Despite the dislike for her on DU, I think Hillary has a very good chance of winning the nom.

[crispini]

1. She's a good campaigner.
2. She has Bill in her court.
3. She has a lot of money in her court.

And, finally and most importantly, and something that people on here (some, not all) don't seem to understand very well:

The netroots DO NOT have the same opinions as the average Democratic voter.

The netroots skew left.
The netroots skew brainy.
The netroots skew towards political buff / hobbyists types.
The netrooots show a distinct preference for hellraising fire-eater "speak truth to power" candidates.

Are the netroots good at raising money for candidates? Yeah. Are the netroots good at getting activists out? For some candidates, yes, they can get hella boots on the ground -- look at the early Dean campaign. Are the netroots enough to swing it? NO. You still need old-school political skills, organization, and MONEY to win a campaign.

Now, here is my disclaimer: How much has "the netroots collective" (as it were) learned over the last 6 years? I think 2000-2004 showed the birth of the internet as a force in politics, and the game is always changing. (Note that I said "A" force not "THE" force.)

Thoughts?

[Name removed]

1. Deleted message

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

[az chela]

14. Well this is scary

I just told Cindy Sheehan the same exact words in answer to an email she sent me

[blm]

28. IMO, the Bushes won't mind if she wins. They prefer a Dem they KNOW than one

they know is out to expose them.

http://www.consortiumnews.com/2006/111106.html

Is Cindy familiar with Parry's work?

[Fire Walk With Me]

76. Cindy should run. But that would be the Nader problem again...

Can't split votes in 2008.

[Imagevision]

82. Anyone think that Obama having 110% support from Oprah will hurt Hillary??

nah, I guess not??

[AZBlue]

63. In what way is she another W???????

[Mythsaje]

2. I think she's a strong candidate...

I don't care for her, myself, as a candidate, but if she wins the nod, I'll vote for her. Even if we DO have to put up with four to eight more years with a corporatist behind the wheel, at least it won't be a Repug, or someone who's a few beers short of a six-pack. And better yet, it'll be a woman, which will open up the field to other women in the future.

[rodeodance]

39. I agree with what you say=well said.

[ruggerson]

3. Agreed

DU is in no way representative of the average Democratic voter out there. Hillary has far more support in grassroots Democratic country than she does on the net.

[Muddy Waters Guitar]

77. I beg to differ

Most of my Democratic friends are longtime Dem supporters out in the heartland who don't know ROM from a router, let alone have Internet connections. Yet they're the ones most alienated by Hillary Clinton's policies in favor of the Iraq War (and consistently so, for many years) and also irritated at her pro-large company economic stands, which have hit Middle America especially hard.

If anything, I feel like she has more support in DU than out in the country in general. It's the rank-and-file, grass-roots types who are most angry at her. The only shield she's had thus far is name recognition, but when unflattering attention is focused on her war stands and economic policies, her popularity drops like a stone in a flowing river.

[OrangeCountyDemocrat]

4. Al Gore Must Defeat Her

We need someone without so much of a political face right now. We need someone who spent 8 years a heartbeat from the Presidency. We need someone who isn't just a money raising machine for corporate interests.

Re-Elect President Al Gore.

[Tom Joad]

10. Do we want to support someone who wanted to place Lieberman a

heartbeat away from the presidency?

[OrangeCountyDemocrat]

11. I Don't Care About '00

I'm more focussed on '08. I seriously doubt, and would be willing to bet any amount of money, that Gore is not going to pick Lieberman or anyone remotely like him, should he run and get the nomination.

He could have run a better campaign in '00, but that's the past.

In all honesty, I'd rather have Lieberman a heartbeat from the Presidency right now, with Al Gore in the top spot, than Dickhead cheney and *.

[Tom Joad]

43. His choice in 2000 i think says much about his values, his worldview,

his ethics.

Yes, gore is better than cheney or bush.
My standards are a bit higher.

[crispini]

51. It's been 6 years.

Mr. Gore has been through a lot in that time, and I think he has learned the lessons of 2000.

I'm not dinging him on the choice of Lieberman. I think he did it for very good reasons. Diversity, appeal to the south, qualifications, and to help him win Florida. I don't think he'd make the same decision today.

[Tom Joad]

56. I guess. He is now a mature adult.

Perhaps he has changed.
He also supported Bush I war in Iraq.
He supported Reagan's invasion of grenada.
He supported the invasion of Panama.

[crispini]

13. I like Al

I hope he runs. Have you got on board with a meetup yet? See my sig! :D

[OrangeCountyDemocrat]

17. Thanks Crispin

I decided to get on the mailing list. No meetups scheduled yet in my area, but hopefully in '07 we'll get some good news from Mr. Gore about his intentions.

[Jackpine Radical]

5. Your points seem reasonable.

Whether you're actually right or not s of course a moot point. You make me realize that I'm probly out of touch with mainstream America & can't really gauge how people feel about Hill, because I mostly hang out with Democrats, who are pretty solid in opposing her as too hawky, opportunistic & DLC-ish. On the other hand, I know a few conservatives, & they imagine her to be a "liberal Democrat" (although on what grounds I haven't a clue, unless Hannity, O'Reilly & Limbaugh have been telling them that).

[crispini]

15. Yeah, I mostly hangout with Democrats too.

But there are a LOT -- an awful lot -- of Democratic activists in my city who are precinct chairs, reliable primary voters, etctera... and couldn't get online with a computer if you hit them over the head with it... or something. I know, 'cause I talk to 'em all the time. :P

And, yeah, you can't believe what the REPUBLICANS think of her. She's so left she's Satan incarnate, according to them. LOL, I just wrote Santa and corrected it, hahah. It'd be funny if Santa WERE running. He'd have a great platform! Free toys for all! :rofl: (I must be getting tired, or something. :silly:)

[Jackpine Radical]

60. I suppose everyone in the world but me has already noticed

that Santa is an anagram of Satan.

[crispini]

62. Could it be.... SANTA?

[Bjornsdotter]

6. I think she can do it

Hillary is not my first choice, but I would vote for her.

I hated Kerry and managed to vote for him, voting for Hillary would be no problem.

Cheers

[ray of light]

7. talk to people who aren't online. They despise her. n/t

[Missy M]

9. I have talked to many people who are not online and they...

don't despise her. They think she is a very good senator and she has the right to run for president as much as anyone else.

[ray of light]

37. I usually try to just see what people are thinking about her w/o inserting

my opinion and democrats or republicans have an outright emotional negative response to her.

Frankly, I would love to see a woman president. But where I live in a red district but I work in a blue district the reactions are the same. They loathe her and the lefties believe the media is hyping her and the Republicans are hoping we'll run her.

Just saying my comment in response to the comment that only online activists dislike her. Maybe your experience is different, but since the Presidential election encompasses all 50 states then it's only fair for people to know what is happening in my area locally.

[Mojorabbit]

12. That has been my experience too

and it is across party lines.

[crispini]

16. I talk to people who aren't online all the time.

Some like, some lukewarm, some dislike. I don't see anywhere near the quorum of dislike that there is on DU -- what, 95% of posters on here are not thrilled with her?

[GreenArrow]

8. not only the nomination

but the Presidency as well...if she runs. And it can't be mentioned too often that two years is a long, long time.

[mtnsnake]

18. Mainstream Democratic Americans all across the country agree with you.

The anti-Hillary sentiment here at DU is not reflected at all by mainstream Democrats.

[Muddy Waters Guitar]

78. We need to ditch this foolish meme of online vs. not-online Dems

Again, I've met many, many not-plugged-in Democrats across the country, especially in the heartland states, and Hillary has angered an enormous number of the grass-roots voters that are essential for our turnout on Election Day-- for the Congressional as well as the Presidential elections. This Netroots vs. Grassroots divide is nothing but a myth.

The only difference appears to be in the level of information that people have about the candidates in general. In my experience esp. in heartland states, the Democrats most supportive of Hillary are the ones who are least informed and, in general, least interested in the elections, who don't know much about the candidates in general and like Hillary by default-- she's the only Democrat whose name they recognize. As they become increasingly informed about Hillary and her stands on Iraq and economic initiatives that have hurt the US middle class (such as her major support for outsourcing), her support plummets.

IOW, the more that they find out about Hillary and the more they see of her, the less favorably she rates. Even worse, those less informed are also less likely to vote-- those most informed and most interested in the elections tend to have a much lower opinion of Hillary across the board, and since they are also more likely to vote, this bodes very ill for any national Hillary candidacy.

I have never seen Third Party fever before the way it's been arising at the prospect of a Hillary candidacy. If we nominate Hillary, we are courting utter disaster-- especially since there are so many other, much more attractive candidates from whom to choose. The name recognition advantage is fleeting, and it disappears once the primary season comes closer and the candidates' real views, policies and histories come out into the open.

[crispini]

84. Well, if you're going to dispute my assertions,

you're going to have to do better than anecdotal evidence. Of course, I do realize that I myself have only offered anecdotal evidence, but in the game of he said/she said, facts are the tie breaker, and neither one of us have as yet offered anything to cite. Although actually I DO have this particular fact to cite: If you polled DU today for their presidential primary preference, I bet you a nickel you'd get support for Hillary on here at down around 5%. The same is probably true at Kos and so on. All of the real-world presidential primary preference polls I've seen so far have her up at around 40% to 50%. So that right there is an enormous disparity, and dispels your idea that there is no difference between online and not-online dems.

Anyway, I can't claim to have met people "across the country," but I have talked to plenty of "offline" Dems in my area..... some are precinct chairs, some simply primary voters... who like Hil and are prepared to vote for her. A friend from Arkansas who goes home occasionally says the same about her conversations with Democratic primary voters in her area. I have heard people say things like, "The Clintons can run things," and "It would be nice to have Bubba back in the WH."

Admittedly we do not track Iowa or NH's demographics but I'll bet you a popsicle stick we have a LOT of demographic commonalities with Nevada and South Carolina. Don't forget, this time it's NOT all about "the heartland states." The game has changed.

Not that I don't agree with your last paragraph.

[Name removed]

19. Deleted message

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

[crispini]

24. I don't necessarily disagree...

with any of your points. ;)

Although I would add "in the primary" to your point "doesn't mean we should vote for them," at least for myself.

I'm voting for the Dem in the general, come hell or high water.

[paulk]

38. one of the problems with the netroots

is people on it say things like, "But so was Hitler (like Hillary, was also a warmongering corporatist, btw)."

and people don't take it seriously....


The great majority of Americans are going to hear a statement like that

and laugh at you

[crispini]

50. Hah, people don't take it seriously do they?

I took it for the bit of hyperbole that it is, knowing how widely HRC is disliked on DU.

[AJH032]

40. wow, comparing Hillary to Hitler?

pretty low

[ray of light]

48. very low! And inaccurate too! This type of thing really demeans our whole

process since in most issues Hillary may be moderate rather than the progressive she use to be; however she's never stooped as low as the Republicans and the Bush regime.

Completely uncalled-for comment, I agree with you on that! (And even locally, I've never heard anyone compare her to that.)

[mtnsnake]

58. lower than whale shit at the bottom of the ocean

[derby378]

66. I've heard too many references to Hillary as "Hitlery" from FReepers and CUckoos

I'm not crazy about her campaign, true, but that is pretty low. Hillary has done nothing to warrant the comparison - the worst thing she ever did was to trust George W. Bush on the USA PATRIOT Act and the occupation of Iraq. She's starting to learn, though, so as far as the Hitler references go, cut her a little freakin' slack.

[saltpoint]

20. Agree that her chances are pretty good. She has some serious

cards to play in the big game. No argument there.

But at some point she has to distinguish herself from her Democratic caucus/primary opponents on a debate stage, usually held in most states holding primaries.

She may have to do more than just hold her own on those debate podiums. She's going to be up against some incisive opponents. Does she walk out of the debate in Iowa or New Hampshire having convinced a Kerry or Edwards or Dodd or Richadson voter that she's more adept on the issues than they are?

I'm not seeing it.

[crispini]

22. Hum, yes.

How do Iowa and NH primary voters skew? You are correct, THAT is the vital question, not "most democrats." I will confess, I do not know the answer to that. Are they more intellectual, issue-oriented voters?

What do you think about the new earlier primaries, Nevada and South Carolina? How do you think they will play out?

[saltpoint]

25. Very good questions. I'm not sure. Nevada is never this

prominent. I'm wondering if a fairly large Latino vote in Nevada might help Richardson, or if the unionized labor vote might help Edwards -- I just have no idea.

South Carolina? I'm even more clueless there. Edwards was born there, but Kerry announced his candidacy in a shipyard there, and both wound up on the national ticket. Hard to say who has the inside track this time.

Iraq is going to still be a problem for the GOP in the general election. So I'm guessing that Democratic primary and caucuses will turn on how Democratic voters perceive a given candidate's ability to out-duel McCain or Romney or Giuliani.

I think the general election in November favors the Democrats. But the Democratic primary gauntlet looks like a free-for-all right now.

[crispini]

29. Just for shits and giggles:

Per Wikipedia, so let the buyer beware:

Old guard:
Iowa: Pop. 2 million, area 56,272 sq miles, median income 43,042 (29th)
NH: Pop. 1.2 million, area 9,359 sq mi, median income $57,323 (1st)

New guard:
Nevada: Pop. 1.9 million, area 110,567 sq mi, median income $46,984 (16th)
SC: Pop. 4 million, area 34,726 sq mi, median income 39,326 (39th)

The first thing that strikes me is how different they are. Nevada a lot more spread out (more ground to cover) than either Iowa or NH. SC, a lot more people. And then of course there are the racial demographics too, which are WAY different.

This is going to be very, very interesting.

[saltpoint]

31. Thanks for the stats, crispini. Much appreciated.

We're 12 months away. But how good it's going to feel after the Iowa caucus because it's real-world evidence that the era of Dubya is soon to pass.

[crispini]

32. Yep, we are ONLY 12 months away.

Hee! This time next year I hope to be IN IOWA knocking on some doors for my favorite candidate-- AL GORE! Please please please!

[saltpoint]

33. I love it that you're going to Iowa to volunteer and be a part

of that exciting caucus they have out there.

Iowa is kind of breath-taking during the month just before that caucus vote.

I say hurray for you.

[justiceischeap]

67. That's not a concern

Hillary is quite adept at the issues and that will not be an issue. Speaking as a woman, I think that will be more of an issue for Iowa than her knowledge. I'm happy to see a woman running but I don't this country (whether it's Hillary or someone else) is ready to elect a female President.

It's also my opinion that she has been playing the corporate whore/moderate dem card to be in the position she's in now. If elected, I could see her going further to the left—could be wrong on that one though.

[saltpoint]

69. You may be right. But the debate podium strikes me as the

arena of accomplishment for the Democratic field.

I just personally feel that the nominee will emerge from that arena, and I think she's up against some very sturdy souls.

[justiceischeap]

I recall when she was pushing her Health Care Agenda as First Lady

That people were quite impressed with her oratory skills—specifically the fact that she knew all the facts without needing notes. I have the utmost confidence this isn't an area of concern for HRC. She's a very intelligent woman who, when need be, can "turn it on."

[saltpoint]

72. Agreed. I admired her for standing up for herself in those

years. I'm still disappointed in the Congress overall for bailing out on a national health care system. I don't insist that HClinton's proposals were 100% perfect, but her stand for a noble cause was principled and I liked it.

[last_texas_dem]

21. I think there's a good chance you're right

I think Hillary definitely has a good chance of winning the nomination, but I also think it would be more of an uphill battle for her in the general election than it would for many of the other possibilities. However, largely based upon her name recognition, I believe there is a strong likelihood that she will retain her front-runner status, at least until the '08 contest really heats up. At this point, I believe Al Gore is the only one who could really shake up the rankings, until the debates and primaries begin.

My hope is that Hillary's status as front-runner is similar to Lieberman's in '03/'04: based largely on familiarity. Non-political junkies have only a vague familiarity or none at all with the other announced candidates. I think Hillary definitely has a chance if she can manage to catch fire with primary voters based on her high-profile status and popularity with rank-and-file Democrats. However, I think questions about her electability will end up being her biggest liability and complicate her status as front-runner.

[crispini]

23. Very good thoughts.

I agree about your analysis of the general.

You know, it's interesting, the conventional wisdom would have it that Iowa and NH went for Kerry because he was "more electable." I am not sure HOW valid that conventional wisdom is, by the way, but taking it for the truth just for the point of argument, does that mean that these voters might go AGAINST Hillary because she is "not electable enough?"

Hmmmmmmm......

[applegrove]

26. I agree. We cannot forget the 50% of the US population are moderates.

[snowbear]

27. I think she'll be the flavor of the week for a while.....

But she sure has a long, tough road ahead of her...

I'll support her if she does wind up as our nominee --- but right now is her time for the "hoopla" that Edwards and Obama enjoyed when they initially announced.

There's absolutely no telling who our nominee will ultimately be.

[crispini]

30. All quite true.

But it's fun trying to read the tea leaves. ;)

[Strawman]

34. I won't say anything bad about Hillary Clinton

I like her. At bottom, I think she wants the same things as most people here, but makes more compromises than I and many others are comfortable with. I'm almost certain I won't vote for her in a primary, but I won't trash her either.

[ShortnFiery]

35. Well, that seemingly makes one of us? n/t

[crispini]

36. Hum, didja read the thread?

There are a lot of people on it agreeing with me ;)

Please observe I didn't say anything about who I want to win the nominiation. It ain't the same thing atall. :P

[ShortnFiery]

68. I meant it between you and me - sort of tongue-in-cheek

My Husband, a moderate democrat, convinced me to vote for Clinton twice; I wanted to vote for Gore and did in 2000; and hubby talked me into voting for Kerry in 2004.

No, I don't speak for the left of center democratic base - but after talking with many folks, I have the sense that my views are mainstream in this area. I BELIEVE that those of us Dennis Kucinich loving' types ===> Democratic wing of the Democratic Party, are growing immensely tired of being disregarded by the more wealthy and power hungry democratic corporate elite, i.e., DLC types.

Please do not assume that if the media forced Hillary on us, or that by some miracle campaign blitz, she will be anointed with the Democratic Nomination, that WE (the liberal base) will fall in line just like we have dutifully countless times before. :thumbsdown:

Speaking for myself: I've voted Democratic for President every election since 1980. But I'm not just "blowing smoke" that I will SUBMIT again to another *corporate elite* type democrat.

Hubby has already started teasing me ("You'll really be voting for a republican if you vote for The Green!") but I promise you: I WILL not vote for either a Kerry or a Clinton front running Presidential Ticket because they authorized the insanity (IWR) that we are dealing with today.

No way! I have no guilt because when it comes to the corporate elitists and/or warmongering, Come the Presidential Election 2008, I WILL put *my conscious* above party loyalty. IMO, many other "for the people" vice "corporations" FIRST Democrats will also do the same.

[crispini]

71. Oh, I'm not saying anything about the general election, mind you.

I'm just talking about the primary, here; I think she's got a very good chance of winning the Democratic nomination. I'm also not saying I support her for that nomination. (See sig for details of who I DO support.)

As far as voting in the general goes, did you ever see an episode of South Park, where the kids are voting on their new school mascot? And they have a choice between a douchebag and a turd sandwich? And the kids all get really mad, because those are both really bad school mascots, and in a touching scene, Stan explains to Cartman that there is NEVER a good choice in an election, and you always winding up picking the one that pisses you off the least, and it's disappointing, but it's the way it is. Well, Southpark may be quite often juvenile and stupid, but they get it right sometimes. In the general election, I'd vote for the shit sandwich if it had a D after its name. :P

Wish we had ranked preference voting, though.

[ShortnFiery]

74. Excellent points!

But having voted for far too many shit sandwiches in my long life, I'm finally going to vote my conscious. Why? Both parties are run by the Corporate Elite. Since we're destined to be screwed at least I can look myself in the mirror each day knowing that I voted for someone who would have truly stood up for us peasants, i.e., the non-investor classes. :shrug:

But Cartman does have many pearls of wisdom.

Point taken - God Dammit!!! :rofl:

[election_2004]

41. Your disclaimer about the netroots could be the key

Because the netroots can create money and generate buzz for otherwise "underdog" candidates.

Would Howard Dean have risen from obscurity to top-tier candidate in absence of the netroots?

[crispini]

46. Yeah, but we're not enough to win.

There's some other factor there you need in addition to the netroots, and I haven't quite sussed out what it is yet.

[election_2004]

47. Maybe 2008 will shed some light...

...on what that "X-factor" will be that, when combined with the netroots, can help revolutionize (and overhaul) the traditional advantage of old-school backroom-deal politicking?

[crispini]

49. I want to tell you a story, because I've actually been through this twice.

In 2006 we elected the chair of the Texas Democratic Party. This was the first time this election had been contested in like 30 years or something. In a really weird way it was very much like the Presidential primaries of 2004 on a smaller scale. We had one candidate who headed the Dean For Texas campaign, and his supporters were largely Deaniacs and Austin progressives, all wickedly liberal. We had another candidate who was a LONGTIME member of the State Democratic Executive committee. Very old-guard, been around for a LONG time.

The old guard won.

They still had a better network, they were more organized, and some of them were not above using smear tactics ....the Deaniac was an openly gay man, and people DID bring that up with his supporters, although I do not know if that was an official act of the campaign or not. We were also kinda disorganized, in some respects.

There's a certain "soft-power" anarchic quality to the netroots, a very chaotic, decentralized, bottom-up energy. I think what happens is that someone has to be very good at harnessing that and directing that in order to win. I think it's not OK to just let the chaos organize itself. At somepoint, somebody has to step in with the hard-power, top-down, lockstep sort of energy. Somebody central has to make a plan, and has to have enough energy and authority to make it happen.

At least, those are my thoughts at the moment. I reserve the right to change my mind anytime. ;)

[election_2004]

52. Well your example was specific to his particular campaign

We'll see what kind of campaigns everyone runs in 2008.

[crispini]

54. Yes, very true.

I'm just very interested in what makes campaigns tick, and I think the netroots are a very interesting factor to throw in the mix.

[AtomicKitten]

42. I think Obama will give HRC a run for her money.

And if Gore jumps in, it's over.

[AZBlue]

64. I love Obama. And Gore.

I like Hillary too - right now, I'm a pretty happy citizen! (well, that's assuming Gore is running - I know he hasn't announced, but...)

I have a question for you - as the wise and informed Dem that I know you are, do you think the general public will hold his inexeperience against him? Of course they will hold Bill's actions against Hillary and Gore's "lost" election (which he really won) against him - I guess everyone has an obstacle to overcome.

[AtomicKitten]

70. I think after Junior's fiasco otherwise known as his presidency,

most folks would think my dog would have done a better job, and Seven is quite clever you know.

I find myself thrilled today about Hillary announcing her intent to form an exploratory committee; it's an unprecedented moment in history for us ladies. I think the part of America that would hold a grudge about BC would never vote for HRC anyway, so I don't see that as a net loss. Plus he is now and forever the Big Dawg and that I think is a net plus for her.

Gore's ahem "loss" will forever be perceived as the judicial coup d'etat that it was, and I think America would be up for a do-over. I would love that, definitely, and he has my support. His leadership on global warming, coming out against the war BEFORE it started, and endorsing Dean early were all brave and meaningful moves. He IMO has evolved into a truly great man.

Obama is the breath of fresh air, the brilliant, charismatic new kid. He has 8 years in the Illinois State Senate under his belt plus his term so far in the US Senate. And he's upbeat. I think America is definitely up for a healthy dose of optimism regarding their future.

The GOP Wrecking Machine will try their damnedest to pound whoever we put up, HRC's connection with BC, Gore's "loss," and Obama's "lack of experience," but none of those are insurmountable.

The 2008 election is going to be an E ticket ride. Go Dems.

[crispini]

73. OMG. E ticket!

:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:



Now I feel old. Thanks. :P

[AtomicKitten]

75. Mr. Toad's Wild Ride - woo-hoo!!!

[ElizabethDC]

44. I agree

I think Hillary has a decent chance of winning not only the primary but the general as well. Why? I think she has and projects tremendous strength, which is something I think voters want to see these days. I don't think she's the ideal candidate, but I'm yet to find the ideal candidate, and I certainly don't think she's anywhere near as evil as some folks around here make her out to be.

Until recently, I didn't want Hillary to run at all. I thought the same thing that everyone else thinks: "she's a lightening rod." But I was impressed with how well she did in her reelection, and I'm thinking she may surprise us and be a better candidate than we expect. One thing's for sure: we've got a lot of great candidates to choose from this time around, and I'm confident that we'll have a Democrat in the White House in '09.

[Muddy Waters Guitar]

79. The "strength" and "toughness" descriptions are also overrated

I hate to sound like a wet blanket here, but all of these attributions to Hillary's "strength" and "toughness" as a candidate don't cut ice when her record is examined. A tough candidate does not kowtow to Republicans marching toward a dangerous and disastrous war in 2002 and then, in subsequent years, continue to support it. They certainly don't cave in to corporate elites for a little fundraising petty cash, when the middle and working classes in the US-- without big stock portfolios-- are suffering and vulnerable as never before.

Had Hillary indeed been strong and tough, she would have stood her ground then, backed Democratic Party principles-- and emerged not only morally but politically stronger, since in a few years time, the country would have seen how right she'd been. Instead, Hillary chose the path of political expediency, which has greatly facilitated the Republican theft of the country and our involvement in this disastrous Iraq War in the Middle East-- and any other wars to soon follow there.

[benny05]

45. and on the average of negatives

Around 42-49%, which means nearly half those polled have made up their mind about her.

[PresidentObama]

53. We still have a year to go.

I think you're wrong.

She won't get the nomination by power walking her way to it anymore. She has real challenge in Obama, Edwards, Kerry, Clark, Richardson, Biden, Vilsack, Dodd, and maybe Gore??

Guys like Kerry, Gore, Dodd, and Biden all have the experience factor.

Obama and Edwards have that freshness and JFK appeal.

Clark would be a good choice for this critical time in the war.

And of course Richardson and Vilsack are both governors, which has it's own appeal.

She really doesn't seem to rally our base, and she definitely rallies the GOP base with hatred. And all she seems to have is her intense name value and right now the media hype.

I just DON'T think in all honesty Hillary will even be the frontrunner in a year. She'll be a contender, and a top contender. But she isn't going to have an easy fight.

With that said, I'm watching her very closely and listening to her. I want to know what she brings to the table, because the table is crowded. And we've got a lot of good candidates.

[crispini]

55. You have many good points.

At the current time, though, doesn't she have the largest warchest for her campaign? That would seem to be a clear advantage also.

[MODemocrat]

57. I happen to be a supporter of Hillary Clinton

If another democrat is nominated, I'll most likely vote for him/her. However, I'll be voting for Hillary in the primary. I'm certainly not gah gah over Barack Obama because he happens to have a good
personality-charisma.

[DuaneBidoux]

59. Then we will lose the White House.

Just go out on the streets and randomly ask people how they feel about her. She is simply disliked. She would not win.

[PresidentObama]

61. Besides a few family members who pester me for being a Kerry supporter.

You are right, all I've heard is Democrats even saying bad things about her. Which PERSONALLY I refuse to do. She seems alright (alright meaning I have about five other choices before her) but I'll wait and judge her once I see her platform and message.

[generaldemocrat]

85. Exactly....

So many people have one way or another already made up their minds about her.

If you look at all the polls featuring Hillary in the past few years there are just as many people who would vote against her as there as those who would vote for her. And not many undecideds left.

She is just a polarizing figure, who tries to please everyone but in the end pleases no one, and who lacks the charisma of her husband.

[skipos]

65. Very good chance in the primary. HORRIBLE odds in the general election. nt

[nebula]

81. She would be a disaster

even Lieberman would be more electable than Hillary in the general election (if he were running).

Hillary is a DINO and a walking disaster waiting to happen (for the party and the country).

[Imagevision]

80. Hillary is good for Obama and Edwards, they're all extremely talented , Bill Clinton

should be interesting to watch from the sidelines, where will Carville fit into this mini-drama??

[Jennicut]

83. Hillary will not win.

ANd if she does than people are suckers. She does not believe herself one word that comes from her own mouth. McCain is the same way. If its Clinton vs. McCain for the general election we are all doomed. Can't we do better than this? Guliani is a pompous jerk. Obama is inspiring but inexperienced for this day and age we live in. Edwards is smart but a little too slick. I really don't see a candidate worth voting for yet. Its not necessarily whether the person is liberal or conservative, Repub or Dem. Its just that I want an experienced, intelligent person who thinks thing through before acting yet has an inner core of beliefs that they rely on. This person should not be too extreme or they will never get elected but will have strong stands on certain issues and not back down from them. I think right now the country is trending more towards the Dems in general due to Iraq, George Bush, and the Rethugs in Congress. If we put up a solid candidate we will win 2008. People will watch Georgie veto a good mainstream bill and will be fed up. I think a Dem candidate can get away with being a liberal to moderate if its the right person. So far I only like Obama but that would change if Al Gore entered the race. PLEASE don't let our nomination be Hillary. I would hold my nose and vote for her ONLY if a 3rd party candidate would effect the outcome of the election and hand it to a Repub. I liked Bill for a while and he did some good things and some bad. But his wife? Ick. Power hungry is not my style. Sorry.

[crispini]

87. So... who are you going to campaign for in the primary?

If you don't want Hillary, it would behoove you to put some support behind another nominee. ;)

[sendero]

86. It's not the nomination..

... I worry about, it's the election. If it comes down to her and McCain, I see McCain winning. She cannot run against the war, McCain has 100 quotes that prove she was for it before she was against it.

And then there is the issue of what kind of president she would make. The thought doesn't offer much comfort to me.

[crispini]

88. And because of the general election, I worry about the nomination.

I do find it funny -- not saying YOU did this -- how many people on this thread are reading, "I think Hillary has a good chance of winning the nomination" and interpreting it as, "I want Hillary to win the nomination," or "I think Hillary has a good chance in the general election."

Reading comprehension, people! :P I mean what I say and I say what I mean.

[sendero]

89. A fair interpretation of the comment...

.... "I think Hillary has a good chance", without a qualifier to the contrary, would be "I want her to win". IMHO. Since that is how many of her supporters being their entreaty. Of course, you did have a qualifier :)

[crispini]

90. Ha. I'm fairly literal.

And note that I did say "in the primary." ;) (Okay, I confess, I was kind of baiting people, in a gentle way. I'm actually pleasantly surprised by how rational and non-flamey this thread has turned out to be.)

Besides, anyone who looks at my sig can figure out pretty easily who I'm supporting for my first choice. I haven't decided who my fallback is yet. I hope I don't need one. :P