippiegranny]

107. morals?

Can you cite examples of her lack of morals?

[Lydia Leftcoast]

101. Her "lead" is all based on name recognition

I would like to remind you that in early 2004, Joe Lieberman was "the front runner."

Any polls conducted now are as meaningless as asking how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

[Gormy Cuss]

109. There in lies my issue with her

I don't think she is viewed on her own merits outside of NY state. For the rest of the country she's just Bill's wife. Voting based on family name recognition is the only reason W was considered a good candidate. I've long thought that half of the votes he received in 2000 were based on name recognition only.

If Hillary is as savvy as she seems to be, she'll stay in the senate or run for governor. She has a guaranteed position either way.

[Democrat 4 Ever]

14. Well, here is one. I like Hillary, think she is extremely smart,

savvy, plays the political game very well and would make an excellent President. If - big if - she gets the nomination I will work my tail off for her. But I am committed to working for any Dem candidate period. I'm just not going to spend a lot of time or capital worrying about the White House in three years right now.

Hillary has been working on issues that are important to Americans for a long time. Long before she meet Bill. She has walked the walk and talked the talk. Her IQ is higher than the entire bunch of repugs in the WH now combined. Smart people, but especially smart women scare the little repugs bad.

She was the recipient of a concerted right wing smear campaign since the day Bill announced he was running for Perez and nothing has let up since. What really gets me is the Dem's who know she has been smeared over and over again still won't vote for her because, well...just because. Name your reason. To her dying days some people will hold it against Hillary that she stayed with Bill. I just don't think it as any of our business. Starr, the re pugs and the House should have stayed out of their personal business during Watergate and we should, too.

Hillary is smart and would make damn fine president. She could actually bring out the best in people in public service. And after the last five years of having a rock with the IQ of -24 in the White House I would love to see an intelligent person running the country.

I think Dem's are constantly seeking out the perfect candidate and when each and every candidate is not perfect to their liking on each and every issue than they are ready to throw them away. Hillary is NOT perfect but she would be a great president.

Four years is a long time, let's work on throwing the repugs Roveholes out in '06 and then we can concentrate on the White House. We play our cards right we can have the whole bunch of WH goons in Gitmo by January 07!

[BlueEyedSon]

19. She is where she is politically because her husband was POTUS.

PS pretty much anyone compares favorably to W, the bar is so low.

[cally]

70. This is my problem with Hilary Clinton

I was happy she won a Senate seat. I don't think she's ready to be POTUS. She's being considered because her husband once was President. I don't want someone as President because of what his/her spouse accomplished. I also think it would be quite weird to have a former President as first spouse. I would always wonder if the spouse had too much power.

I also think it's time to move on past the Clinton clique. I was happy with the Pres. Clinton but dismayed that they didn't do more to help Gore. The Clintons left our party in disarray with weak grassroots and Congressional candidates. I'm ready for a different sort of politician.

I would support Hillary if she wins the nomination.

[LittleClarkie]

102. How did the Clinton's leave the party in disarray

I've heard that, and I'm really curious about what they did and didn't do to mess up the party.

But in Clinton's defense, I believe I heard that it was Gore who distanced himself from Clinton. Clinton would have helped, but Gore was trying to get away from the Clinton fatigue over Monica.

But back to my question. Are you saying that the Clintons are good at getting themselves elected, but tend not to worry about the rest of the party? I've heard that about Gore as well, that he wasn't working to get Democrats elected as much as he was working to get himself elected.

By contrast, we had a coordinated campaign here in Wisconsin that included Kerry, Feingold and Moore.

[cally]

108. Dems lost both houses of Congress under

Clinton. We lost Governorships and legislative members. Clinton was popular but it didn't help the Democrats.

The DNC with their handpicked chair focused on wealthy donors. They did improve financing for the party but ignored the grassroots. One of the reasons Deans message resonated so much with the base is because the party ignored the base. The Clintons did nothing to activate the party.

[radwriter0555]

41. I'm very unhappy with her lack of opposition to the bush regime. I KNOW

she's playing the game, etc, but BOXER has way, way more balls than Senator Clinton.

Boxer has MY back. I think Senator Clinton would take the middle road.

[beyurslf]

120. This site may have zealous people, but we do not represent most Dems.

Look at our picks for the presidential nomination last year. And those of us who are zealous HRC fans have learned to just let the bashers go on about their business. There is no changing your mind about her. By the same token, all your bad words about Hillary will not stop me from lining up to support her in 2007 when she starts her run.

[MODemocrat]

133. You just spoke for me, beyurslf

I'll also be one of the first in line to support Hillary Clinton. Sure, she's a politician and a very savvy one; and I am foolish enough to think it is prerequisite to winning an election in today's world. Sadly, one has to outfox the other, and she can certainly hold her own.
:thumbsup: :dem:

[roguevalley]

2. The right wing tells me nothing. I don't like Hillary because she

has no core values that she will defend to the death. She moves toward whatever position advances her. She votes for war, for whatever even when its wrong and against our party's principles. She's too conservative for me and I feel her ambition. I would never vote for her.

[sendero]

33. Sums up my opinion....

... exactly. More triangulation is not the answer. On many of the issues that are central to our opposition, she votes with the Republicans.

These polls are about name recognition. Maybe she could win, I don't know but I think it would be an uphill battle. One thing I'm absolutely sure of, she will turn out the Republican vote like no one else could ever hope to.

[CTyankee]

35. double standard

Under your rubric she can't win. I don't see any male Dems with core values that they will defend to the death, nor do we ask them to do so. Voting for the war? Well, John Kerry voted for the war. Voting for "whatever" as you put it. Care to be more specific as to what falls under the heading "whatever"? She votes for whatever advances her? Well, lots of other Dems do that too but when push comes to shove she is squarely in the progressive column on most issues. Too conservative? On what? You say you "feel" her ambition. What does that mean? Are there any Dem candidates who don't have ambition? Please enumerate.

I worked for and voted for Bill Clinton. I vehemently disagreed with him on the death penalty and I was bitterly disappointed in his nonaction on Rwanda (he has done penance on the latter). I didn't like his signing the Defense of Marriage Act. I didn't like "Don't Ask, don't tell."

This double standard on Hillary has got to stop. Progressives who say they'll never vote for her because of (fill in the blank) need to examine the double standard they hold her to, but don't hold male Dems to. In short, GET OVER IT.

[lastliberalintexas]

85. Not a double standard- many of us were

rather angered at Kerry's nomination because of the IWR vote. Some of us grudgingly voted for him, some of us just voted 3rd party instead.

H. Clinton has votes that are even more conservative than Kerry's, despite the fact that she's portrayed as some raving lunatic liberal by the media. Like Kerry, she also voted for the IWR and NCLB. Unlike Kerry, Clinton also voted for the bankruptcy "reform" bill that hurts workers and consumers.

I'd likely do the same thing with her nomination that I did with Kerry's- complain, threaten to vote 3rd party, cave in and vote for her while resigned to another 4 years of a republican president. So you see, it's not a double standard- I'm equally miserable with her as I am with the more corporate-friendly male Dems in our party.

[CTyankee]

90. thanks

you've filled in one specific vote that you disagree with. I disagree with it also and I would have the same question when/if she becomes the candidate.

Okay, that's one vote...

[lastliberalintexas]

93. Um, actually I named 3 very important votes

IWR, NCLB and bakruptcy. She also supports free trade agreements, if you need yet another very big issue on which she and I disagree.

I don't hate her by any means. I think she's a very intelligent, thoughtful person who has withstood more than her fair share of personal attacks for simply trying to (somewhat) improve the quality of life for most people. I just don't want her to be our presidential nominee. Any more than I want Evan Bayh, Joseph Biden or any other corporatist-lite Dem to be the nominee. :)

[CTyankee]

95. Yes, I know you mentioned the IWR and the NCLB as well

My point was that so did Kerry. My point was about the double standard.

It seems to me that as long as money is the "Mother's milk" of politics as the saying goes, we're in a bind with "tainted money." But as the preacher said "The problem with tainted money is it taint enough."

[Lydia Leftcoast]

103. Yeah, so did Kerry, and I supported Kerry ONLY because he wasn't Bush

It's so much nicer when you can vote FOR someone because you really like their positions rather than merely because they're not the other candidate.

[lastliberalintexas]

113. Let me say this again, so that maybe you'll understand

I DID NOT WANT JOHN KERRY AS THE NOMINEE EITHER. For many of the very same reasons that I do not want H. Clinton to be the nominee. I grudgingly voted "for" Kerry, and would likely end up grudgingly voting "for" Clinton. But that doesn't mean that I didn't vocally and actively support another candidate against Kerry in the 2004 primaries, and it doesn't mean that I won't do the same against Clinton in 2008. I like Kerry and Clinton about equally, which means on the major issues not so much.

How the heck you can make that into some double standard is beyond me. :shrug:

[CTyankee]

125. The double standard point was not initially aimed at you

It was in response to an earlier post. I do get it that you voted for Kerry grudgingly. I am just tired of losing elections and what that has meant for the country. I just do not think Hillary could be the huge disaster that Bush and other RWers have been. If I thought that way I'd jump off the Q bridge.

[The Straight Story]

129. I don't see it as a double standard and here is why:

I think many folks here on this board (obviously not all) were not overly keen for kerry in the primaries for similar reasons. He got the nod and many got in line to support him at that point.

In this sense, clinton is in the early stages of the primary - and similar to those times on DU people will find what the dislike and like about a candidate and judge their ability to get the votes and lead things in a progressive manner. It is a time to compare and contrast and get the ball rolling for 2008.

We not only need a win, we need someone in power who will make changes. On the whole clinton thing too though I think there is a public fatigue growing - it went: Bush1, clinton, clinton, bush 2, bush 2, ... clinton? 20 years of the same two names in power, adding another 4 or 8 to that just seems silly. Out of a few hundred million people in the US there has to someone else e can get in office.

[Telly Savalas]

131. Senator Feingold has core values he'll defend to the death.

Not only did he vote against the war, but he was the only Senator who could be bothered to read the Patriot Act, and hence vote against it.

[LittleClarkie]

104. I get the feeling that Bill was just as ambitious

but hid it better. The thing with Hillary is she doesn't have Bill's charisma or his talent for politics. With Hillary, it looks too mechanical.

[rooboy]

3. The problem with her baggage is the big 'DLC' label stuck on it. n/t

[radio4progressives]

134. Exactly. The DLC brought this Party Down - The DLC need to be OUSTED.

Completely UN-Accountable - UNdemocratic, and PRO-BUSH policy.

OUST THE DLC - Clinton is their candidate.

[merbex]

4. My gut reaction to Hillary is that it is all about Hillary

not the country

Naked Ambition for her and not a higher good

that being said IF she is my nominee I'll vote for her but right now without enthusiasm

[LibDemAlways]

97. I agree.

After reading her autobiography, I liked her less. She's all ego and doesn't seem to have any core principles.

[LaurenG]

5. Remember Whitewater

She basically took over the presidency there for a while. People on the other side will not go for her. She is too controversial. Ask any republican who would consider voting for a Dem, they would never vote for Hillary. We need a strong candidate with no corporate ties.

[Mizmoon]

22. when did Hillary Clinton "take over the presidency"?

I don't seem to recall that.

[LaurenG]

46. No offense it was an exaggeration

Her health care bill and she over shadowed her hubby for a time there. Thats all

[ihaveaquestion]

71. The controversy overshadowed Bill, not Hillary herself...

and the controversy was fueled by the insurance companies and their politician cronies (mostly repukes) protecting their (very lucrative) turf.

[H2O Man]

7. She seems popular to me.

I'm from New York, and she is certainly popular here. She does get a strong reaction from people, so those who dislike her are pretty vocal. But she does a good job as senator.

I've met her twice, and think she is a powerful person. However, she does not have the credentials to be running for president in 2008. It is important to make a distinction between liking her and wanting her to run for president.

[jmaier]

84. Which credentials are we looking for?

She is at least, if not much more, credentialed than John Edwards was and he became a highly favored candidate.

[H2O Man]

123. Valid point.

Though his lack of credentials may have held him back.

[patricia92243]

8. We're brain-washed by the Republicans-without even realizing it. I had

actually forgotton how much I like her until I saw her when she was promoting her book.

That was when I realized that - once again - I had been falling for Republican hype - subconsciencely - Boy, Those guys are really really GOOD at what they do. :(

[CWebster]

9. because she is a woman is not reason enough

when she panders to the good ol'boys- or, as I heard Jane Fonda say about some successful women in politics:

They are ventriloquists for the patriarchy.

[sniffa]

11. because she has boobs

it's obviousLy the onLy reason.

but, maybe if she keeps courting repubLicans that'LL change.

[Dogmudgeon]

12. I like Hillary

Right-wingers hate her, our own left-wing conscience brigade hates her almost as much, but her job rating from her constituents is up around 85%. What's not to like?

--p!
Clinton AND Duff. So there. :P

[HamdenRice]

13. If the Dems nominate Hillary, I will re-register Green

I think the difficult thing for many people to get their minds around is that Hillary and Bill are fundamentally different as politicians and as people. Bill had some core values that revolved around helping people, even though he also had the awful tendency to over-compromise and try to please the right, which had no interest in compromising with him.

Hillary has no core values whatsoever, other than her own ambition. To the extent she has any policy preferences, it is to work for the benefit of corporations.

Everything you need to know about how Hillary would govern you can see in her health care proposals. For the first time in history, both patients and doctors were united that something had to be done to fix the health care system and reduce the power of corporate insurance companies.

Hillary's proposal? Work in secret closed meetings, primarily with insurance corporations to turn the entire health care system over to those corporations.

[Democrat 4 Ever]

20. Sorry, HamdenRice - that is just not true about the Healthcare

proposal. Why don't you read her book and see if you can get some insight on the woman. She was working on healthcare for children decades ago. And the secret meetings with insurance companies and doctors? The committee met in secret to try and form a plan that could at least get a hearing before being shot down by the reichwing nuts. Doctors and Insurance companies were some of her biggest foes.

Sometimes it takes digging a little deeper into a subject than just what the media is willing to spoon feed you. What you said about Hillary is just all the repug talking points.

[HamdenRice]

36. I am well aware of Hillary's health care proposal

At the time, my soon to be ex-wife was very ill, and we were intently following the development of the plan, and my sister, who is a doctor was also following it.

The idiocy of Hillary's plan was that it did not take the insurance companies out of the system, but guaranteed them a profitable, but useless, niche.

In other words, at the time, we had a couple of choices. The insurance companies were destroying the health care system and they still are, denying care, cherry picking and intruding on patient doctor decision making. Reform could either make incremental regulatory steps -- like requiring portability -- seeing how they worked and proceed with more baby steps. Or reform could go whole hog with a massive overhaul, by getting the insurance companies out, by creating a single governmental payer, like Medicare.

Bizarrely, Hillary's plan was a whole hog overhaul that accomplished almost nothing; it forced everyone into the private sector, insurance company dominated managed care system, then imposed a gigantic regulatory structure on top of it.

The question this raised was -- if you are going to regulate the insurance industry so much that it becomes essentially an arm of government or like a utility, why not just take them out completely and create a single payer system. Her proposal was ludicrous -- taking all the private sector aspects out of the insurance companies' role, but leaving them in to make megal profits.

As for the way she did it -- one way of getting things right and building support is to allow the public and stakeholders in to participate at the beginning. Believe it or not, the public, patients, doctors and policy makers might actually know more about the problems of the system than Hillary and her hand chosen insurance industry buddies. This kind of problem can only be solved through a process that starts with extensive hearings, public discussion, town hall meetins, etc. -- not Hillary huddled with her business cronies.

It is no coincidence that Hillary's model for how to address a public policy problem was adopted by Dick Cheney with his energy task force. Same procedure, same values.

Hillary has fundamentally undemocratic and unDemocratic instincts.

<edited>

[H2O Man]

37. That's right.

Even if one considers just the idea that her health care proposals gave all the power to corporations, then it becomes hard to explain why the corporate powers were so strongly opposed to her plan.

[HamdenRice]

39. Because ...

everyone -- corporations, patients, doctors realized it was a turkey. It didn't work for anyone, even the corporations.

They did not want to be regulated.

Politically, the only way to fix this is to build a coalition of all stakeholders other than the insurance companies. This was built with a few insurance company executives, but most companies did not want to be that heavily regulated.

[bowens43]

15. What she would bring to the campaign is

tons and tons of negative baggage. If there is any zealotry it will be in the supporters of the other side , who will turn out in record numbers to defeat her. She is the poster child for Republican recruitment.

Then there is her politics. Of late , we have seen that there is no evil she won't embrace to further her cause. She would continue to move our party to right. There will no room for progressives in a party lead by Hillary.

She would get no Republican votes, very few independent votes and Democratic turnout would be very light.

Besides that, I think Americans, red and blue, are ready for a presidential election without a Clinton or Bush.

[CTyankee]

44. Again, bloviated generalizations

and no specifics. There is "no evil" she won't embrace to further her cause? Please list those evils.

I am continually amazed that DUers who hate Hillary throw around vast over generalizations and use over the top words like "evil." What horrible evil has she wreaked upon the state of New York which she represents? What despicable acts has she committed that drives you to such hatred? I must have missed them in my daily newspaper and liberal blogs.

As for her health care plan, it was a disaster, yes. She kinda knew what the country was not ready for and what she would expect from the corporate health industry and I think that drove her to try to placate everybody. I think the country is in a different place now as our health care system crumbles, bit by bit. Socialized medicine doesn't have the same stigma. But another Republican administration will just finish us off for good, if we're not finished off in this one.

I agree that Hillary is a lightening rod for red staters blind misogynist hate. I fear that her candidacy might be marred by their fury (and I am not ruling out an attempt on her life). That is the only reason I might oppose her candidacy over another Dem.

[bowens43]

86. Oh come on

she's been kissing up to the religious right and the anti-choicers like she's been 'born again'. As far what she has done for New York, I really don't care. If she's doing good there, she should stay. Her candidacy would harm our party and our country. I honestly don't know a single Democrat who would vote for her. Not one (of course I don't get out much). I do however know several who vote 3rd party or stay home if it's a choice between her and a neo-con.

If you want another 4 years of neo-con control, by all means, do all you can to get her the nomination. She's a sure loser no matter who the repugs run.

[CTyankee]

94. First, let's look at her so=called anti choice statement

But bear in mind that she has a 100% prchoice voting record (you know, actual votes). Go to the websites of NARAL, Emily's List and Planned Parenthood Federation of America, the leading prochoice organizations in the country and you will find that this is so. Surely you don't believe that these organizations are the "religious right" and "born again". In the larger context of what she said it was essentially that if you want fewer abortions you must provide more access to medically accurate sex education, which includes but is not limited to abstinence, and you must provide more access to and better contraceptives (I think she cosponsored a bill that would do just that). Guess what? That is the position of Planned Parenthood. I know because I worked for PP in Connecticut.

Second, you don't "care" what she has done for New York as its senator? Really? You dismiss a possible Democratic candidate for the presidency and you won't even bother to see what she has done, or not done for that matter, for her constituency? How can you make informed choices with a mind that closed to information?

[Frederik]

81. I agree

I don't agree with her on nearly any issue, but I would of course vastly prefer her to any of the current theo-cons. The main problem with her is, as you say, all the negative baggage which, justly or unjustly, is going to turn a lot of potential GOP converts away.

And, we have a president today that is the son of a former president. Should the next president be the spouse of a former president? Is America supposed to be an oligarchy?

[returnable]

106. Whenever I see the "negative baggage" talking point, I cringe.

Come on, folks. Clinton left office with a 60% approval rating. If that's negative baggage, I'll take it.

Hillary is not my first choice, but it has nothing to do with any mythical anti-Clinton hangover.

I don't deny she pisses off a very vocal minority of rightwing nutjobs. Big effin' deal. That same crowd will savage any Dem nominee.

[Ian David]

16. I liked her better with the old haircut.

The more "Liberal" haircut.

This new haircut is parted too far to the right.

[formercia]

18. She reminds me of my fundie mother

not a good thing.

[Disturbed]

24. I don't dislike her personaly.

I don't support her Repub-Lite views. She may be a wonderful Senator for NY but as Pres. she would be no different than J. Lieberman.

I feel that the RW and the Corp. Media are hyping her to derail any Dem Pres. for '08.

[seabeyond]

23. i dont trust her, her husband was president,

like i didnt need son bushie being president i dont need another family member to be preseident. we have more than two families to chose from. and the right will be nothing but ugly. and i dont want another 4 years of what hillary will give the right to throw at us. but mostly i dont trust her. they way her and bill cozy to bush. i get it what is going on with that

[seabeyond]

51. as a female, another big thing with hillary, for me

she is so much better than this. she keeps jumping into the white male power bullshit. she knows better. knows what it is. yet, she enjoys too; i believe cause she kicks there ass. after bush, if we can get him out, the time is too important to give it to someone i dont know i trust, to give us what we need. and the real bitch, hillary would be so kick ass at it. i see it in her.

i dont trust whether she will embrace her dark, or her lite

the male power play, or her health plan....takes a village

[seabeyond]

52. and this goes with the freeper watching us, us talking in code

shit.

i want to yell at kerry, blink eyes twice if you know you were fucked

[Lannes]

25. I think it stems from a couple of things

Her "baking cookies" remark and her trying to take point on health care reform.As admirable as it was some felt that she was trying to re-write the duties of the first lady which for the most part had been ceremonial.

Eleanor Rooselvelt was a very influential first lady but she was much more popular.Maybe it was her approach.

[Mizmoon]

29. Eleanor Rooselvelt was from a very different time - pre-Nixon

Not fair to compare, imo. People trusted public figures more then than now.

[Lannes]

30. Yes it was a different time

and being as outspoken as she was back then was a much bigger deal but she pulled it off.

[Mizmoon]

38. As a total aside

I heard an NPR piece about letters that people wrote to Mrs. Roosevelt during the Depression. Many of them were from girls and women asking for her old clothes. In one a girl said that she had not been able to go to school for days becase she was too ashamed to wear the same tattered dress day after day. It was heartbreaking.

Such a time is hard to imagine now.

[H2O Man]

45. I think it is an error

to think that Eleanor was less controversial than Senator Clinton. I'd recommend that people interested in her read the books by Blanche Wiessen Cook; in particular, volume 2 (1933-1938) is fascinating.

She also seemed to have a way of getting extreme reactions from people. Many viewed her as, in Cook's words, "compelling, charismatic, and visionary." And others thought she posed a real danger to America. Again, to quote Cook, "She took unpopular stands and often countered her husband's policies, particularly concerning racial justice, women's rights, the plight of refugees,and approaches to fascism and the Spanish Civil War."

Eleanor had many, many enemies. Most of them look a lot like the people who despise Senator Clinton today.

[Lannes]

49. Didnt say she was less controversial

I did say that she was more popular despite being outspoken.

[H2O Man]

55. Hard to measure

if she was more or less popular.

[Lannes]

56. No its not

She was voted "Most admired woman in the world" regularly.I dont think Hillary has that distinction.

[H2O Man]

60. If that is the proof you need,

that's fine. I think it's amusing that this would be considered as serious evidence. It is about as accurate as saying Paul sold more solo albums than John, and hence has the distinction of being the more popular Beatle. Clinton has been elected to national office, and Eleanor surely was not. And thousands attended the memorial service for John ... I don't think Paul had that distinction.

[Lannes]

63. Almost as amusing as comparing the funeral of John Lennon

to the funeral of a man who isnt dead yet.

[H2O Man]

65. Never mentioned a funeral .....

though I did intend to point out that some comparisons are silly.

[Lannes]

66. Sure sounds like you did.

"And thousands attended the memorial service for John ... I don't think Paul had that distinction."

[H2O Man]

68. Perhaps you are unfamiliar

with the memorial service for John. Sure sounds like you are. It would explain your error in thinking it was a funeral.

[Lannes]

73. Dont get into semantics .You compared the service of John and Paul

Besides I was there in NYC at Lennon's service.

[H2O Man]

110. I think that you are silly

thanks for providing the giggle of the day! I hope you get a dictionary some day soon.

[Lannes]

57. dupe

.

[lastliberalintexas]

88. Eleanor Roosevelt was hated MORE than HC

ER made more than her fair share of enemies by standing up for Blacks, the working poor and poor, the downtrodden, the elderly, etc. While FDR was a great man as well, by many accounts ER was the real driving force behind many of the more socialist aspects of the New Deal. And she faced much more biting, personal attacks than even HC has. A great lady indeed.

[oasis]

115. During Eleanor's time, the foaming-at-the-mouth-fundies didn't have

the political clout that they have today.

[meg]

26. People like her just fine ...

MSM print whatever they are told to print. My freeper friend who listens to FOX all day long told me she hoped Hillary would run for president and that she would vote for her.

Don't buy into the propaganda.

[blogbear]

27. I like Hillary and I liked and continue to like President Bill Clinton..

If Hillary becomes a presidential nominee I will vote for her.I don't know that liberals and moderates don't like her as much as they might question her chances. I could go for her as I said but hope that she sews up the general election before any primary..

[katinmn]

28. I have the same problem with Hillary that I do with any of the

members of Congress that take huge amounts of money from corporations.

When candidates accept money from corporations they are entering into a tacit agreement that they will vote in the interest of the corporate world -- not citizens.

I won't ever support any candidate that takes money from business lobbyists.

[welshTerrier2]

31. because she's an occupation supporter

i won't be supporting any of the other occupation supporters either ...

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

32. Why ask? You said you can understand why leftists oppose her.

There's a lot of us leftists around her who can't stand her.

[radwriter0555]

40. because the GOP Nazis hate a good, strong, kind woman. Can't have

a woman making men look like idiots, can we?

[CWebster]

50. You mean the ones

she is paling around with?

[triguy46]

42. Uh, lets see

They don't like them uppity wimmen with all their own teeth?
She's just a snippy little college educated snob?

[HamdenRice]

43. OK so even if you like Hillary can you see why she would be a disaster????

Let's agree to disagree. Maybe you like her. I can't stand her. Just look at the replies on this thread: some left Dems hate her and some moderate Dems hate her.

If we can't agree on her, can you see what a disaster she would be as a candiate?

Dems who don't like her will stay away from the election in droves and the RW will have a field day.

Surely we can do better than Hillary. If the party leadership supports her and we nominate her, then MoveOn will surely be right in its description of the Dem leadership as "professional election losers."

[HughBeaumont]

47. SIGH. END the political monarchies already.

WHY does every damned election have to have SOMEone named Clinton or Bush in it? Can we PLEASE wipe the slate CLEAN?

Hillary wouldn't turn one red state. NOT ONE. She'd also be in danger of losing at least three blue states (WI, PA, MI). The reason I don't like her is that she supports job offshoring by working with Tata consulting agency to fill jobs for Indian nationals in Buffalo. The head of that consulting agency was a direct Clinton campaign contributor; never mind Tata's past history of discrimination based on national origin. Besides, she comes with way too much baggage, and the name rec everyone is talking about is going to hurt our chances more than help them.

[Pockets]

48. I don't think she would win because....

Cons have spent so much time and money dragging the name Clinton through the mud, their job destroying her is already 90% done. Repugs want Hillary to run and are using goons like Rush and Hannity to advance the idea. They know the strategy to destroy her is already in place.

I think moderate repugs are more likely to cross over for someone like Dean, not that he would run.

[SheepyMcSheepster]

53. why can't we have a president who is not directly related to another pres?

it is like we have a monarchy or something, it is a bit discouraging.

i really wouldn't mind seeing hillary as president, but she would not be my top pick.

[oneold1-4u]

69. Only finding someone

in the background, related and believing in the voices of Jefferson, Roosevelt, Truman, or even Carter? A woman already popular enough to have been re-elected at least once to a major public office?

[dawgfan]

54. She's a crooked corporate fascist

I don't like Hillary Clinton because she is part of the ruling elite monarchy supported by the corporate fascists who currently control the country. Think of the last names of the recent presidents. Bush-Clinton-Clinton-Bush-Bush. If Hillary wins, it could be Clinton-Clinton, followed by a Bush brother making it Bush-Bush.

Creepy, isn't it?

We do not live in a monarchy.

I simply want someone in there with a different last name than Bush or Clinton. And BTW, the Clinton's were almost as corrupt as Bush.

www.mark-gelbart.com

[Pepperbelly]

58. there are few who are pure enough for DU commandos and ...

none who do not get a huge ration of shit here.

If Hillary wins the nomination, she will be formidable.

[MisterP]

72. who says anything about being "pure"?

in fact, I think the "purity commandoes" are the ones demanding we agree 100% with everything any Dem says, not those with the temerity to demand better quality

[ArkDem]

59. I like her.

[IrateCitizen]

61. Because she routinely sells out on larger progressive principles...

... in pursuit of nibbling around the edges -- much like her husband did.

Sure, Bill Clinton got the Family Medical Leave Act passed -- but in order to do so he pushed on the wrong side of NAFTA and Welfare Reform. On the larger issues, he was a lot of feel-good rhetoric and next-to-nothing on bold action.

Hillary is a formidable politician in her own right, I'll readily admit that. She's my Senator, and while she has only regularly disappointed me, she has also managed to shore up her standing and make herself almost unbeatable in NY state. But her political advancement, like her husband's, often comes at the expense of the Democratic Party's success as a whole, and even more at the expense of progressives. As an example, I find her posturing on the war to be absolutely disgusting.

If she won the nomination, I'd have a helluva hard time pulling the lever for her. And it has absolutely NOTHING to do with the fact that she's a woman. It has to do with the fact that I've come to see her as a centrist corporatist opportunist.

[CTyankee]

74. Um, specifics please?

Exactly what were her votes that got you so mad?

Folks, if you are going to fulminate against Hillary, please list the specific votes or bill sponsorships that you think are so terrible. As for posturing on the war, please give me the quotes.

Por favor, what is a a "centrist corporatist opportunist?" Again, specifics.

I am getting impatient with these nonspecific tirades against Hillary.

[lastliberalintexas]

91. How about bankruptcy "reform" legislation?

ANY Dem, male or female, who voted for that monstrosity is far too indebted to their corporate masters to represent we the people.

[CTyankee]

98. I agree

That's one. And I'd sure as hell like to know why she did it. Next?

[DemBeans]

105. here are some interesting rankings

Hillary's interest group ratings are fairly good on most things - labor, civil rights, abortion, environmental issues, gun rights.

If you can put aside her support for the war and the continuation of the occupation (and I can't), she's a pretty fair Democrat.

http://www.vote-smart.org/issue_rating_category.php?can_id=WNY99268

[CTyankee]

126. And if she runs against say, John McCain

for president, what will you do? Face another 4 or 8 years of Republican destruction of the world, or vote for Hillary?

[porphyrian]

62. Obama will be President before Hillary Clinton.

Not that I agree with patriarchy, I just think it's a lower hurdle with voters at the moment.

[derby378]

75. Here's my view of Hillary

Pros:
1. Loves kids
2. Passionate about health care
3. Knows how to play the Senate game
4. Media-savvy

Cons:
1. Votes too often with Republican senators
2. DLC member (DLC often hostile to Howard Dean)
3. Sometimes ineffective at public speaking
4. May not adapt fast enough to new grass-roots DNC makeover

[Misunderestimator]

76. I heard her rambling yesterday about how against gay marriage she is...

and how MOST democrats she knows are also against gay marriage.

I dunno... I kind of would like a representative who represents my rights.

(On edit... and I voted for her for Senate, and sent her a bouquet when she moved to Chappaqua... too bad she turned into such a sell out.)

[earth mom]

77. Can't stand her! Hillarys Rethug Lite & Buddy Buddy with the Bushes

aka-a SELLOUT. :thumbsdown:

[Frederik]

78. Did you catch her

recent speech at the AIPAC conference? Here you go:

"And of course, one of the areas I am deeply concerned about is Iran, and its pursuit of nuclear weapons, because a nuclear-armed Iran would shake the foundation of global security to its very core. Israel would be most immediately and profoundly threatened by this development, but Israel would not be alone. Knowing of Iran's historic and present ties to terrorist networks, how would we feel, here in America, if the Iranians could start producing nuclear weapons at will? How would the Europeans feel if Iran could start nuclear weapons at will?
So let us be unequivocally clear. A nuclear-armed Iran is unacceptable, but it is not just unacceptable to Israel and to the United States. It must be unacceptable to the entire world, starting with the European governments and people.
I know that during your conference and in the lobbying that you will be doing on Capitol Hill, you're trying to draw attention to the threat that is posed by a nuclear Iran. And I commend you for these efforts; this is one of our most serious security and foreign policy priorities. And we need to make working with our allies to prevent an Iranian nuclear weapon a top priority.
Now one of the terrorist groups that Iran supports is Hezbollah. And we know that Hezbollah poses a direct and dire risk to the stability of the Middle East. Syria's withdrawal from Lebanon -- which is very good news for the Lebanese people -- also creates an opportunity for Hezbollah to wreak havoc.
So we need to remain vigilant about the terrorist threat and work to stop the flow of support to Hezbollah from Syria and Iran. And we need to convince our European allies of Hezbollah's threat to order in the region and to the civilized world, and convince them to designate Hezbollah as a terrorist organization.
And the Europeans must do more to cut off the funding and the fund-raising that goes on in Europe for Hezbollah, Hamas, and Islamic Jihad as soon as possible."
http://clinton.senate.gov/~clinton/speeches/2005524910.html

Which is exactly what the neo-cons are saying when they justify their bellicose stand against Iran. The fact of the matter is that it's pure speculation whether Iran is even planning to start a nuclear weapons programme after they get their civilian programme running - the Israelis even admit as much - it's just not the imminent threat at all that the neo-cons, AIPAC and Hillary pretend that it is.

Another thing, if the Dems want to win the presidency in 08, they need someone who is going to appeal to the moderate GOP converts we're going to see a lot of. Hillary is not that person. And, it would be preferable to have someone who wasn't all gung-ho about "getting Saddam", as the American people is going to be mighty sick of war by 2008 and realize what a mistake that was (the majority already does). Hillary's credibility isn't all that high in that respect.

Finally, America has been ruled by the Bush-Clinton family since 1981 (Barbara recently called Bill her "son", so I don't think it's too far fetched to talk about the Bush-Clinton family). Oligarchy is never good for any nation.

[DemBeans]

82. yes, I saw her AIPAC speech

Pandering, warmongering, everything I don't want to see in our '08 candidate.

I respect Hillary as a person. What I fear - and the reason I think the media is pushing so hard for her - is that the occupation will still be in full force in '08, and someone like Hillary will completely shear off the left wing of the party. Granted, that didn't happen with Kerry, but the ABB forces were stronger, plus I think there was trust there (I certainly had it) that Kerry didn't support endless occupation and would have changed course. I don't get any such feeling from Hillary.

Situations may change, and I might feel more supportive of her as the primary season approaches, but if I had to decide today she wouldn't be at the top of my list.

[Gyre]

124. 'Hillary will completely shear off the left wing of the party.'

I agree. To me she's like a slightly more photogenic Lieberman.

Gyre

[Protagoras]

79. I like Hillary...I just think she's become such a polarizing

figure that it's not our best strategic move to vote for her. I like Hillary but she isn't my ideal progressive. I like Hillary but I like Barbara Boxer more.

I like Hillary but I want to LOVE my candidate...and I want them to have enough appeal that they can win.

If Hillary wins I'd be happy.

But I'll be more CONFIDENT during the election if we have someone else run for us. Boxer/Obama sounds really good to me :D But it's waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay too early to pick horses.

Hillary may suprise me in the next couple years and move up in my rankings.

[realFedUp]

80. She's smart, well-informed, funny, and she has my vote

I don't know why women still have to leap over
higher bars to place first...if men like DeLay,
Santorum, Lott et al can be elected...the bar
can't be that high.

let's not forget who is squatting in the WH
right now either.

Hillary has ten times the character and integrity
of the current pResident. I think it would also
take the strength of both Clintons to clean up
the catastrophes left behind by this administration.

[eeyore]

83. I really don't like the idea of political legacy families...

I don't like the idea of her running for President a whole lot more than I like the idea of Jeb Bush running. I grant her the fact that she's a very smart person, but she's really where she is due to nepotism. That doesn't fly with me.

Strategically, I think she's a disaster of a pick. My wife works with conservative cops, and one of them once told her, in all seriousness, that he'd sooner vote for Hitler than Hillary. The fact is that she may be the second most hated politician in the country, next to * of course. The right hates her as much as we hate *.

She's not qualified, I don't like her controversy, and we can do much, much better.

[SmokingJacket]

87. "People" do like her.

Not all people, but who's liked by everyone?

Considering the short length of her political career, I think she's doing pretty well.

[Cleita]

89. The only problem with Hillary is that she was the victim

of the first character assassination attack from the RW. She even said it herself, that it was the vast right wing conspiracy behind much of the unsavory gossip spread about her and Bill. Like good little freepers the "liberal" MSM picked that up, made fun of her, and trashed her from coast to coast and all through Clinton's administration.

Even when Bill's affair with Monica was made excruciatingly public, they wouldn't leave her alone criticizing her for not divorcing him. This is where it started and it's become almost a cult around a certain element to trash Hillary every chance they get.

I certainly would rather have Barbara Boxer as our first woman President, but I don't think Hillary has deserved all the bad press she has been attacked with over the years.

[CTyankee]

96. Boxer is the new Hillary

for the RWers. My mechanic was telling me how terrible Boxer is and how he would vote for Hillary before Boxer. I'm sure he's getting a steady supply of RW kool aid to that effect. This guy aint the most brilliant politically and CT is pretty far from CA, so I don't think he's getting his "info" from watching Boxer on the Senate hearings on CSPAN.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

99. Hillary is a mixed blessing

On the one hand, she's definitely smart and capable.

On the other hand, she's too willing to compromise and cave in when dealing with Republicans. Like her husband, she doesn't seem to have a core of immovable principles.

We need someone who is as tough as the Republicans are in advocating their positions, and HIllary just isn't that way.

[RBHam]

100. Because she's a wolf in sheep's clothing...

If a woman as intelligent as her is going along with this fake War Of Terror - well....

Not to mention, her friendship with so many Neo-Con wives...

From "Inside The Christian Mafia" by Wayne Marsden:

One of the more interesting affiliates of the Fellowship is Senator and former First Lady Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY). A former “Goldwater Girl” in the 1964 presidential campaign, Mrs. Clinton seemed to have partially recovered some of her earlier conservative underpinnings. According to her autobiography, Living History, after her husband became president, Clinton paid a visit to a women’s meeting at the Cedars on February 24, 1993. Present were Susan Baker (wife of the first Bush’s Secretary of State, James Baker III), Grace Nelson (wife of Florida’s Bill Nelson), Joanne Kemp (wife of former HUD Secretary Jack Kemp), Linda LeSourd Lader (wife of Clinton ambassador to Britain and founder of the Renaissance Weekend Phil Lader – the Renaissance Weekend in Charleston, South Carolina is billed by Lader as a “spiritual” event<3>), and Holly Leachman of the Falls Church Episcopal Church (one of the churches taken over by the Fellowship). Leachman and her husband Jerry had been involved in 1997 with a Cleveland, Ohio Fellowship adjunct called the Family Forum. The Leachmans were interviewed by ABC’s Nightline on February 25, 2004. They extolled the virtues of Mel Gibson’s controversial film, The Passion of the Christ, along with other evangelicals, including some Jewish converts to Christianity.

Senator Clinton admits to having a continuing close relationship with Susan Baker, through Baker’s visits to Capitol Hill and the letters she and other Fellowship wives wrote her during the impeachment proceedings against President Clinton. Even Bill Clinton seemed to have been taken in by the Fellowship. In his autobiography, My Life, Clinton brags that he never missed a National Prayer Breakfast. In his autobiography, Bill Clinton erroneously writes that it was not until 2000 that Coe invited the first Jew, Senator Joseph Lieberman (D-CT), to speak at the breakfast. However, New York Mayor Ed Koch spoke at the National Prayer Breakfast in 1981 Senator Jacob Javits in 1984, and Arthur Burns in 1986.

Ironically, it was Susan Baker’s husband who served as the political fix-it man for Clinton’s Vice President Al Gore in delivering Florida’s 25 electoral votes to George W. Bush in 2000, costing Gore the White House. In fact, Senator Clinton wrote that all of her relationships with the Fellowship began with the luncheon she attended in 1993. In her biography, Senator Clinton writes of Douglas Coe, “ is a genuinely loving spiritual mentor . . . Doug Coe became a source of strength and friendship.” Of course, Clinton is referring to the period of time when her husband was being harassed by conservative Republicans out for blood – the Whitewater investigation and impeachment hearings brought about by what she called the “vast right-wing conspiracy” against her husband. It is amazing that Mrs. Clinton would have established such a trusting relationship with people who were the “vast right-wing conspiracy” that she complained about so vociferously.

more...
http://www.insider-magazine.com/ChristianMafia.htm

[CTyankee]

127. I'm not sure what this quote accuses Hillary of

I read her book where she talked about a prayer group that she belonged to and made reference to its members. She is a Methodist and has never hidden that fact. She taught Sunday School. She is a Christian. I don't know what common ground she found with Susan Baker but she certainly hasn't withheld that information.

Folks, this is guilt by association, pure and simple. I cannot find any empirical evidence that she has schemed with the RW Christians on anything. In fact, many of them (I can't say all because I don't know about all of them)detest her and what she stands for.

It's one thing to oppose her votes on the war and the bankruptcy bill. It's another to smear her with innuendo and insinuation without showing any sinister result. Her votes are solid evidence. This stuff is propaganda of the worst kind.

[ComerPerro]

111. Could have something to do with over 12 years of propaganda

directed against the Clintons

[yodermon]

112. BECAUSE SHE MAKE STATEMENTS LIKE THIS:

Hillary Clinton on CNN:"You know, I am not one who feels comfortable setting exit strategies. We don't know what we're exiting from. We don't know what the situation is moving toward…. How do we know where we're headed, when we don't know where we are?"

:wtf:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/theblog/archive/arianna-huffington/hillarys-exit-strategy-_1703.html

[katinmn]

114. ARRGGGHHH!!

:grr: Are you sure that isn't a Bush quote?

[UdoKier]

116. Right-wingers hate her because she's a bit coarse...

...and doesn''t behave in the Junior-League, Stepford, shellacked and over-made-up way that GOP women are expected to. The fact that she is fairly conservative and a former Goldwater Girl only makes them resent her more (unless they are among the dittoheads that have bought into the false notion that she's a socialist and 'feminazi'


People on the left (myself included) dislike her for her right-wing tendencies, support for the war and corporate giveaways like HillaryCare.

Are there enough non-misogynistic center-right folks that would vote for her? Beats me.

I could not in good conscience support her nomination, but I might vote for her in a general election, just to spite the right-wingers who hate her for the stupidest phony reasons (she's a lesbo who killed her lover Vince Foster, etc.)

[amandabeech]

117. By "Junior-League, Stepford, shellacked and over-made-up,"

are you talking about Liddy Dole, Kay Bailey Hutchison, and of course, everyone's favorite, Katharine Harris?

[UdoKier]

118. Don't forget Pickles.

She's not as bad as some with the shellack, but the frozen smile and fake Southern Graciousness are Junior League to a T.

[shanti]

119. it's not that i don't like her

i don't TRUST her. i hope she doesn't run, cause she ain't getting my vote.

[CalebHayes]

121. From what I see, thats a myth. Just another one the right pull out their

If you were to take a poll right now of Americans she would be the next president if she chose to run.

[Fescue4u]

122. She was ALREADY a fantastic president for 8 years

Well copresident anyway.

She deserves another 8 years in the opposite copresident spot.

Im starting to think that only the Clintons can save this wreck of a nation that Bush has created.

[mtnsnake]

128. Many here don't like her because she's not an extremist

It doesn't matter if she just might be the best all-around candidate. If she doesn't match up perfectly to each and every particular personal ideal, then she's simply "too divisive", or that's the excuse you'll always hear. Or "she voted for the war" so she's useless. Gimme an effin break. One "mistake" for voting to allow a war that almost everyone voted for, due to a corrupt president's lies about WMDs, should not be reason enough to crucify her and throw her onto the junk heap.

In reality, she's way too centrist for so many people, including the right wing nutjobs who fear her as their biggest threat to win the presidency from them.

[Telly Savalas]

132. Opposing the invasion and occupation of Iraq doesn't make one an extremist

Over half of the Democratic Caucus voted against the IWR:

*In the Senate 22 of the 50 Democrats voted against it. (link)

*In the House 126 of 208 Democrats voted against it. (link)

I don't demand ideological purity, but I think a candidate's position on Iraq is a pretty good litmus test. Support of the IWR by a Democrat either demonstrates poor judgement, too much reliance on polls to determine positions to back, or both. This war is the biggest U.S. policy disaster in the last couple of decades, so anybody who supported it and refuses to change their stance on it does deserve to be thrown into the junk heap.

Like most of the Democrats here who aren't Rodham-Clinton fans, I'd vote for her if she got the nomination, but I firmly believe we can do much better than her.