What Are Your Real Fears About Hillary Clinton?

[ruggerson]

I'll be honest. I don't get the caterwauling.

Here is a woman who will

*work for universal health care
*a fairer tax system
*strengthening our public schools
*preserving the right of choice
*negotiate with foreign countries instead of attacking them
*advance science over religion - responsible stem cell research
*act as an ardent conservationist
*work to end global warming
*appoint supreme court judges who believe in equality and the little guy vs the government

Here is a Democrat who in 2006 received a 95% and in 2005 a 100% score from the ADA.

Myself, I prefer John Edwards and Barack Obama. But those are purely political considerations - I am not yet convinced that Hillary has the political and communication skills to pull this off. Even her announcement to me seems stiff, distant and overly coached, at a time when many of us are thirsting for authenticity and connection.

But politically, I'm right on board with her. She's about as "Republican-lite" as Eleanor Roosevelt. Those of you who pretend that she is too conservative truly do not have a factual leg to stand on. This is a woman, who if elected, will govern the country from a solidly left of center perspective and will push a progressive agenda as far as the country will allow her to.

[bonito]

1. WAR. n/t

[pocoloco]

3. War and she will lose!

[XemaSab]

2. Attempting "triangulation" with our political and cultural enemies

n/t

[applegrove]

4. It is the political I worry about with Clinton. Like you said..can she beat

a McCain? Keeping in mind that the conservative base is 35% and the far left base is 20%..can she win over the majority of the middle people? I don't know. I will have to see more of her to decide if she can win. All I want is a Dem President in 08. That is all that matters to me.

[RaleighNCDUer]

12. What far left base?

There is no far left in this country. There is nothing about that list of items that even suggests the far left.

[applegrove]

32. I'm not suggesting the list is far left. I'm saying the 100% lefties are only

20 something % of the political spectrum. The rest ...50 % are moderates. Some of whom used to admire McCain as a straight shooter. Hopefully his surge behavior will tank him in the polls. But I want to win in 2008. That is all. And moderates are where it is at. Not that she isn't one. But that group has a funny way of becoming Reagan democrats and nascar dads or soccer moms ore the years. Americans do vote on personality and security. I don't know, and we will not know until the debate begins..who has the best leadership skills that will translate into moderate voters turning out in droves for the Dems.

[demosincebirth]

35. Where have you been?

[SeveneightyWhoa]

25. There's no reason to worry about her beating "a McCain".

The Republicans won't run "a McCain", because the won't nominate him.

You've got to remember that this is the same squad of nutjobs that nominated Bush; they think McCain and Giuliani are too liberal. No way they'll win.

I'm pretty sure Hillary can beat a Brownback or Romney type.

[generaldemocrat]

5. I fear more wars....

I fear the fact that she will be so desperate to pander to right-wingers that she will start a war just to "look tough".

[sandnsea]

6. Where's your evidence?

You think she'll tackle real change in health care after her Hillarycare fiasco? Not in the first four years she won't. You think she'll work for the little guy on the economy? She voted for the bankruptcy bill and I haven't seen her take any kind of lead on our trade agreements. The environment? Did she take the lead on ANWR or any other environmental issue? No. She supported invading Iraq so I don't get where you think she'll be that much more diplomatic than Bush. Choice? I guess you missed some of her more eyebrow raising comments in that regard, as well as Bill's recommendation that Democrats bash gays to get votes.

That's what the caterwauling is about.

[OhioChick]

7. War, as well as her stance on outsourcing.

Hillary clears outsourcing air

Hillary Clinton made it apparent where she stood on outsourcing during her India visit, in an attempt perhaps to clear the Indian misgivings received during the Kerry campaign. "There is no way to legislate against reality. Outsourcing will continue," she told an audience of Indian big-wigs. She pointed out that there were 3 billion people who feel left behind and are trying to attack the modern world in the hope of turning the clock back on globalization. "It is not far-fetched to imagine ... if the Indian miracle would be the one of choice of those who feel left behind," said Hillary.

Hillary has been at the forefront in defending free trade and outsourcing. During the height of the anti-outsourcing backlash in the US last year, she faced considerable flak for defending Indian software giant Tata Consultancy Services (TCS) for opening a center in Buffalo, New York. "We are not against all outsourcing; we are not in favor of putting up fences," Hillary said firmly, despite inevitably invoking the ire of the anti-free trade brigade.

Hillary further clarified her position during her recent visit as well as solutions that could be beneficial to both countries. She urged Indian industries to invest more in the US to allay negative outpourings over outsourcing of American jobs to India. "I have to be frank. People in my country are losing their jobs and the US policymakers need to address this issue," she said. She ruled out that the anti-India feeling was a reflexive reaction, and explained that the feeling was more because of the imbalance in trade between the two countries, which in turn caused anguish among Americans about the nature of the economic relationship.

"In 2003, US merchandise exports to India was $5 billion, while India exports to the US was $13.8 billion. Though the US understood that the economic vibrancy of India was in its own interest, there are people who feel left behind and might stir up negative feelings against India because they do not understand the economic benefits of outsourcing," Clinton remarked.


http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/GC01Df03.html

[Solon]

48. This is my biggest problem with so called "moderate" candidates...

"Free Traders" and their ilk are a huge problem, we do not need any more of these "economic benefits" I don't think we can survive on them for much longer.

[w4rma]

61. Agreed. (nt)

[vote 4 democracy]

8. Too many connections to the Rupert Murdochs of the world.

She voted for IWR. She won't win anyway, though I would love to see a woman win, she's not the one.

[SaveElmer]

9. I have none...

I think she will be a very strong candidate, and has the potential to be a top notch President!!!

[Name removed]

10. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Jim Sagle]

14. David Duke, is that you?

[patricia92243]

11. My fear is that the Republican press will/does smear her so badly that even Democrats are brainwashe

brainwashed. The very best example of this is here at DU.

The brainwashing of the masses by the neo-cons is her biggest hurdle.

[LostInAnomie]

13. Two fears

1. Although I loved Bill, my major beef with him it that he was a powerful facilitator for globalization. I am afraid that she will continue that trend. Globalization can only go so far before the consequences for the Democratic Party's base (working people) become dire.

2. I'm afraid that 50.1 percent of the country won't vote for her.

[tideroller52]

15. Hillary fears

I am in the same boat as you. I am not anti-Hillary. I just feel that my views are closer to John Edwards' views. Also, I feel he is a more motivational speaker and would carry more of the swing vote from independents and Republicans.

I volunteered for John Edwards in 2004. I check him out extensively before committing my support and hope to see him heading the ticket for 2008.

GO JOHN!

:patriot:

[More Than A Feeling]

16. She gives me the sense that she plays more towards big donors.

Does she think that having connections to big donors and the best consultants money can buy is enough to win? I suspect that she might, or else she would have been appealing to the activists in the base, including online activists more. I know all our candidates have to participate in the money chase, but I have seen much more of an effort from Obama and Edwards to appeal to internet-connected activists. Someone who doesn't want to change the primacy of money in politics would be going in the opposite direction that I want the country to go in.

[Prophet 451]

17. Three problems

Two personal, one practical:
Personal 1: I think she may be too much in favour of globalisation which inevitibly works against any nation that has laws requiring decent wages. Any corporation that can get away with employing Betty Suarez for fifty cents a day is going to do so. Granted, there's a limit to which that can be stopped but I'd like to see someone at least try.
Personal 2: I haven't quite forgiven her for some bloody silly and ill-considered remarks on violent video games.

Practical: She was so slimed during Bill's presidency and the right-wing loathe her with such murderous passion that firstly, I doubt her ability to be elected and secondly, I would honestly worry about her well-being if she were.

[Maccagirl]

24. You are so spot-on

Especially the practical. I refuse to go through that emotional battering 24/7 again. The "Right" has not been defeated and no one energizes them more than HRC.

[Prophet 451]

92. Also,

With the best will in the world, she doesn't have Bill's likeability, charisma or gravitas.

The irony is that Hillary is probably well-suited to several other positions (I think she'd make a bloody good AG, for example), just not president.

[generaldemocrat]

18. Question: Do you want a war with Iran?

If your answer is "no", then Hillary is the last candidate you should be voting for in this race.

Make no mistake about, the neocons and the War, Inc. crowd will attempt to reconstitute themselves under the umbrella of a Clinton presidency.

[montanacowboy]

22. Political animal

born and raised Repuke; loves outsourcing; loves free trade; loves WAR; and I could go on and on

just her voice is like fingernails on a blackboard; one of the Worst public speakers I have ever heard, drolling monotone; harsh, pandering to the right

She is not a winner and I am sick and tired of Bush, Clinton, Bush, Clinton

[More Than A Feeling]

23. Oh, come on, you know you can't wait to vote for Chelsea

when she runs against Jeb's son George P. Bush! ;)

[SeveneightyWhoa]

27. LOL.

Do you have anything to back this up, other than the enormous gravitas of your 110-strong post-count?

I don't recall America attacking Iraq under 8 years of Hillary's husband's leadership, much of it spent being hounded by these same neo-cons.

Now Hillary's going to buy into their garbage after seeing how worthless it is (after the Iraq disaster)?

[SOS]

51. Clinton folded to the neocons in 1998

He bombed the hell out of Iraq for months on end.
Operation Desert Fox.
Thousands of sorties, 450 targets destroyed.
All at the urging of two idiots named MCCain and Lieberman, authors of the 1998 Iraq Liberation Act.

[generaldemocrat]

65. AIPAC will endorse Hillary. n/t

[generaldemocrat]

19. Question: Do you want a war with Iran?

If your answer is "no", then Hillary is the last candidate you should be voting for in this race.

[IntravenousDemilo]

20. It's the establishment of political family dynasties that's worrisome.

No more Clintons, no more Bushes, no more presidents who've been related to other presidents. Let someone from another family have a go at it. There oughtta be a law...

Didn't you guys have a revolution to get rid of the monarchy and aristocracy? And how long did it take before the aristocratic rot set in afterwards? I guess it was when John Quincy Adams became President. And you've had two Harrisons (related) in the White House, and two Roosevelts. At least here in the Great White North we're a little more upfront and honest about our monarchy.

Other than that, though, I don't think she's unqualified, and I'll bet she's a genuinely nice, well-meaning person (if a little right-wing for my taste).

If only she hadn't been married to Bubba...

[Prophet 451]

91. We don't give our monarchs much actual power either n/t

[HughBeaumont]

21. Her pro-corporatist/pro-offshoring stance, for one

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=1938656#1938656

Oh yeah, and she also voted yes to IWR. Faulty intelligence or not, even considering attacking a nation that posed NO THREAT to us, destroying their nation and hanging their captive former leader is morally reprehensible.

[Mythsaje]

26. Depends on if you equate corporatist with RW...

A lot of people do. She's a big "free" trade supporter, and will not do anything to protect Americans from the economic disaster of outsourcing. This practice benefits the corporations, but undermines American solvency.

I also don't think she'd lead the charge to ferret out the truth of what went on behind the scenes for the past several years. She doesn't seem to have a problem with the War, other than the way it was conducted, which bothers me on several levels. She's more concerned with Grand Theft Auto than Grand Theft America.

I would dearly love to see a strong, capable, honest female candidate for President. I don't think Hillary's it.

[Blue_In_AK]

53. Yes, I fear she might pull a "Jerry Ford,"

and pardon ** and his minions in an effort to "heal the nation."

[Ignacio Upton]

28. That she'll triangulate her way to killing our party

Like Bill, she will let our party's name-brand wither on the grape-vine.

[ripple]

29. I think fear is the wrong word

I like Hillary and I have a great deal of respect for her determination and political savvy.

I do, however, have some serious concerns about how she is perceived by the voters. She is both well-loved and well-hated (even by some democrats). There doesn't seem to be a whole lot of in-between, which means that her support is unlikely to widen. I worry that if she gets the nod, she will lose in the general election.

Even if she manages to squeze out a victory, I have no doubt that our nation will continue to be as polarized as it is now, perhapes even more so. This polarization could potentially translate into another congressional upheaval.

I feel like at this time in history, we need a truly progressive populist to move our nation forward. To me, Hillary offers only a return to the moderate stances of the Clinton administration. That brings me to another point, and one that I've seen brought up elsewhere on DU: I don't wish to see one family, no matter the party, controlling out nation's highest officce for 12-16 years. Power corrupts and as we've seen over the course of time, neither party is immune from that.

Again, although she isn't as progressive as I would like, I do like Hillary as a person and as a Senator. I'm not fearful of her candidacy, however I do have some significant concerns about how a Hillary nomination could impact what our nation looks like in 2009.

[AndyTiedye]

30. Her Negatives Are Too High. She CANNOT Be Elected. Supporting the WAR Doesn't Exactly Help Either

[Eurobabe]

59. Do you believe these silly polls? Why not let the

people decide in the primaries whether she is electable or not.

[HughBeaumont]

31. Actually, here's a better post that sums it up -

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=364&topic_id=2960236#2960497

[crispini]

33. She fails to inspire.

I know she's got a pretty decent voting record, but she completely, utterly fails to connect with people and to convey that she will be an inspiring, worthy leader.

That's what we need in our candidate, IMO. I'll vote for if she gets the nom, and she may well do so, but I just don't think she's got what it takes to pull people to the polls. Much like yourself in that respect.

LOL! I'm sorry. Edited to add: I think I have the same opinion as you do. :rofl: I am so sorry, after I got your PM I had to read what I wrote four times before I caught the personal attack. That's not what I meant, I meant to say something like "I think I am thinking much like yourself in that respect"

[ruggerson]

36. lol

I thought you were dissing my vote getting abilities. :)

[ccpup]

34. I don't get it either.

One thing I have realized during my time on DU is that the one thing we Democrats are really, really good at is eating our own and bitching about everything and anything non-stop. Oh well.

[fooj]

37. Bush...Clinton...Bush...and possibly Clinton...

I'm not comfortable with our government and our White House being tossed back and forth for over 20 years between these two families...

[election_2004]

38. To answer your question....

My fear about a Hillary Clinton presidency is that it will revitalize the wingnut base of the Republican Party like no other Democratic president could, and it will lead to a surge of Republican congressional victories who win by baiting Democrats into comparing themselves to Hillary.

My fear is that it will be "ALL HILLARY, ALL CLINTON-MANIA, ALL THE TIME" in the media for the next 4-8 years (because it serves the corporate media's interests to perpetuate a bitter divide among Americans for as long as possible), and that will distract America away from the real issues.

That by 2010, the Republicans will have taken back the House and Senate by chipping away at a slim Dem majority by running ultraconservative candidates in conservative-leaning districts, using LIBRUL HILLARY as a red herring to accomplish that. And it will work. That's just too many judicial nominees that the wingnuts won't be able to resist blocking.

Oh, and that any criticism of President Hillary Clinton during her administration, if she makes mistakes or misjudgment, will be written off as "misogyny." The Hillaristas will defend their queen no matter what she says or does (and make excuses, if things go wrong), and demonize ANYONE who objects to any of her decisions.

[jen4clark]

39. My real fear

is that I do not trust anyone that corporate press pushes. They have already declared her the "front runner" -- will we have a choice? I DO NOT trust corporate press to get behind anyone they think could beat a Repub.

[DuaneBidoux]

40. My biggest fear is that she CANNOT win.

I think she is a great candidate and except for the war issue I think she is a great Dem. But I simply do not believe she can win.

[elizm]

42. DITTO...My very first thought!

That was my very first thought.

[Zorra]

49. Me, too. n/t

[randr]

41. She may be more interested in being the first woman to run for the office.

I had read a statement of hers a few months back, can't remember where, that seemed to indicate she viewed the historical significance of the first woman to run as equal to winning.
IMHO, as much as I would love to live in a country with HRC as president, I do not believe we can afford the luxury of "history" over the dire need to remove the cancer from our nation.

[The Backlash Cometh]

62. First woman to run for the office of president? Shirley, you jest?

Shirley Chisholm, to be exact.

"On January 23, 1972, she became the first African American to make a bid to be President of the United States. "


Actually, that's in my lifetime. She was only the first African American to run for the office. The first woman put a bid in one hundred years earlier:

"The campaign to elect women to the U.S. presidency began over 130 years ago when Victoria Claflin Woodhull pronounced herself a candidate for U.S. president in the 1872 election, in The New York Herald on April 2, 1870."

[randr]

66. ISC

I meant to say the first woman nominated

[tblue37]

74. Elizabeth Dole and Carol Moseley-Braun are women

who ran for president in 2004. That barrier has already been broken in both parties, and Moseley-Braun is Black, too.

[nebula]

43. She's a DINO, WARMONGER, POLARIZING, DIVISIVE

UNELECATBLE, CORPORATIST.

And it doesn't help that she has the personality and likability of a DOORKNOB.

[marlakay]

44. Tries too hard to please everyone

I don't like any of the candidates when they do that. Even Kerry did that. People respect a leader and that is why they voted for shit face...even a sick leader was a leader...god...I hate him.

Where is the democrat not afraid to stand up for what they believe...thats running...all I see are charming smiley faces.

[Cascadian]

45. Her pandering to the military/industrial complex.

Namely, the war and free trade.


John

[Ninja Jordan]

46. Harm '08 Democrats who're running for Congress in the midwest, south

[Codeblue]

47. Some of the negatives here

I wasn't even aware of. I just didn't like her because she has no charsima whatsoever and can not inspire anybody to vote for her. I would be hard pressed to vote for her anyway even if she does get the nomination simply because of some of the things I've learned about Bill since he left office.

Life was better under him no doubt, and there was less violence in the world, but some of the things he signed are just...wrong. They both have very similar political leanings. Plus, some of these new negatives brought up here need to be addressed.

Also, she seems really apathetic about everything. Could just be her lack of charm in public speaking, but yeah...really uncaring. Also, she SAYS she'll do all of those great things listed in the OP, but what she'll really do is another question. i can't see her doing much of it.

[mtnsnake]

50. If she becomes president, I have no fears. It's her getting there that worries me.

I would have all the confidence in the world that she'd make us all happy if she was president. As a president, I think she'd even move more toward the left of center than what people here think she would. That's what has conservatives so worried about her. They think that once she's in, she's gonna turn the entire country into a bunch of pot smoking hippies or something, lol.

Excellent post, ruggerson, and recommended.

[Alhena]

52. She just doesn't seem presidential to me

when I watched her video performance today I thought "nice woman, but I don't look at her and think 'she needs to be president.'" It looked like she was trying to play the role of everybody's favorite aunt. Which is fine, but it doesn't really come across as presidential to me.

[Redneck Socialist]

54. One: She Won't Win

and Two: If by some miracle she does, she'll triangulate the party back into oblivion.

[Katina]

55. in a word...triangulation

stop bullshiting people and say what you really believe, not what the polls tell you are expedient just to get elected.

[solinvictus]

56. Three issues...

1) She waffles. The woman seems that she wouldn't order breakfast without checking the political consequences of her menu choices.
2) She's been consistently in favor of limiting the Second Amendment rights of individual Americans since she was 1st Lady.
3) She used to carry a water bucket for Wal*Mart and I can't help but believe she's still going to favor corporations and continue to export American jobs through globalization. Remember, Wally Whirled used to be "Buy American" until legislators opened up China's labor pool to them. Now Wal*Mart is feeding the Red Chinese military-industrial complex that we'll be forced to fight, not to mention the ethical issues of slave labor.

[hansberrym]

57. That she may be little different than a Neocon.

The Neocons have been disastrous for the country and we need to move as far away from their agenda as possible.


work for universal health care

I would be much more comfortable with a candidate who would fix the social programs/entitlement programs that are in place right now before launching yet another program.


*a fairer tax system

Yes, that would be very welcome, but I just don't see her sticking it to the corporations and the fat cats. Her universal health care proposals early in her husband's presidency stuck the burden on the middle class.


*strengthening our public schools
*preserving the right of choice

The president has little to do with either(except maybe choice, in that she would get to nominate judges)

*negotiate with foreign countries instead of attacking them

However she did support the IWR


appoint supreme court judges who believe in equality and the little guy vs the government

I want to believe that the next president, whether Hillary or someone else, will do this. However the Kelo decision and the Medical Marijuana decision demonstrate that the little guy has very few people in his corner. The so-called liberals on the supreme court showed themselves to be friends of power as opposed to standing up for the little guy.

[Imagevision]

58. Has Bill Clinton secured any support for Hillary via George H.W Bush??

[The Backlash Cometh]

60. I fear, that she will ultimately sell us out to the pro-Israeli lobby and the

Wall Street moneybags that keep New Yorkers enjoying a style of life that most of us associate with arrogance and greed, and which has also proven to periodically wipe out our savings and investments.

You asked, and I gave you an honest answer. So please don't block me as punishment. If you didn't want to know the truth, you shouldn't have posted.

[lostnotforgotten]

63. I Don't Trust Anyone That Votes For War!

Is that simple enough to understand?

[Phrogman]

64. She's an insincere self-serving, con-artist.

but Bill promised her the Dem nomination for not leaving him, and she's going to get it.

[woo me with science]

67. She will eat my babies. nt

[Strathos]

68. My only real fear

Is that she'll cave in to the right and not be strong enough and fight for us

[farmbo]

69. When she responded to fake RW "outrage" over Kerry's 'botched joke'...

You'll recall that Kerry initially explained himself, to the satisfaction of any and all normal-thinking Americans, and the only people left who were pushing the "Kerry hates the troops" meme were the Right Wing sound machine... and, of course, Hillary. She apparently saw an opportunity to pander to the right while at the same time, kicking Kerry out of the 2008 race. She signed on to the "Kerry should apologize" message of the Right Wing sound machine. The Right thereby had its goofy talking point placed in a guilded framed by Ms Democrat herself. Kerry-- and by extension the Democratic party nationally-- had to 'apologize' and the story stayed on the front pages for a week longer.

This little episode, more than anything else she's done lately, shows that she lacks the integrity I would look for in our standard bearer.

Add this to her utter lack of leadership revealed in her senate voting record, and she gets my "Joementem Award" for 2008.

[Hepburn]

70. She is too divisive....

....and a lot of Dems will desert the party because of her and a lot of Independents will vote Repub. Look what is running on the other side? OMG ~~ that is a SCARY bunch of people.

The Dems in 2008 have a great shot at getting the WH back. If Hillary runs, this will NEVER happen and with what Repubs are running so far? We could have Junior, Part II. And the new Dems who got in in 2006? They need someone at the head of the ticket to bring them home again ~~ Hillary cannot do this because she is too divisive.

It's not her policies that I see as a problem ~~ it is her divisiveness. IMO, we have to be smart in 2008 or it is gonna look like 2000 and 2004 all over again with a Repub in the WH and a Repub controlled Congress. We have a shot ~~ let's not blow it.

JMHO

Edit for typo

[baldguy]

71. That she'll win.

She'll probably be able to do all those wonderful things, and more - but her election will reinvigorate the American Taliban and the fascist wing if the GOP, and being a pragmatic DLCer she'll continue and expand the ME War the she'll have inherited.

Political cartoonists will make Hillary look like LBJ more and more.

[tblue37]

72. My fear is that she will cost us the 2008 election, which we otherwise

actually have a good chance of winning. Her negatives are through the roof, even among Democrats. In a media environment that allowed Boy Scout Al Gore to be smeared as a liar while W got a pass on his lies and crimes, and that smeared Kerry as a traitor and coward while W got a pass on his AWOL history, Clinton's actual stances will not get through to the majority of the voting public. In the first place, they have already made up their minds about her, and people don't like to change their minds. In the second place, she has been a media target for a very long time (which is why most people have their minds made up about her), and she will continue to be a media target.

Al Gore has the same problem. And because the media were so complicit in smearing him, just as with Hillary, they will make sure to validate their past smears with more smears. Notice that the outright lies told about him in 2000 are still trotted out by everyone in the media--and even by people who like Gore.

My other problem with Hillary is that she wants the presidency sooooooo bad that she triangulates herself away from all those Eleanor Roosevelt stances you mention. Do you think she would even dare touch universal healthcare again? She was too scared to even come out against the Iraq war until very recently, and her change is so obviously tied to her poltiical ambition and the threat that Obama poses that no one believes her--even among those who like her.

I think that this is not the election where we want to put forth someone the public sees as willing to say anything to get elected, and who was willing to support the war not because she thought it was right, but because she thought not doing so might interfere with her getting to be president. Frankly, I don't think she gets past the primaries anyway. Her position in the polls is name recognition--as was Lieberman's at the start of the 2000 primaries.

Also, I don't like that she sends her loyal troops, like Carville and Rahm Emmanuel, out to trash Dean, the person whose efforts and courage have done so much to position us to take advantage of the Republican implosion. She is too much about wanting to be the first female president and not enough about what is good for the Democratic Party or for the country. (To be honest, I am actually hoping Cheney and Bush get impeached and Nancy ends up as the first female president, in which case, she should be our candidate in 2008.)

Hillary should do what Ted Kennedy did when his presidential ambitions were shot down. He concentrated on his senate career and ended up becoming one of history's greatest senators. Chasing the presidency is an ego trip for people who want to be center stage, surrounded by pomp and circumstance. The legislative branch is supposed to be co-equal, and if we had enough good people in the legislature we would not be in this mess. The fact that Obama so clearly sees the senate not as a job but as a stepping stone for satisfying his ambitions also bothers me.

I want to see Clark at the top of our ticket. Edwards, Dean, or Kucinich would be a nice VP choice--or even Obama.

[mod mom]

73. Her allegiance to the corporations including the Military Industrial Complex!

[Miss Chybil]

75. I think a lot of people are afraid of what the fundies think of her.

Like that's the way to choose a candidate. They pick up Limbaugh's talking points and amplify them, for free. I like Hillary, but I'm waiting to see what all of OUR candidates have to say before I make my final choice. Two years... a lot can happen between now and then. We have some really good people to choose from, so far.

[Tellurian]

77. Good points...all!

So easy to tell what cable media posters watch as reflected in their talking points posts.

In my opinion, they are not real Democrats. They are the people who sit on
the sidelines watching the fight, cheering, as if they're watching WFW..

To sum up the negativity posted here..
One wonders just how lazy or unable to think for themselves are these people.

Great post, Ruggerson.

Is that you Ruggy from TT?

[More Than A Feeling]

80. So you don't like that people have these opinions about Hillary.

It's fine that you disagree, but why must you accuse those of us who have posted of bad faith? You don't offer any evidence of it, other than our disagreement with you. To win, Senator Clinton will need to change our minds. If this is your reaction to those opinions, you aren't doing her any favors.

[Tellurian]

89. Uh...my response was to post #75

You mean to tell me your understanding of my post here :

"So easy to tell what cable media posters watch as reflected in their talking points posts.
In my opinion, they are not real Democrats. They are the people who sit on
the sidelines watching the fight, cheering, as if they're watching WFW..
To sum up the negativity posted here..

One wonders just how lazy or unable to think for themselves are these people.

Is this:

It's fine that you disagree, but why must you accuse those of us who have posted of bad faith? You don't offer any evidence of it, other than our disagreement with you. To win, Senator Clinton will need to change our minds. If this is your reaction to those opinions, you aren't doing her any favors.

I stated an opinion. You interpreted what I said into a completely distorted ad hoc hypothesis.
You even dragged Chelsea into the fray. (Chelsea's off limits.) What has she ever done to you?


:hi:

[More Than A Feeling]

93. and I noted that your opinion isn't likely to change any hearts or minds.

Are you disputing that your accusation of being fake democrats for having concerns about Hillary was an accusation of bad faith?

Are you disputing that your opinion was little more than unsupported vitriol?

Are you disputing that said opinion isn't going to make anyone think better of Senator Clinton, if her supporters say things like that?

If you aren't disputing any of those things, then I haven't distorted a single thing. Nor was my mention of Chelsea mean-spirited. Or did you also have a problem that I mentioned George P. Bush? If not, then perhaps you would be better served if you saved your outrage for a more appropriate subject and occasion.

[Tellurian]

97. Yes, I'm disputing all your allegations

Your response is nothing more than an esoteric exercise in rhetorical clap-trap.
I don't intend to continue, but who is George P. Bush, a relative of yours?

Are you even aware of the subject of this thread? I didn't think so.

:hi:

[KingFlorez]

84. Right

The fundies will hate any Democrat nominated, it's not as if Hillary is the only one. Trying to pick a candidate based on what they think will not help Democrats win anything.

[here_is_to_hope]

76. She cannot win.

Thats it. Baggage, the war and her support for it. Im not as deep into the politics as most but I dont see her as electable. Are we ready for a woman as president? Yes. Just not Hillary.

[Tellurian]

79. Yep, as someone said upthread..

And I loved it!

The gravitas of your post count..puts you where as the political expert?

:rofl:

[here_is_to_hope]

82. If just a post count

determines what my opinions can be, we are all fucked.

[Tellurian]

88. No, not necessarily so...

Content counts for xtra points.. :hi:

[tinrobot]

78. Too polarizing, too wishy washy on the war.

Bad combintion.

[Faryn Balyncd]

81. What is WRONG with Hillary is what is MISSING form your list of 9 things she "will" do:

Decisive leadership on the BIG ISSUES:

- - - WAR

- - - Constitutional abuses by the Bush administration.


Your list of 9 things she stands for, nice as it is, reads as if it could have been written in 1999.

The closest the list gets to mentioning Iraq is "negotiate with foreign countries instead of attacking them".

This is a wonderful platitude which does not even attempt to address the decisive issues of our time: Extracting our nation from the sucking entanglements created by our invasion, and reversing the policies which the Bush/Cheney regime has attempted to literally cement into our future.

We have had our complete foreign policy hijacked by radical ideologues, and are saddled with profound military commitments out of line with our capabilities and our values. Bush/Cheney have entangled us in wars without end in 2 nations, built billions of dollars worth of permanent bases and a virtual city of an embassy from which to dominate.

Yet Hillary Clinton's alternative for an Iraq "surge" is an Afghanistan "surge".

She remains a HOPELESS TRIANGULATOR when not actively supporting warmongering.

And restoring the abused constitutional processes and civil liberties upon which Bush/Cheney have trampled DID NOT EVEN RATE A MENTION on your list.

Such omissions are symptomatic of Hillary's blind eye to the constitutional crisis now upon us.

Profound principles upon which our democracy depend are under assault, have been institutionally weakened, and Hillary Clinton acts as if it is business as usual.



This is not a time for endless TRIANGULATION.

[skipos]

83. Winning the primary and losing the general election because

50% of voters are already committed to voting against her. There is a reason Republicans want her to be our nominee.

[Faryn Balyncd]

90. And a reason Rupert Murdock supports her financially......

[The Count]

85. She'll continue/start war. Less so than Edwards who already did one and

is itching for the next

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1149572637421&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FPrinter
but any of the people who went along with IWR are likely to cave when pressured by neocons (although, remembering that BILL DIDN'T, Hillary is the less likely of the warmongers to do that, Edwards the most)

[Morgana LaFey]

86. Basically that she's to the right of Eishenhower - pretty far, actually nt

[Jennicut]

87. No real core beliefs

Oh yeah, she believes in one thing: power to the end. And at any cost. I really don't care what she voted for. Its really obvious she wants to WIN soooo badly she will stop at nothing to do it. Think Bushie was evil when it came to his enemies? Hillary is not much better. Any Dem candidate is better than her. Really, what is the difference between her and Rudy? He's pro-choice too, a moderate who was for the Iraq war. For me, she really messed up with Iraq. If she had come out and said she was wrong about Iraq and strongly advocated pulling the troops out then I might hold my nose and consider voting for her. Her refusal to take a strong stand on anything just leaves me cold. Don't get me wrong, we don't need another "I'm the Decider" Georgie Bush who believes everything he does is God's will but we do need someone who is passionate about something. My biggest fear with Hillary: she is uninspiring. I guess I will have to vote for her vs. a Repub but I might have to get drunk first.

[ulysses]

94. that she would govern like her husband.

We can do better.

[salin]

95. the trend towards 'dynasties' - that bushes or clintons run

the fed government for 24 years. Just doesn't seem healthy for a democracy. That said - I will certainly vote for her over any republican.

[tomreedtoon]

96. A large collection of already-sharpened Republican knives.

They were ready for her. They were hoping she'd be the Democratic candidate. They have a slew of issues and attack plans to stop her. And they have a list of slams against her that she can't or won't defend herself against: "Lesbian." "Coward." "Anti-family." "Flip-flop." "Incompetent." "Wife of an adulterer." "Dabbler in health care."

She won't last five minutes. And not simply because of the attacks, but because, like the previous two Democratic candidates, she won't respond or counter-attack. She is as wimpy as the Al Gore of 2000 and John Kerry of 2004.

Eric Cartman of South Park, Colorado, would be a better Democratic candidate than Hillary Clinton. At least he has something he's passionate about; Cheesy Poofs.

[Imagevision]

98. If Hil is elected? - "it will take decades to fix the damage caused by the previous administration -

which will keep her installed for the next 8 years, I would walk a hundred miles to vote for Edwards or Obama!!

[Gloria]

99. Assorted crap such as the following::::::

The past week I've been revisiting the Marc Rich
affair (with Scooter Libby) along with the pardons for votes charges against HRC's first Senate campaign.
What a SORDID mess...and the ties between Bushco and Clintonco seem more and more clear.

It's the same bunch, back again. For example, Beth Dozoretz, Denise Rich's best friend, DNC fundraiser, and FOB along with her husband, still around...and now blogging at the Huff Post on noble topics....Arianna, by the way, was at the soiree described below and she has really cleaned up Dozoretz's biography at the HuffPo:

http://washingtontimes.com/...

Women rule at Kuwait fete
January 8, 2007
Thursday was ladies' day at the Embassy of Kuwait as well as on Capitol Hill. Hours after Nancy Pelosi became the first female speaker of the House, a bipartisan group of six influential women hosted a glitzy dinner to honor Melanne Verveer, co-founder and chairwoman of Vital Voices Global Partnership, whose mission is helping empower women all over the world.
The occasion was about as civil as dinner parties get, bringing together a cross section of Washington society in a decidedly nonpartisan way. The only male speaker was Kuwaiti Ambassador Salem Al-Sabah, introducing special guest Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, who had been sworn in earlier to her second six-year term and who stood patiently at the reception for endless photo ops with Vital Voices' corporate sponsors. (Not surprisingly, given the location, many were oil company reps from the likes of Shell, BP and Exxon.) Mrs. Clinton (along with Texas Republican Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, who was not present) is honorary co-chairwoman of the organization that began when Mrs. Verveer was her White House chief of staff.
There were congratulations and appreciative gestures back and forth all evening: Rima Al-Sabah praised donors and welcomed newly-sworn-in District Mayor Adrian M. Fenty and his wife, Michelle. Anita McBride, chief of staff to first lady Laura Bush, praised her boss's efforts for the cause. Mrs. Verveer thanked Mrs. Al-Sabah -- "a force of nature as everybody here knows" -- and co-chairwomen Beth Dozoretz, Donna McLarty, Debbie Dingell, Marlene Malek and Lilibet Hagel while making sure to acknowledge Hunaina Sultan Ahmed Al Mughairy, "the first woman from Oman to be named an ambassador," who was duly applauded.
Mrs. Verveer lauded Mrs. Clinton for taking "the message about women's full participation in all sectors of society to 70 nations" and, in turn, was hailed by her former boss as someone who is "an extraordinary channel for cooperation across all kinds of boundaries and borders ... she lives it, she breathes it, she feels it." Speaking without notes, Mrs. Clinton also commended the Kuwaitis for "extraordinary support given to the United States during the past years;" referred to Mrs. Bush as someone with "deep commitment on these issues, and certainly in the aftermath of 9/11 and particularly in respect to Afghanistan;" and acknowledged Vital Voices' benefactors whose "understanding about why women's rights are absolutely critical to America's national interest and of the kind of world we want to help build."
Mrs. Clinton's citing of Nebraska Republican Sen. Chuck Hagel for "extraordinary courage in the last year speaking out" drew the loudest applause of the night, with guests interpreting her remark as praise for his public voicing of critical opinions about the U.S. war in Iraq.
Asked later about his reaction to the dinner, Mr. Hagel played it cool in trademark fashion. "It was either this or my bowling league, and I chose this," he said.
Guests included Justices Stephen G. Breyer and Anthony M. Kennedy; former Secretary of State Madeleine K. Albright; former Secretary of Defense William S. Cohen; ABC News correspondent George Stephanopoulos; former Hewlett-Packard chief Carly Fiorina; blogger Arianna Huffington; Motion Picture Association President Daniel Glickman; Frances Townsend, assistant to the president for homeland security and counterterrorism; and New York singer Natalie Toro, who entertained with numbers that included -- what else? -- the feminist anthem "I Am Woman."

More on the Dozoretz friendship: (part of full rundown on gifting/both parties
http://centerforsanity.blogspot.com/...
June 10, 2006
Bill and Hillary Clinton:

"The Washington Post's report that furnishings worth $28,000 that the Clintons are keeping were in fact given to the National Park Service in 1993 to be part of the White House collection. That makes the Clintons look like common thieves. On Monday night, the Clintons blamed their staff, claiming that certain gifts were "improperly catalogued," and promised to give them back.

When the Clintons left Washington, they took with them gifts from two furniture makers who claim they actually had given furnishings to help redecorate the White House—an endeavor that cost $396,000. Among other gifts the Clintons left town with are a kitchen table and four chairs ($3650), a sofa ($2843), lamps ($1170), and a needlepoint rug ($1000). All of these gifts were slated for the redecoration project.

Despite the Clintons' promise to pay for half of the controversial gifts they removed from the White House and the ex-president's assertion that he would use funds from his library project to pay for half of the $650,000 yearly lease for an office on Manhattan's West Side, the fallout from their departure continues to rain down on the capital.

The Washington Post revealed that Clinton had pulled a trick to keep his friend Ronald I. Dozoretz, the health-care magnate, on as a member of the Kennedy Center board. First, Dozoretz, whose term had one year to run, quit the board, and then he was reappointed for a six-year stint by Clinton—a maneuver that raised eyebrows even in Washington's world of small-time socialites. Dozoretz and his wife, Beth, are big Clinton supporters. Last weekend the Clintons announced they would repay $7000—the value of a dining table, server, and golf club, which the Dozoretzes had given them. The Dozoretzes gave about $13,000 to Hillary's Senate campaign, and ponied up $10,000 for the Clinton Legal Defense Fund and $30,000 to Democratic candidates and committees. Beth Dozoretz served as finance chair of the DNC for nine months. Clinton is the godfather of the couple's daughter, and the Dozoretzes have been the Clintons' hosts on Martha's Vineyard."

********
Do we really need this crap again???

[Milo_Bloom]

100. She embraces POLITICS and POWER over PRINCIPLES

I don't think she is conservative or liberal or really believes in any of the issues you listed, unless supporting them is politically advantageous.

In short, she is a spineless politician and nothing more.

[election_2004]

101. But apparently, her supporters feel it's ok in her case...

Because she's a woman, and therefore she's "doing what she needs to" in order to win.