So why don't you like Hillary?

[Auntie Bush]

All I ever hear is, "I don't like Hillary and I could never vote for her."
So, inform those of us who disagree or are still undecided why we should hate/dislike Hillary. I need some really good reasons why as I think she has the most experience as what to expect, how the WH is run, already knows most the world leaders, and has a very experienced, loved and respected world leader literally nibbling on her ear. And by the way folks...
she's a Democrat too!

I'm undecided...and need some feedback as to why I shouldn't vote for her.
Please no Republican lite slogans for an explanation. I'm interested in some thoughtful meat. I'm sure there are some other interested parties on this board who would like the same information.

[MannyGoldstein]

1. Her Record

She's taken hard right positions on most really important issues: attacking Iraq, permanent "free" trade status for China, the first attempt at the bankruptcy bill, and so forth.

And she has never taken even one controversial position since the defeat of HillaryCare: she stands for nothing other than fleeing from controversy and getting herself elected. She has never taken on the Right and won. Never.

And then there are the slashing attacks from her camp, such as Carville's claim that Dean lost the 2004 election through incompetence.

[Auntie Bush]

8. How does her voting record compare with the others? I "heard"

that she and Obama have the same voting record. Is that true? :shrug:

[MannyGoldstein]

27. It's True - Sort Of

Their records are very similar, but there have been no really critical black and white issues since Obama's been in office. So there is a chance that Obama is further to the left, but no guarantee. Certainly, Obama was against the Iraq War for exactly the right reason - since war is far and away the most important thing that Congress deliberates on, this immediately makes Obama far preferable to Clinton.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

91. There WAS such an issue in 2005. Obama sided with corporations, Clinton with the people

Of course, this may be why it is not in the pantheon of sacred bills in Obamaland...Remember George Bush's "tort reform" on behalf of corporate America in 2005 that screwed average folks? Notice all the "R's" in the yes column and the "D's" in the "nay" column? Not a single Republican voted against this...

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=1&vote=00009

Grouped By Vote Position
YEAs ---72

Alexander (R-TN)
Allard (R-CO)
Allen (R-VA)
Bayh (D-IN)
Bennett (R-UT)
Bingaman (D-NM)
Bond (R-MO)
Brownback (R-KS)
Bunning (R-KY)
Burns (R-MT)
Burr (R-NC)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Carper (D-DE)
Chafee (R-RI)
Chambliss (R-GA)
Coburn (R-OK)
Cochran (R-MS)
Coleman (R-MN)
Collins (R-ME)
Conrad (D-ND)
Cornyn (R-TX)
Craig (R-ID)
Crapo (R-ID)
DeMint (R-SC)
DeWine (R-OH)
Dodd (D-CT)
Dole (R-NC)
Domenici (R-NM)
Ensign (R-NV)
Enzi (R-WY)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Frist (R-TN)
Graham (R-SC)
Grassley (R-IA)
Gregg (R-NH)
Hagel (R-NE)
Hatch (R-UT)
Hutchison (R-TX)
Inhofe (R-OK)
Isakson (R-GA)
Jeffords (I-VT)
Johnson (D-SD)
Kohl (D-WI)
Kyl (R-AZ)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Lieberman (D-CT)
Lincoln (D-AR)
Lott (R-MS)
Lugar (R-IN)
Martinez (R-FL)
McCain (R-AZ)
McConnell (R-KY)
Murkowski (R-AK)
Nelson (D-NE)
Obama (D-IL)
Reed (D-RI)
Roberts (R-KS)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Salazar (D-CO)
Schumer (D-NY)
Sessions (R-AL)
Shelby (R-AL)
Smith (R-OR)
Snowe (R-ME)
Specter (R-PA)
Stevens (R-AK)
Talent (R-MO)
Thomas (R-WY)
Thune (R-SD)
Vitter (R-LA)
Voinovich (R-OH)
Warner (R-VA)

NAYs ---26

Akaka (D-HI)
Baucus (D-MT)
Biden (D-DE)
Boxer (D-CA)
Byrd (D-WV)
Clinton (D-NY)
Corzine (D-NJ)
Dayton (D-MN)
Dorgan (D-ND)
Durbin (D-IL)
Feingold (D-WI)
Harkin (D-IA)
Inouye (D-HI)
Kennedy (D-MA)
Kerry (D-MA)
Lautenberg (D-NJ)
Leahy (D-VT)
Levin (D-MI)
Mikulski (D-MD)
Murray (D-WA)
Nelson (D-FL)
Pryor (D-AR)
Reid (D-NV)
Sarbanes (D-MD)
Stabenow (D-MI)
Wyden (D-OR)

P.S. Do you think corporate America is supporting Obama without knowing what he is about? Do you think they are that dumb? Why would they risk their interests on someone that is unknown if they can get the sure thing (HRC)? You know the answer...These people are not dumb. They know what they are doing and who to support.

[BeyondGeography]

64. You can see a significant difference on campaign finance, ethics and lobbying reform between the two

From Tuesday's WP:

Edwards was part of the legislative team working to pass the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law, but lobbying and campaign reform were nowhere near the top of his agenda in the Senate.

During the 2004 campaign, Edwards gave a useful speech outlining his plan to limit lobbyists' influence. But, unlike the other Democratic candidates, he refused requests to reveal the identities of his big fundraisers. This time around, after considerable prodding, Edwards agreed to release the names of fundraisers -- all his fundraisers, with no specifics about how much they had collected. His campaign argues vehemently that it should be praised for this avalanche of information, not faulted. But the candidate knows who has reeled in $1,000 and who raised $100,000. Why shouldn't voters?

Clinton has shown no zeal for or even particular interest in the issue in the Senate; nor did she while in the White House. Indeed, as her handling of the health-care task force and Whitewater documents illustrate, Clinton's instinct is for secrecy, and her default position is to disclose only the minimum legally required. She consented to reveal her major fundraisers only after repeated editorial hammering -- and only after all the other leading Democratic contenders had agreed.

On this issue, Obama leads the pack -- I'd say PAC, but he (and Edwards) don't take their checks, either. He helped pass a far-reaching ethics and campaign finance bill in the Illinois state Senate and made the issue a priority on arriving in Washington. Much to the displeasure of his colleagues, Obama promoted an outside commission to handle Senate ethics complaints. He co-authored the lobbying reform bill awaiting President Bush's signature and pushed -- again to the dismay of some colleagues -- to include a provision requiring lawmakers to report the names of their lobbyist-bundlers.

He has co-sponsored bills to overhaul the presidential public financing system and public financing of Senate campaigns. It's nice to hear Clinton talk about how "we've got to move toward public financing" -- Edwards backs it, too -- but I don't see her name on those measures.

Obama readily agreed to identify his bundlers. Unlike Clinton and Edwards, he has released his income tax returns. Perhaps most important, Obama has pledged to take public financing for the general election if he is the Democratic nominee and his Republican opponent will do the same.

Any Democratic candidate wanting to "get the money out of American politics" (Clinton) or demonstrate that "the Democratic Party is the party of the people" (Edwards) ought to leap at this chance. The candidates' silence on Obama's public financing proposal -- they'll "consider" it -- has been more telling than anything they have actually said.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/21/AR2007082101420.html?nav=hcmodule

[draft_mario_cuomo]

92. He also skirted--at taxpayer expense--the ethics law he has taken credit for for years

==He helped pass a far-reaching ethics and campaign finance bill in the Illinois state Senate and made the issue a priority on arriving in Washington.==

What the Obama team does not tell you is this, which shows his "principled" position on ethics:

==State Sen. Barack Obama claims the mantle of a reformer, but early last month the Democratic U.S. Senate candidate spent $17,191 in state taxpayer money on a mailer that had the look and feel of a campaign flier.

The mailing went out just days before a new ban on the pre-election dissemination of such state-paid constituent newsletters went into effect, part of a package of ethics reforms that Obama takes credit for getting passed.==

==The mailing went out to more than 70,000 households in Obama's South Side legislative district and cost $17,191 to print and mail, according to state records.==

==The new ethics law that bans such mailings was passed by the legislature in the fall. However, the effective date of the ban was delayed until mid-February, a few days after the letters went out.==

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/specials/elections/chi-0403100242mar10,1,4625423.story?ctrack=2&cset=true

[ccpup]

15. "She has never taken on the Right and won. Never."

Elected to the Senate in NY State; re-elected in 2006 DESPITE the barrage of bad press she got for 8 years straight. And don't pull out the ol' she played on Bill's name bs. The people in heavily republican Upstate met her, asked her questions, recognized her intelligence and effectiveness and voted for her ... and not just because her last name was Clinton. Takes more than that to impress Upstate republicans.

[MannyGoldstein]

23. She Ran Against Third-Tier Candidates In Both Cases

But you're right she did get elected twice. What I meant (but didn't express well) is that she's never taken them on and won on any issue. Ever.

[paulk]

69. Rick Lazio was well known in New York state -

he wasn't a third tier candidate. The race was close and up in the air right up until a few weeks before the election, when HRC pulled decisively ahead. Her victory was in no way a given. Many people viewed her as a carpetbagger and a " NYC person", which is two strikes against you upstate. She overcame that by touring the state relentlessly and learning the issues that concerned upstate New Yorkers.

Don't denigrate her victory in 2000; it was quite an accomplishment by any measure.

[creeksneakers2]

157. She started out against Giuliani

She was kicking Giuliani's ass so badly that the he had to drop out and the GOP had to find another candidate.

[HeraldSquare212]

24. Upstate NY is not Idaho or even western Pennsylvania

it's not a good indicator of her appeal to Republicans.

[paulk]

48. if you're going to base what a "Republican" is on Idaho, then

you've got a point, but I don't think many people are going to take it seriously.

I grew up in one of the reddest parts of upstate NY, and you can't just toss off the fact that Hillary has won over a lot of Republicans there so easily.

[ccpup]

59. thank you

and she did that through meeting after meeting after town hall after meeting after town hall, question by question, fact by fact. She didn't take ANY vote for granted and worked her ass off to get people past what they "knew" of her from the corporate media and closer to objectively seeing her for the intelligent, capable, talented woman she is. The fact that she won in a landslide this last election also shows that those in Red Upstate obviously like the job she's doing. Nothing to do with her Clinton Name and everything to do with her ability for her constituents.

[papau]

43. Of the candidates running she is the only one that pushed for single payer in 93 - and she was the

only one feared by the insurance industry. When our lobbyists were able to get Bill to bite on the idea that if he did not support single payer, we in the industry would support his health plan, we knew we had won. He bought into the nonsense - and ordered Hillary to not look into single payer in the task force she was to put together. His order to her is written about by those there and is included in her book.

For the record I was opposed - but I had no vote as I was one of the insurance international and national tax persons and we were kept informed as a courtesy only.

Like just about everyone looking at trade on the left, the 90's attitude that trade made more jobs for everyone is now replaced by the idea that Fair Trade means having similar laws to the US - both Obama and Hillary voted against CAFTA.

Normal trade relations with China (so called "free trade") are a must have - we could not have continued to expect a non-hostile attitude if we had not ended the nonsense of treating China different from the rest of the world.

You forget her constant support and effective leadership on women's issues/family issues - things the Democratic party has not always put a priority on. But of course in a GOP controlled Congress with a GOP President, neither Obama or Hillary were able to take a "controversial position" since doing so would have accomplished little.

As to taking on the right and winning - I say staying on her feet after all the punches thrown at her by the GOP since 93 is a form of winning.

[MannyGoldstein]

55. HillaryCare Was NOT Single Payer

It WAS, however, a big mess, a plan unlike any other health care system that had ever been seen in any country, with more tiers and entities than you can imagine.

Granted, however, it likely would have been somewhat better than the status quo.

[papau]

68. Hillary care was HMO based - because Bill gave instructions BEFORE the task force was formed that no

single payer plan was to be considered by Hillary's task force.

That is the conversation my original post refers to - to Bill saying no way to single payer.

Of those advising Bill at the time, only Hillary was pushing for single payer - and when we (the insurance industry) stopped her, we knew we had won.

[Maribelle]

113. "Permanent Normal Trade Relations with China" not permanent "free" trade ...

there is a significant difference.

It was in September of 2000. Hillary was not a voting member of congress at that time.

[Maribelle]

114. Sorry, even though I was against giving Bush authority, granting it was not a "hard right" position.

The record proves many moderates and liberals in both houses supported the bill.

[insanad]

115. Polarizing Effect

While many of the things Hilary Clinton is so well practiced at are viable in the leadership skills necessary to be a president, she is also vehemently loathed by most Republicans, many insecure men, and lots of traditional women. The potential for the Democrats to win the presidency and other important positions is very very good, especially after years of what the Republicans have done to take the position to absolutely new lows. I think even many Republicans would vote for a good Democratic leader if given the choice between Romney, Guliani, or Edwards and Obama. Unfortunately, if the Democrats choose Hilary Clinton as their candidate, they'll in effect guarantee that Republicans will rally to vote against her, as will some Democrats and many independents. Even if she manages to win the election her personality and history will further polarize the whole Washington scene and the gridlock we've had for the last 20 years will only escalate. She is so vulnerable to whatever opinions and polls tell her to do that she'll be virtually paralyzed by trying to please everyone. In the end, she'll please no one.

I've been reading a lot about Barack Obama and even though he's young (actually he and I are the same age, so that means I'm young too!!!), a little inexperienced, and some ignorant and backward illiterates equate the rhyme of his name with Osama, I still think he has all the values, rhetoric, and history of being able to unify people on both sides of the fence. He is maturing quickly to the game of politics and shows a great deal of grace and dignity (except when he harps on about not voting for the war and continually pointing fingers at those who did). One of the most important elements in good leadership is to have the ability to inspire many people to do good and worthwhile things. Other than the bigots that would reject him because his father was black, I cannot see how anyone could negate his value as a lawmaker, a compassionate visionary, and a potentially great leader. Visit his website and read about the things he's actually participated in or enacted in his Senatorial career.

I believe that Senator Obama can unify the American people, the international climate and attitude toward Americans, the various Republican and Democratic factions, and with all that support, he can be effective as a leader. The programs he supports will benefit all of us, especially the poor. It may be the money of the wealthy that builds universities and hospitals, but much of that money is made on the backs of the millions of "Ants" that they exploit. His efforts and vision resonate with so many people that live on that edge. There's more of us (ants) than there are of them (grasshoppers) and it's time we show our revolt by voting for the one who has OUR interests at heart.

[Maribelle]

118. The far right will rally to vote against any candidate the right wing hate machine focuses on.

Both Hillary's personality and her history have already been severely deformed by the hate machine's lens, curved and colored for greatest effect. While I totally agree that Obama is an unique and admirable candidate, and holds superb potentials for being a great leader, please do not fool yourself into thinking that Obama, or any other Democratic candidate receiving the nomination would not be castigated with an intensity and forcefulness warranted by Rove’s final fight for his political life.

Today's indicators reveal Hillary has gained a favorability rating around the "Washington scene" that rivals a presidential candidate running for reelection. But only the actual elections will indicate if she will polarize the whole Washington scene or not. Don’t forget, however, that polarization is something republicans hope and dream for, which they will foster every chance they get, regardless of whom the next Democratic president is.

[creeksneakers2]

158. Obama has negatives too.

Why single out Hillary?


Obama and Edwards have high negatives too. According to Rasmussen, Hillary is at 54% negative, Obama at 45% and Edwards at 46%. But out of those polled, Hillary only has a 1% not voting factor, while Obama has 8% and Edwards has 5%. So when more decide the negatives for Edwards and Obama will go up a couple of points.

On top of that, Hillary has been smeared for 15 years. If anything, she's improving her image now. Either Edwards or Obama will be hit with $400,000,000.00 worth of GOP slime. Their negatives are bound to go up from that too.

What we need is a candidate who knows how to fight the right wing.

Here's the Rasmussen comparison:

2008 DEMOCRATIC PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE FAV/UNFAV RATING IDEOLOGY GENERAL ELECTION MATCH-UP

HILLARY CLINTON 45% / 54%
History Conservative 8%
Moderate 29%
Liberal 57%
History Clinton (49%) Brownback (41%)
Clinton (40%) Giuliani (47%)
Clinton (49%) Huckabee (41%)
Clinton (46%) McCain (44%)
Clinton (49%) Paul (34%)
Clinton (51%) Romney (40%)
Clinton (46%) Thompson (43%)
MATCH-UP HISTORY

JOHN EDWARDS 49% / 46%
History Conservative 13%
Moderate 30%
Liberal 44%
History Edwards (46%) Giuliani (44%)
Edwards (50%) Huckabee (33%)
Edwards (45%) McCain (38%)
Edwards (52%) Romney (36%)
Edwards (47%) Thompson (41%)
MATCH-UP HISTORY

BARACK OBAMA 47% / 45%
History Conservative 8%
Moderate 28%
Liberal 51%
History
Obama (49%) Brownback (34%)
Obama (48%) Gingrich (38%)
Obama (44%) Giuliani (43%)
Obama (48%) Huckabee (39%)
Obama (46%) McCain (40%)
Obama (50%) Paul (30%)
Obama (47%) Romney (38%)
Obama (46%) Thompson (39%)
MATCH-UP HISTORY

[insanad]

116. The Great Chameleon and Shape Shifter

Perhaps my suspicions of Hilary Clinton are linked to some inherent turnoff at the path that powerful women seem to be compelled to take to reach their station, but I've not been a fan of her from the get go, regardless of her Democratic Loyalty. That seems to be the only thing (and Bill) that she seems to remain unwavering in. It's a broad assumption but I feel that people who are willing to deny, cover up, minimize, and otherwise lie through sins of omission are complicit in the crime. Sort of like enablers that buy their husbands the beer at the grocery store and then feel victimized when he gets sloshed and beats the hell out of them.

In some ways I believe Hilary has made a lifetime choice of enabling herself and even Bill for the "greater good" of what they both have to offer. Not that I'm without sin, but acknowledging ones culpabilities and working to overcome them seems more productive and honest than hiding and denying. I would have respected her more if she'd shown some courage and class in denouncing his stupid boorish wanderings, but still stood by him as a sign of her faith in his goodness. She took women back 50 years in her willingness to deny and hide his indiscretions, which is probably why he felt like he could get away with it from the get go. She is an enabler and in her ambitions for power and leadership, seems to be willing to change her "outfit" for whatever the latest trend in thought processes or political gain will get her. She'll buy the beer for the special interests and (initially supporting Bush's war} but then deny her own culpability in the beating that the American Soldiers and our reputation as a nation are taking.

I'm attaching my loyalties to Barack Obama and have great hope that he will be able to make a stained glass window out of the broken shards of glass that are our government. He seems to unify rather than polarize people. So many people dislike Hilary, not just because she's an ambitious woman, but because she does not seem sincere or honest and her actions or lack thereof confirm their suspicions.

[Maribelle]

122. "Complicit in the crime"??

And what "crime" do you accuse Hillary of being "complicit in"?

[creeksneakers2]

160. She's striking me as the most sincere

I don't agree with all her positions but it takes some honesty and nerve to say taking money from lobbyists is OK, or we'll need to keep some troops in Iraq. Out of all the candidates on either side, I think Hillary panders the least.

I don't agree that it would have been proper to go public with her anger at her husband. It wasn't the public's business, it was hers. The whole thing would have been a slimy mess. America didn't need such a soap opera.

I don't know where you get the idea that Hillary doesn't examine her shortcomings. Hillary prays often and belongs to a prayer group where shortcomings are privately discussed.

I don't know where you get the idea that Hillary is inconsistent. She's changed on Iraq, but has been pretty much the same on everything else. Growth does necessitate some change.

Women with alcoholic husbands are victims, regardless of whether they buy beer or not. Alcoholics are brilliantly manipulative, and we don't know the circumstances the woman is in. If the woman is beaten, I'd sympathize with her.

Where is the evidence of women being set back 50 years because of Hillary?

[Maribelle]

117. The 2001 bankruptcy bill failed as it favored consumers. Hillary opposed the 2005 bill that passed.

Also, she was also one of only 29 Senators to vote against cloture on the 2005 bill. She missed voting AGAINST it because her husband was undergoing open heart surgey.

[Lefty-Taylor]

2. That's a fair and sincere question. Here are some reasons:

-- She fervently supported the so-called "welfare reform" legistation that her husband pushed, which has made the truly poor suffer even more.

-- She just as enthusiastically supported the Telecommunications Act of 1996, again Bill's bill, that consolidated power into the hands of a few corporate media whores, thereby depriving many Americans of any genunine, truth-seeking journalism.

-- Her Iraw War vore and her reticence to denounce the war and admit her mistaken vote.

-- Her ties to Corporate America that raise questions about her ability to effect any real change in the nation.

-- Like so many other Dems, her willingness to lie down and let the Cheney administration do nearly everything it has wanted.

-- That's just a short list.

[UnityDem]

63. This SHOULD haunt the Clinton's

every day of their lives. I've heard Randi Rhodes say that Bill now regrets this. It has almost ruined our media.

-- She just as enthusiastically supported the Telecommunications Act of 1996, again Bill's bill, that consolidated power into the hands of a few corporate media whores, thereby depriving many Americans of any genunine, truth-seeking journalism.

[Nedsdag]

78. And in true Clintonian triangulation form

She blamed the Telecommunications Act on Al Gore.

[creeksneakers2]

162. I read an interesting question on the net

Why is it that when Hillary reaches out she's "triangulating" but when Obama reaches out he's "unifying?"

[creeksneakers2]

161. Welfare reform didn't make the poor suffer more

Every statistic for poverty improved dramatically after welfare reform. I'm not saying that welfare reform caused the improvement, but welfare reform was nothing like the humanitarian catastrophe that was predicted.

[muntrv]

3. Bill Richardson has more experience than Hillary. He's been a US Rep,

energy secretary, UN Ambassador, and governor. The fact that he is a governor is significant, since 4 out of the last 5 presidents were governors.

[L84TEA]

4. I will vote for whom ever wins the dems.

I am a Kucinich fan myself. But she is OK and she would make a good President. Hillary is a little to conservative for me, I say we need a true blue democrat, we need to make some huge changes!

[sandnsea]

5. She's lost every fight for the last 6 years

except the ones she's launched against Democrats. And her record, which has already been posted.

[OffWithTheirHeads]

6. She is a corporate whore.

nt

[Maribelle]

111. Can you show us where Hillary voted for even one bill because of donations from a corporation?

Receiving money from any organization does not make one a corporate whore. Having your vote slanted by those donations, or awarding no bid contracts, or voting for stuff like bridges to nowhere, giving special access, granting special favors such as overnight guests in a specially colored bedroom would lead there.

[earthlover]

142. So, are you saying she voted to support corporates because she WANTED TO?

Not a convincing arguement.

[Maribelle]

191. No - that's not what I'm saying.

I asked a question. A question is not an argument

[Hieronymus]

170. She gets more from Big Pharma than anyone .. You think they don't want

her to vote against single payer? :eyes:

[Maribelle]

192. Sorry, I don't know which bill you are talking about.

Do you have a link or a number.

Or are you talking about her platform?

[Hieronymus]

196. "Sicko" .. the film by Michael Moore.

[saracat]

7. She has the highest negatives of any of our candidates and will lose the general election.

She polorizes the GOP and those that would stay home or have indicated they would support another of our Dems will go to the polls in droves to vote AGAINST her. We cannot win without those votes,Enough Dems simply do NOT vote to carry an election.

[Forkboy]

77. That's the main one for me.

[Stephanie]

85. I think this is a very informative thread and if we gave it some recommends -

then more people would read it. :hi:

[NMDemDist2]

133. hi saracat!

I found this thread interesting this morning, Clinton's negatives are going down while all other top tier candidates are going up!

Unfavorable Ratings
Clinton: April 52% June 50% August 47% down 5%
Edwards: April 30% June 32% August 32% up 2%
Obama: April 27% June 27% August 34% up 7%
Guiliani: April 24% June 29% August 32% up 8%
Romney: April 21% June 24% August 31% up 10%
McCain: April 26% June 27% August 42% up 16%

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3474097

[saracat]

136. All of that is amost the margin of error and it is only ONE poll.

The others say different.She is still the most polarizing candidate. The positives are only MSM spin. The people who actually "vote" have a problem with her and that is NOT good for a general election!If the Dems nominate her, it will be a difficult road to tow and likely to end in defeat.She might win, anything is possible in this fluis atmostphere, but many Dems will not be celebrating if she does.

[earthlover]

143. If the Reps win, it doesn't really MATTER what Hillary campaigns on....

[Mojambo]

9. Because she doesn't like me.

Maybe if I was a corporate donor or lobbyist?

[tbyg52]

58. Me too--I see her as the (Democratic) corporate candidate.

Beats the (Republican) corporate candidate, I guess....

[peace13]

10. All I ever hear is, "I don't like Hillary and I could never vote for her."

Why do all Hillary supporters repeat that line. I think the reasons have been laid out over and over. She voted for the war and she is a pseudo- neo-con. In addition she uses a yelling voice that turns off most Republicans. We need a candidate that can cross the divide. Peace, Kim

[creeksneakers2]

163. Hillary isn't anything like a Neocon.

Neocons want to take over the world. Hillary doesn't. That's a big difference.

I don't see her yelling either. I listen to talk radio and the GOP had a tape that was doctored to make it sound like Hillary was screaming hysterically. The reality was that Hillary was shouting over a crowd and the mike only picked up Hillary. The GOP did the same thing to Howard Dean.

[BeatleBoot]

11. Rove Is Obsessed With Her

[HysteryDiagnosis]

12. Perhaps because she wants to be prez enough to slam other

dem candidates, rightfully or not. If I knew her true motives I might be more drawn to her, but alas I am not.

[Auntie Bush]

17. Seems to me Edwards and Obama have also slammed her so I must discount that as a valid reason

not to vote for her. I like Obama too but need to know the difference between the two.

[Dawgs]

13. She voted for the war and refuses to apologize for it.

That's enough for me.

She's also unelectable, although that is not a reason to dislike her; just a reason why I can't support her.

[illinoisprogressive]

14. I have a long list why I don't like her but, Let's start with Murdoch, DLC, pandering

outsourcing, NAFTA, no conviction, no vision, total sell out, republican thinking, corrupt, using her husband's resume and claiming it as her experience (but I also fault the poodle press for allowing this to pass), hawkishness, IWV, lying about the iraq vote and why she voted for it, problems with the truth in general.

[superkia]

173. Im amazed there were no responses to your comment?

Where are her defenders?

[Kahuna]

16. I like her. I just don't trust her. I will never forgive her

her IWR vote. She did it strictly for political advancement. I don't know how she lives with herself. Lack of conscience is my only guess.

That said, if she is the nominee I will vote for her.

[Auntie Bush]

22. That's correct! Politics, politics, politics.

My only consolation is lots of others aren't getting much sleep either. No wonder Ambien is such a great seller. Bush et al must have to take them by the handful. I have more to say regarding your post but have to go now. I'll try to get back later.

[Rodanthe]

18. Honestly, I think she's the Right's choice.

I suspect they are filling her warchest so that she will be the nominee and then we'll all have Bill and Hill Investigation Part Deux.

They'll trot out Troopergate, Whitewater, Vince Foster, Monicagate, etc, etc. and make the Swift Boat Veterans for Smear look like choir boys.

She is the weakest link.

[DURHAM D]

19. She doesn't have a penis. eom

[durrrty libby]

26. Hey that's a positive and this thread is all negative and full of diarrhea

No matter, she is kicking ass in the polls

[DURHAM D]

29. Sorry - Ok I hate her because

she has a better stylist than I do.

[durrrty libby]

34. NOW you are on track, but I think you need to throw in...

she lies about her weight and eats babies to be part of the Jonestown type cult

[emilyg]

38. and her height

[tkmorris]

93. Jesus, do you ever post anything useful?

This has been a fairly useful discussion up until now. People both for and against Clinton have made points. Don't derail it now. Please. I'm asking you.

[dionysus]

42. actually you're the one shitting on a smear-free thread

full of people's honest opinions.

[durrrty libby]

47. Honest?????

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[dionysus]

79. yes, honest. what are you implying?

real democrats have real and genuine concerns about your Queen. do you dispute that people can have honest opinions that differ from your own?

[Forkboy]

76. nothing new there.

Someone hates negativity but never makes a positive post unless it's kissing the ass of a fellow Hillary supporter.

[YOY]

131. Yuppers Forkboy

They asked. We answered. Our dislike is not coming out of the void.

Unless they REALLY think we're getting this from the MSM or Karl Rove's RW talking point handout...

Of course they'll never address our real concerns about her...just insults.

[earthlover]

144. Ah.....there it is...a reason to vote for Hillary...she is ahead in the POLLS! SARC

I totally disagree with you. This has been a good thread. And there has been some good things said about Hillary. Then again, polls are sooooo boring to talk about.....especially when the topic is not who is winning but why hillary is or is not a candidate to support.

[HeraldSquare212]

20. Ultimately,

because I don't believe she will actually do anything meaningful. Oh, sure, some stuff around the margins, maybe even school uniforms, but she won't do the heavy lifting necessary to get important things done. And it's too bad, because I believe both she and Bill have the ability to do it, they just won't, for whatever reason - fear of being politically exposed is the main one, I think - if they don't do much, they can't be criticized much.

Her position on the war is the main policy issue. There would probably be more but she hasn't put out many policy statements except on sub- or micro-issues, e.g., the health care items that were laid out in an earlier post by someone today. All good stuff, but much less than I would expect from a presidential candidate.

Finally, Bill Clinton claimed he was signing DOMA under protest and then took out ads on small-market Christian radio stations touting that he had signed it- he pandered to the opponents, some very hateful and vitriolic, of a main group of supporters (he got caught and had to pull the ads). I think that speaks volumes about both of them.

Edit to add:

And I think she's just become a creature of politics, forgetting what got her into politics in the first place. I think her statement on entering the race - "I'm in it and I'm in it to win"- is the exact and entire reason why she's in it.

[Kahuna]

99. I get the same sense about her. She has been coming across as

awfully glib. Not really wanting to commit to positions. It's like watching beelzebush V.2 and I don't like it. So, besides her politically calculated IWR vote, I don't get a feeling that I can trust her. She's playing it too cute by half for my taste.

[Mist]

21. I think she's who the RW would prefer to run against. nt

[DURHAM D]

32. So what.

You are letting a bunch of cheesy white men make your decisions for you?

[Sarah Ibarruri]

25. Her record may not be perfect, but I like her. HOWEVER.....

..as I say over and over again, this country is far too sexist to vote for a woman as president. It will be maybe a century or two before this country will have a woman president. Maybe more. All you have to do is look at equality studies and statistics to know that.

Plus, as if that were not enough, Senator Clinton was damaged by the Repukes spending decades insulting her. If she's our candidate, the Repugnicans will not have to make much of an effort to do to her what they did to Cheney, and it will be easier for them since the epithets have been hurled for decades.

[ccpup]

31. true

but I also believe the American People have been so barraged by the epithets against Hillary and Bill that they're basically inoculated to them by now. Kind of the same ol', same ol' stuff, you know? Had the repugs been a little less exhaustive and left some stones unturned, they'd have something to get her with. But if they're going to dip back into the rancid well of the 90s, the Voters will respond with "been there, done that, you got anything else?".

Now THEIR candidate? Fresh meat for the hungry masses.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

33. The epithets alone did Kerry in.....

However, I don't think it's the epithets alone that would do in Senator Clinton. I think it's the fact that she's a female. Every study done on equality shows us that in 2007 we are living in a highly sexist U.S. It's not going to happen for Senator Clinton, as much as she would like it to.

A man will have to represent us.

[Name removed]

36. Deleted message

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

[emilyg]

39. WHAT????

[DURHAM D]

52. I am beginning to think someone hit the

wrong box on their profile.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

154. The names they called him. The lies they stuck to him. nt

[durrrty libby]

61. Sad... disgusting pathetic and 18th centurty

:puke: :puke: :puke: :puke:



Is that more pc for you?...waaaaaaaaaa

[Sarah Ibarruri]

155. What do you mean? nt

[zeemike]

40. Sorry I don't buy the sexist angle

On the contrary this country is hungry for a woman president. And we could have one instantly if we impeached Dick and george.
If someone of the caliber of Madlin Albright were to run I would be with her all the way.
But just because she is a woman does not automatically qualify her. Women can and do sell out to the corporate interest just like HRC has.
The tipping point for me was when she sponsored the flag burning amendment. At that point I knew she had made a deal.

[durrrty libby]

62. Total tripe and you know it

:hi:

[Stephanie]

82. not quite - she introduced flag-burning legislation so she could have it both ways, as usual.

She was able to tell conservatives, "hey, I sponsored legislation against flag-burning." She was able to tell liberals, "I voted against the flag burning amendment." And she was able to tell moderates, "I did not want to alter the Constitution, so I sponsored legislation instead."

[DURHAM D]

46. Come on - sounds like you are worried about

the hateful sexist among us. Please stop reading the stats and take to the streets. Stand up. Don't let someone else make your decisions for you.

For me personally I was undecided until very recently. Senator Biden reminded us that in the coming decade there is less room for error than at any point in our history and I knew that of all the candidates Hill would need the least amount of on-job-training.

But still I held back.

One day I realized that I was holding back out of my own fear. Holding back because I just didn't want to re-experience all the sexism that I knew was coming, esp. the unrecognized sexism that is so often displayed here by wankers and fake progressives. I didn't want to be reminded of all the personal pain of the 50s and 60s or the failed promises of the 70s. I just wanted to stay in my cocoon.

But then I realized that if she was willing to take more abuse, more abuse than she had already experienced because of her personal commitment to public service, the least I could do is get her back.

Just reading all the tripe on the DU is painful but so what. I have been a feminist all of my life - even before there was a word for it. And there I was - stupidly hiding on the sideline instead of getting into the game of my life time. Even if we lose we win. I thank her for reminding me of the earlier promises, of raised hopes, of a better world, and for making me want to take to the streets one more time.

So, no one else will make my decision for me - fuck 'em all. I make my own decisions.

[durrrty libby]

70. Hillary will change the world for the better

:hi: :loveya: :yourock:

[truebrit71]

129. .

:puke::eyes:

[earthlover]

145. OK....durty....explain specifically how and give examples....

I think every candidate promises to make the world a better place. So how will Hillary do that? You brought up the topic...elaborate!

[Forkboy]

180. Good luck on that one.

:)

[RC]

28. Hillary is right of center. More so than her Southern Democrat Husband.

That is not what this nation needs right now. We need a Good leader that is a little Left of center to start the repair of this country and reestablish our place in the world as a great nation. I'm waiting for her to say something with "Fighting for Peace." in it. You don't fight for Peace. That is a last resort. And you sure as hell don't continue fighting illegal wars based on lies.

[SIMPLYB1980]

106. So whats so wrong with a Southern Democrat?

We fight hard fights in very Red States. We have to deal with the Morans more than anyone else, which means we know how to deal with them.
NC state Senate went Dem last cycle, but I guess some of you can keep whistling past dixie.

[RC]

139. Because Southern Democrats are really Republicans, but because

Republicans are so far out to the right now, Southern Democrats can pass as main stream Democrats, even though they are not. Southern Democrats are too conservative, i.e., think of main stream Republicans back before Nixon.
Normally it would not matter much. But now with the bu$h/cheney criminals running things, it does matter because it makes it so much harder to contain the criminals in & out of the White House because they support or go along with way too much of bu$h's B.S.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

30. Other candidates have better ideas

and have shown, by their actions, that they not only say they believe in an issue but show by their actions that they follow through.

Mrs. Clinton voted for war in Iraq and to continue funding. She has said that it would be a while before we could leave, but I've never seen links to a detailed plan for pullout. I find that extremely troubling.

Mrs. Clinton's health plan would reward the insurance industry rather than taking them out of the picture and making health care not for profit. She also has, in the past, been silent about holistic medicine and preventive medicine, two fields I have been acutely interested in. While First Lady, she would not address these issues, and never even replied to queries about them-at least my extremely conservative Republican congressman sends out a form letter as a reply.

I've talked with friends who have lived in Arkansas longer than I have, and who knew of the Clintons--it is a small state, and if you wish to meet the Governor, it isn't that hard to do--but their attitude about Mrs. Clinton was that she wasn't approachable with new ideas or alternative ideas--it was as if she had her mind made up and wouldn't change. These friends are ones I've known for years and trust and respect. They are everything from Republicans to Democrats to Greens--and their opinion of Mrs. Clinton was not favorable when she was First Lady of Arkansas.

It is for these reasons that I am not supporting Mrs. Clinton for President. I can't say that I don't like her, because I don't know her. But I have concerns about her actions as a Senator and her stands on Iraq and health, as well as how flexible she would be in the White House.

[creeksneakers2]

164. Hillary voted against continued funding for Iraq. n/t

[Turn CO Blue]

35. Do you count her time as First Lady as practical experience?

I do not. The duties of First Lady are unofficial, purely voluntary and pertain to acting as HOSTESS and to appearances at ceremonies. You wrote that she "knows how the WH is run". I doubt it. She knows no more than Laura Bush knows how the WH is run! By "knows how the WH is run" do you mean how the kitchens are run? LOL! Laura Bush has been doing the same function for six years now as Hillary Clinton did for eight years -- is Laura Bush TOO now counted among those qualified to lead a nation in foreign policy or to be commander-in-chief? Well, I thought not.

Yes, Senator Clinton has six years of being a Senator (which is only a little longer than the much-touted to be "inexperienced" Barack Obama) and some years of being a Governor's wife. That does not count as experienced in my book.

To my standards, most of the candidates in either party are not what I would call "experienced".

BTW, I have not chosen a candidate yet. I am still waiting to see what Gore decides finally.

[Lucinda]

41. Good grief

I suggest you do a bit of research...she did a bit more during the WH years than playing hostess....

[RevolutionStartsNow]

37. I don't dislike Hillary

After all, she's a Democrat, and she's not a DINO like Lieberman, despite what some people say.

I agree with her on many issues but not on others, like most of the other candidates.

I do have a problem with her being unable to flat out say she was WRONG on the IWR and other votes.

I have always thought she would be a mistaken nominee because my (very unscientific) research tells me that nearly ALL Republicans hate her (for lousy reasons, in most cases, but fact remains), some passionately -- enough even to vote for a Repub candidate they don't like -- and many Democrats don't like her either. That math just doesn't add up.

It's fair to say that she comes with great experience but also perhaps too much baggage.

And this may seem silly, but I don't think it's right to have so many years of Bush, Bush, Clinton, Clinton, Bush, Bush, then Clinton again. We need CHANGE.

That said I think Bill would be a great asset if given power again, to restore much of the goodwill we lost around the world.

I'll of course vote for her if she is nominated, and probably even work for her, but I think our party would be much better off with a different nominee.

[GeorgeGist]

44. She's a con artist ...

aka a triangulator.

[sam sarrha]

49. she is a politician on a Mission. whats wrong with that, better than do nothing wet brain alcoholic

drug addict psychopath fetal alcohol brain damaged rich kid

well he isn't actually a 'do nothing', he killed over 650,000 innocent iraqi's invaded their land based on lies.. shredded the constitution, created a fascist plutocracy.. bankrupted the nation and sold it out to china. ran up the dept by 5 trillion dollars with nothing to show for it

[earthlover]

183. Since Bush is not running, that description could be used for all candidates

[Beaverhausen]

45. She comes with too much baggage. I don't dislike her

There is so much hatred out there for her on the right - our country doesn't need that now. We need someone the right can at least tolerate and it isn't her.

[sam sarrha]

53. so what does it make you if you take your orders from the Fascist Reich Wing... a ____

fill in the blank

[Beaverhausen]

54. excuse me?

you have some serious reading comprehension issues I'm afraid.

[carolinayellowdog]

50. I like her and will vote for her in the general if she's the nom BUT

Some of her supporters-- too many-- are nasty, hateful bullies on DU and that gives me a very bad taste. Constantly claiming she and they are victimized by *political* criticism, while victimizing other DUers with *personal* attacks and snark. If I believed that they were a fair reflection of her, I'd be unable to vote for her. So am clicking ignore left and right to avoid having my nose rubbed in their "defend Hillary by attacking DU and DUers" nastiness.

[Stephanie]

83. I've had the same experience

i've never seen DU so hostile before. i've never seen behavior like i've seen the last week or so.

[alteredstate]

86. I agree

Some of her supporters are the nastiest, pettiest posters at DU.

[saracat]

87. Thank you guys. I thought I was losing it.Thatn iszx what I observed.

[earthlover]

146. I have noticed that too....snarkiness sums it up

Is there a motive behind their divisiveness?

[natrat]

51. corporate whore with sleazey connections and i think big dog is full of shit

[Joe the Revelator]

56. I'm perfectly willing to back my stance up....but why would you want me to?

I mean we have a huge field of candidates, why should I have to verbalize why I do not support one of the many?

[Pyrzqxgl]

57. I don't dislike Hilary. Shucks, I don't know the lady.

I just don't think she can get elected, there are other candidates I'm more in agreement with on the issues, and so many
of you DU folks get so worked up about her & that scares me. If she should get the nomination a good bunch of you are
gonna have coronaries & I sure don't want that to happen. I enjoy all the bullshit too much.

[durrrty libby]

66. I want them to have MIs I would love it. Woot Woot

[earthlover]

147. I don't think heart attacks are funny, durty liberal. You are out of line

[tammywammy]

60. I don't dislike Hillary, I just don't trust her

[Name removed]

67. Deleted message

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

[RevolutionStartsNow]

71. whaaaaaaaaaa?

How did you get there? Lots of people don't trust Hillary, based on this thread.

[alteredstate]

84. Could this be one of the reasons people don't like Hillary? n/t

[QueenOfCalifornia]

120. Hello

Do you like to be a total bee-atch or what?

People have all sorts of reasons for not liking Hillary - to interject a snarky, hateful remark like that is really nasty. Please, enough of you making this thread into another "If you don't like Hillary I will make you feel suicidal" threads. I mean that comment is low and really uncalled for.

(p.s. Your juvenile use of emoticons makes me think you have some problems other than being mean to the posters on these boards.)

[tammywammy]

137. Well, I'm glad I missed whatever they said

:)

[alteredstate]

65. I don't dislike her, but...

I think the Republicans will turn out in record numbers to vote against her.

And I was disappointed when she voted to authorize the war in Iraq.

[Clintonista2]

72. Its simple- Hillary is polling in first place

If Hillary slips from first, whoever takes her place will be the new Hillary.

[durrrty libby]

75. High 5 Woo Hoo She is the next pres. Love her

[illinoisprogressive]

73. What I dislike most is her playing the victim instead of taking responsibilty

and using her husband's presidency when it convienent and then, going against the same things when it's not.
Not taking a real stand on anything. Just blaming everyone for her mistakes.

[Name removed]

74. Deleted message

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

[Throd]

80. Her voice sounds like a dentist's drill.

Oh yeah, and she will stand for anything if it gets her elected.

Her me no trust.

[Clintonista2]

123. Taking your talking points directly from Limbaugh eh?

The sad thing is, Limbaugh is more progressive than some of the other citations used by the anti-hillarites on DU.

[Throd]

151. No, I do my own thinking and reach my own conclusions.

[Clintonista2]

167. Funny- Limbaugh reaches the same conclusions

[Throd]

194. Just because a right winger thinks she is power hungry with the convictions of a wind sock..

doesn't mean the charge isn't valid.

[Clintonista2]

197. Your attack was on the sound of her voice

HRC is a strong, assertive woman, and that intimidates a lot of people, like you. Therefore, the debate is mostly about how she sounds "shrill", "shrieking", or as you/limbaugh put it, "like a drill"

[NoFederales]

121. The "Reactive-Hillary", indeed; her baggage will prevent proactivity. nt

NoFederales

[Stephanie]

81. Because we are in a climate CRISIS and as a corporatist she won't do a damn thing about it.

Her hands are tied by her corporate sponsors.

[killbotfactory]

88. We will get the least amount of progress with Hillary

And we will have to watch as issue after issue is surrendered to the republicans needlessly.

[PatSeg]

89. I used to like her a LOT

In the early nineties, she was a fresh voice - outspoken and unscripted. She had great enthusiasm and energy. It is gone now and she's been transformed into a polished, well rehearsed politician. I admire her discipline and organization, but the Hillary I remember has vanished. Over the years I been disillusioned by the many decisions she's made, though I can't recount them all now. Rupert Murdoch doesn't set too well with me, her handling of the IWR, her many corporate ties, working with Newt Gingrich, etc.

As many have said, I don't particularly trust her. I can't say that I "like" or "dislike" her anymore as I haven't a clue who she is. I would vote for her in the general, but not in the primaries.

[More Than A Feeling]

90. All that experience, and I still have no idea what she would do

if she actually became president. You like her for her personal traits, but if you're like me, you want a progressive future. Ask yourself this: do you honestly believe that Hillary will move towards a progressive future, or will she merely stop the bleeding, without moving on to the bold changes that are necessary to heal the planet and the insecurity of average Americans? Is Hillary a leader or a go-with-the-flow kind of person? Is her massive fundraising (from questionable sources like Rupert Murdoch) a prelude to public financing of elections, or an indicator that right-wing corporate money will continue to poison our politics under a new Clinton administration?

These are the questions make me actively hope she does not get the nomination.

[avrdream]

94. Love her. I know it isn't answering your question but,

without reading the whole thread, I would bet that there needs to be an injection of positive thoughts about Senator Clinton.

She's getting my vote, support, and money. Enough said.

[earthlover]

149. How about elaborating. Just saying you like her isn't enough said...how about why?

[Apollo11]

95. Her closeness to Rupert Murdoch

which says a lot (to me at least) about her acceptance of partisan private corporations controlling the media and influencing public policy.

Plus her long record of support for the Bu$h-Cheney foreign policy - especially as regards Iraq.

Your argument basically boils down to the fact that she was/is the wife of a (former) President.

But the fact is we don't know if she lets Bill nibble her ears.

And even if he does - that's not a qualification for Hillary to be POTUS.

[w4rma]

96. 1) She's a sure loser in the general. 2) She's untrustworthy. 3) Horrible on labor issures. (nt)

[cleveramerican]

97. Bush, Clinton, Clinton, Bush, Bush......Clinton?

I've got Clinton fatigue.

[Perry Logan]

98. They dislike Hillary because they have unconsciously absorbed reams of incontinent slander.

The dislike for Hillary we see around here is a triumph for the Republican slime machine.

The media has been beating up on Hillary for more than 15 years. It's basic neurology. If you hear that kind of hatred, repeated that often, you absorb some of it.

Oddly, the anti-Hilarites seem quite pleased with themselves--as if parroting Republican talking points were a great achievement.

[Kahuna]

100. WRONGO!!! As many have said up thread, she's changed. She's

not the fresh voice she once was. She's a polished, pandering, glib politician now. If she was the same Hillary that she was before she became a senator with presidential ambitions, I'm sure that I would still view her as favorably as I once did. But she is no longer that pre-senator Hillary.

[PatSeg]

110. I've rarely seen such a dramatic change in a person

and it does appear to have something to do with becoming a senator. It seems as if she decided to become a tough politician to counteract the fact that she's a woman, but the end result is cold and robotic. Her husband was a master politician, but he maintained that human appeal. She, however, lost it.

Personally, I think it started back in the White House when she was publicly humiliated by her husband. After years of supporting Bill and living in his shadow, she may have decided now it was "her turn". I can admire that and relate to it, but the person she's become isn't who I want to be president. I get the feeling she'll do anything, compromise any principle to get elected.

[Stephanie]

102. Wrong. It is not "slime" to disagree with her votes, her policy, her corporate funding.

This is not a coronation, this is a primary election, and people are supposed to weigh the issues and choose the candidate that best represents them. It's not "hatred" to state the reasons why we think she's not the best candidate. The drama that some of her supporters indulge in is not helpful to her.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

108. Sorry to contradicct your DLC talking points, but

I'm criticizing her from the left.

I'm not criticizing her for being a strong woman, nor do I think she killed Vincent Foster.

However, I KNOW that she buddies around with some of the country's worst right-wingers.

[earthlover]

150. Your post is the best post yet on why Hillary cannot win! In the general election....

"The media has been beating up on Hillary for more than 15 years. It's basic neurology. If you hear that kind of hatred, repeated that often, you absorb some of it".

That. Says. It. All.

In the general election, many of her memes have already been planted. So she will be the easiest candidate to defeat for the Reps.

Some of us see this, and are aware of how easy she will be to be defeated. Ironic thing, her supporters just shrug this off as Republican spin.

Nope, Republicans don't want to spin it for us to believe she will lose. They want to spin it for us to believe she can win.

In any case, thanks for the articulate description of why Hillary cannot win in the general. Best I have ever seen.

[MH1]

153. Actually, no.

There are plenty of reasons to dislike her without "parroting Republican talking points."

For just one - I used to like her until she backstabbed John Kerry last fall. She showed her true "character" (lack thereof) in that moment.

Ironically, that particular act of backstabbing was to use a republican talking point against a fellow Democrat who was working his ass off to elect other Dems, while she was busy building her 2008 warchest. So, if some Dems are flinging republican talking points about her now, well maybe it's only fair. (For myself, I try to stick to the liberal reasons for disliking her, like her coziness with Rupert Murdoch. Eww.)

[Skittles]

174. yes, she really didn't support IWR

that was planted in my head by Rove

[Forkboy]

181. Sophomoric,simplistic,and sad.

[Hersheygirl]

101. I used to like Hillary, however

Her vote on the war wasn't honest. Hillary is a very smart woman thus I feel she knew the truth that Saddam did not have what the Bushies said he had. She knew that Bush was a liar, hell she knew how the Republicans played the game. Look what they had done to her and Bill. Lie after lie after lie. So one can not tell me she wasn't aware of how they manipulated everything. So when the vote on the war came up, she did what she knew was right politically. She voted for the war, hoping that all would go well, that when she ran, she could claim victory because she voted for it.

Now if the war didn't go well, she could always lay the blame on Bush, for have misguided her. She had her bases covered. Do I like Hillary now, no. A true leader goes with whats right, not with what will help them politically, especially when it concerns citizens having to give up their lives. That's what I just can't get out of my head and for that I will not vote support her.

[PatSeg]

112. You're right, you don't compromise when so many lives are

at stake. I know one has to play politics to get elected and hold office, but I think she sold her soul.

[MadinMo]

103. Why I don't like the idea of Hillary as President

We don't need another Dynasty -- We need CHANGE

[Stephanie]

105. Welcome to DU, MadinMO!

:hi:

[Stephanie]

104. Can we get some recommends for this thread, please.

It's very informative.

[PatSeg]

109. It is very informative

and I recommended it yesterday. I've learned a great deal.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

107. I used to like her, but the IWR vote and her refusal to apologize for it,

plus attending a fundraiser organized by Rupert Murdoch are real red flags for me. That man would NEVER support anyone who had the interests of the American people at heart.

I also find it distasteful that the Clintons are acting as if the Bush Sr's are their best buddies.

Hillary would simply be a kinder, gentler Republican. Her issues are the yuppie behavioral issues, not the economic and foreign policy issues that are the ones that could destroy this country.

She is the corporate world's idea candidate.

[kladinvt]

119. Corporatism 101

From all indications, Hillary has already been bought & paid for by big Pharma & the Insurance industries & after 7 yrs of corporatist BushCo, the U.S. doesn't need another lobbyist president.

In addition to that, she's just said that she thinks the 'tactics' (Bush's surge) being used in Iraq are working! So that, along with her non-apology for voting on the war in the first place, are reasons enough to keep me & everyone I know away from her.
If somehow she manages to become the nominee, I'll either skip the presidential section on the ballot or simply not vote at all. What's the difference between her & Bush anyway?

[creeksneakers2]

165. How is she in the pockets of big pharma?

The biggest gift to big pharma ever was George Bush's prescription drug benefit. Hillary voted against it. While she was at it, she spoke against the rest of big pharma's agenda.

"Yet it fails to deal with the rising price of prescription drugs. It guts re-importation, weakens the generic provisions, and goes through the most unimaginable contortions to undermine government bargaining power, or any other checks on skyrocketing prescription drug prices."

http://clinton.senate.gov/~clinton/speeches/2003B25A30.html

[creeksneakers2]

166. Also

Hillary's comments were about progress in Anbar Province, not the surge. The surge didn't even take place in Anbar Province.

"According to an August 21 New York Times article, Clinton told the VFW: "We've begun to change tactics in Iraq, and in some areas, particularly in Al Anbar province, it's working. ... We're just years too late changing our tactics. We can't ever let that happen again." The Times also reported that "ides to Mrs. Clinton said her remarks that military tactics in Iraq are 'working' referred specifically to reports of increased cooperation from Sunnis leading to greater success against insurgents in Al Anbar Province." And according to an April 29 Times article on improvements in Al Anbar, the progress there "began last September" -- months before Bush announced his plan to increase the number of troops in Iraq."

http://mediamatters.org/items/200708240005?f=h_latest

[yurbud]

124. she's become too corporate friendly. her comment about lobbyists during debate said it all

[YOY]

125. This pretty much summed up my thoughts about her

I don't think he's asking her to be his "page three girlie..."

That and I've truly noticed that she will say anything to get elected. I despise that. A prime example being her great attack on "video game violence". http://www.gamespot.com/news/2005/07/13/news_6129021.html A f***ing war going on started on false premises, a blatantly out of control military industrial complex, decaying infrastructure, real jobs being outsourced, and she's worried about something that has been disproven to exist (a connection between video games and violent crime)in an effort to appeal to "soccer moms" and "NASCAR dads"...nice priorities. Her and Joe "not-really-a-dem-anymore" Lieberman and their BS "priorities"...

American's not getting proper healthcare because of a system that panders to insurance companies (and that will continue to do so under her according to her webpage...THEY'RE THE PROBLEM. STOP TREATING THE SYMPTOMS and START TREATING THE DISEASE!) Cut out the parasitic middleman. What's so damn hard about that??? If she's worried about the industry going away causing unemployment, then maybe stopping some of that outsourcing that NAFTA and her old buddy Walmart seem to be causing.

Anyone can say what is not popular. A politician is good at saying what is popular. A real leader says what's not popular and convince the public enough to MAKE it popular.

Is that reason enough for you? Or perhaps you want to hear that I think she's no good because she has a vigina or some such tripe?

[Zodiak]

126. OK.

1. Her vote for the war, not bothering to oversee any of the rationale and in fact, buying into it. Also, not getting behind ending the war until it became clear her political butt depended on it...even so, her remedies are so measured that they look like Republican-style delays. And of course, she doesn't vote first....she votes last to ensure she knows the outcome first...not a principled Democrat at all.

2. She is one of the leaders of the DLC, an organization that has been virulently undermining the efforts of the greater Democratic party, the grassroots, and liberals in general. Her organization fights vehemently to ensure that average voters do not have the voice they deserve in our government and that right-wing policies pass despite th Democratic party being overwhelmingly against these policies. She has also promised that prominent DLCers like Vilsack would serve in her administration, so she is already signposting a potential DLC-driven administration that our nation cannot afford at this time.

3. She refuses to take the doctrine of pre-emption and nukes off of the table in dealing with foreign policy, a massive departure from the U.S. normal stance. These policies, in fact, have been promoted by * and were considered the prvince of war criminals before 2001.

4. Her 50% progressive record on big issues in the Senate. A Democrat who has voted with Bush policies 50% of the time in the last congressional session is clearly not on the side of progressives or the Constitution. Her support for the Patriot Act in spite of how it has been used is only one example of that.

5. Her more visible initiatives have all been right-wing or nanny-statist. Examples are her stance on flag burning and violent video games. For a "don't tread on me" type like me, these authoritarian policies only legitimize those that wish to unundate us with useless, trival issues when our nation is suffering economically and hated throughout the world.

6. The fact that she refuses to even consider the corrupting infuence of lobbyig money in Congress, even talking down to activists about it.

7. Her stance that free trade is a wonderful thing despite the loss of many jobs in the US. In fact, she would like to accelerate insourcing of lower paid H1B visas to undercut the American worker even further.

8. Her alliance with Rupert Murdoch and the ensuing media blitz that followed. A media blitz that threatens to unfairly quash the other candidates before their positions are well-known in the public, I might add. I do not trust anyone that allies themselves with Murdoch. That man has always been up to no good.

9. Despite her previous efforts in the 90's, Hillary has abandoned the idea of universal single-payer health care in favor of "measured" responses that are mere band-aids to a problem that has grown into ten time the crisis since she took it on in the 90's.

10. Her campaign is not very strtegic because it is relying on a scorched earth policy of alienating entire segments of her party and launching spurious attacks at other candidates. If her campaign was more strategic, it would be crafting policies that every Democrat can get behind rather than build an air of inevitability and expect others to follow (and launching paid bloggers to promote her candidacy...in a really off-putting manner I might add). That might have worked ten years ago for her husband, but things have changed a LOT since then. Her refusal to learn this lesson and understand politics in her party now has me doubting her ability to handle this campaign or her job as President. Leadership requires more than relying on overpaid advisors who have a vested interest in doing things like it was the last decade.

There are a few more reasons, but this should get the ball rolling from my end. We could go into the minutia of the votes if you like...she has some doozies, but in short, her nomination would mean further marginalization the the American left and more neo-liberal economic policy, which is choking our middle class to death. I decided yesterday not to support her if she gets the nomination. That was a tough one for me, but I have nothing left to compromise but my principles, and I refuse sell the last of my political soul for a cup of hope that she'll not be like the rest of the DLC has been for 20 years.

[huskerlaw]

127. Many reasons

I don't agree with her positions on many issues, including health care.

I feel that she has sold out to corporate interests.

Her favorability/unfavorability ratings are quite disturbing, come general election time.

Basically, she doesn't represent me or my interests. Other candidates do so to a much greater degree.

I have nothing against her personally, and I will vote for her if she wins the primary, but at this point I cannot support her.

[Joey Liberal]

128. I don't hate Hillary - I just have Clinton fatigue

And I damn sure have Bush fatigue.

[EVDebs]

130. Her ties to outsourcing of jobs via Tata. Just say ta-ta to your job eom

[Stephanie]

135. Good point. More info on Tata & Clinton >

http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-buffalo30jul30,1,3

Clinton woos the outsourcers feared by U.S. workers
The senator's efforts to bring an Indian firm to Buffalo, which yielded 'about 10' jobs, illustrates the bind she faces.

By Peter Wallsten, Times Staff Writer
July 30, 2007

BUFFALO, N.Y. — To many labor unions and high-tech workers, the Indian giant Tata Consultancy Services is a serious threat — a company that has helped move U.S. jobs to India while sending thousands of foreign workers on temporary visas to the United States.

So when Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) came to this struggling city to announce some good news, her choice of partners was something of a surprise.

Joining Tata Consultancy's chief executive at a downtown hotel, Clinton announced that the company would open a software development office in Buffalo and form a research partnership with a local university. Tata told a newspaper that it might hire as many as 200 people.

The 2003 announcement had clear benefits for the senator and the company: Tata received good press, and Clinton burnished her credentials as a champion for New York's depressed upstate region.

But less noticed was how the event signaled that Clinton, who portrays herself as a fighter for American workers, had aligned herself with Indian American business leaders and Indian companies feared by the labor movement.

Now, as Clinton runs for president, that signal is echoing loudly.

Clinton is successfully wooing wealthy Indian Americans, many of them business leaders with close ties to their native country and an interest in protecting outsourcing laws and expanding access to worker visas. Her campaign has held three fundraisers in the Indian American community recently, one of which raised close to $3 million, its sponsor told an Indian news organization.

But in Buffalo, the fruits of the Tata deal have been hard to find. The company, which called the arrangement Clinton's "brainchild," says "about 10" employees work here. Tata says most of the new employees were hired from around Buffalo. It declines to say whether any of the new jobs are held by foreigners, who make up 90% of Tata's 10,000-employee workforce in the United States.

As for the research deal with the state university that Clinton announced, school administrators say that three attempts to win government grants with Tata for health-oriented research were unsuccessful and that no projects are imminent.


***

Among Indian American activists, Clinton's work with Tata has been seen as a sign of her independence from outsourcing skeptics within her party — and a break from the Democrats' 2004 presidential nominee, Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry, who lambasted "Benedict Arnold CEOs" for shipping jobs overseas.

The main lobbying organization for the Indian-American community, USINPAC, cites the Tata deal as one of Clinton's top three achievements as a senator — and evidence of a turnabout, in its view, from her past criticism of outsourcing. "Even though she was against outsourcing at the beginning of her political career," the USINPAC website says, "she has since changed her position and now maintains that offshoring brings as much economic value to the United States as to the country where services are outsourced, especially India."

Clinton regularly reinforces that view. When CNN anchorman Lou Dobbs, an outsourcing critic, pressed her on the Tata deal in 2004, Clinton responded: "Well, of course I know that they outsource jobs, that they've actually brought jobs to Buffalo. They've created 10 jobs in Buffalo and have told me and the Buffalo community that they intend to be a source of new jobs in the area, because, you know, outsourcing does work both ways."

*more at link**

[Scriptor Ignotus]

132. I think policy-wise Obama and Clinton are similiar

but Obama has way more charisma and sincerity than Clinton. I view Obama as a far greater pragmatist as well. The RW Hate Machine will be more successful against Clinton, but I am under no illusion that they will not come out to bash whoever we nominate.

[Pawel K]

134. That's not really the point

it is up to Hillary supporters to tell us why they support her, and so far I have not heard any explaination for this. And trust me, I asked plenty of times.

You mentioned some generic talking points about her such as she has experiance. Jon Stewert made a great point when he had Obama on, does her being the first lady really count as experiance? If I have 30 years of experiance in managing electronics does that experiance automatically transfer to my wife? If it doesn't then she really doesn't have that much experiance at all.

I don't really know what you mean by she knows most of the world leaders. I'm curious as to where you got this information from. And if its true why does knowing these leaders matter if she won't talk to them?

I could list hundreds of reasons why I would never vote for her in the primaries, but I'm sure others have already pointed many of them out in this thread.

[rateyes]

138. She was for the war before

she was against it, before the surge was working, before the surge wasn't working, etc. etc. etc.

[earthlover]

184. she was for talking with enemies before she was against it, against nukes on the table before for it

[eridani]

140. I like her as a person. I don't like her pro-corporate agenda

Triangulation and screwing the American working class suck, big time.

[AtomicKitten]

141. I like Hill fine -- some of her supporters get on my last nerve, however.

[sniffa]

148. because i'm an insecure maLe

or a traditionaL woman.

[earthlover]

152. THe biggest thing i have against Hillary are her supporters on DU....

tied for the lead is the all-encompassing reason: she can't win. If she can't win, we will have another Republican president. THAT should be reason enough, because if she can't win, nothing she SAYS really matters. And she doesn't say much that hasn't already been said to boot.

[DutchLiberal]

156. Experience is not always a good thing. In her case, it would lead to "politics as usual"...

Barack Obama's comment during the Iowa debate was brilliant: remember that Dick Cheney and Don Rumsfeld got a lot of experience when they got into the Bush-administration. Some call HRC 'Republican-lite' and I agree with them, because on a lot of issues, she not really differs from the other side of the aisle.

We all know she voted FOR the Iraq war and has stood by it ever since, until it became politically unpopular to do so. Has she ever apologized for her vote, like John Edwards did? I can't recall she ever did. She put her own political career above the lives of the American soldiers and the Iraqi people when she gave Bush the authorization to invade Iraq. In the Iowa debate, she said she trusted Bush and his advisers. How can you on the one hand claim you are such an experienced politician, and on the other hand believe anything Bush says? She could've known better. And in fact, she did know better, but at the time, when dissenters where being blasted for being 'unpatriotic', she thought it was best for her career to vote for the war. And we see the results on TV every day.

A fact overlooked most of the times, is that HRC also voted *FOR* the Patriot Act. A horrible piece of legislation that grants the FBI and other intelligence agencies unlimited power to intrude your personal and private life. They check what library books you've read, they infiltrate organizations you have a membership to, they can ever search your house when you're out and never have to tell you! And for what? Not for fighting terrorism. As Al Gore clearly and rightly stated: the attacks of 9/11 could've been prevented with good old fashioned police work. You don't need a Patriot Act to protect the US from terrorism. The Patriot Act is only used to give the government even more power over your private life. And not only did Hillary Clinton voted FOR it, she also has stated NO intent of repealing it when she gets into office.

She does NOT support the impeachment of Dick Cheney and George Bush. Why doesn't she want to hold them accountable? Why won't she show the American people what crimes they have committed? Maybe she thinks the privileges they have granted themselves would come in handy once she got into office?

Lastly, why would you want to turn the US into even more of an oligarchy/aristocracy? Does your country really has only two families capable of delivering presidential material? Do two families get to run the country for over 20 years? Do you think that will bring the change the country so desperately needs? Do you think HRC will unite the country again, after 8 divisive years? Do you NOT think she will divide the country even further?

(EDIT: I know what I said goes for a lot of other candidates as well, but this IS a 'Hillary-thread'..)

[onewholaughsatfools]

159. I don't hate hillary, nor do i hate bush

but, i will not vote and have not voted for either. My reasons are simple, I have seen her voting record, I have heard her speeches, I don't trust her and as for her being a Democrat makes me not like her even more, she gives the democratic party a bad name. Bill Clinton was the best Republican president the republican's ever had. I do not want two families ruining this country anymore. Does this clear things up for you. Blessings

[Progressive Friend]

168. She is the most right-wing Democrat running

She voted for the war in Iraq. She'd attack Iran. She'd allow neocons into the executive branch. She is basically just a pro-choice version of Bush.

[usregimechange]

169. I don't believe anything she says, i.e. political opportunist.

[zulchzulu]

171. Why does Rupert Murdoch want her in the race and has had fundraisers for her?

That's a question that will lead you to what I would have an answer for.

Follow the money.



If you had a choice of picking the worst horse to run against in a race, who would you pick?

[area51]

172. HRC

Hillary is pro-war and pro-offshoring/anti-American workers.

[calteacherguy]

175. We need bold leadership, a new direction, and a clear break from the past.

Hillary offers none of those.

[nadinbrzezinski]

176. Her voting record over the course of her service in the

Senate,

It is that simple.

It is too far to the right for my taste

In case you wonder, it is almost identical to Obama's who I don't particularly like that much either

And it comes down to their voting records

[fujiyama]

177. I don't hate her

but I don't particularly trust her either.

I don't think she has any political principals whatsoever.

Her vote for the war is one such example - honestly, I've never once really figured out her stance on it. The impression I get is "oh it was a good idea but Bush messed it up". If she admitted making a mistake in authorizing war - in voting the way she did, I might find it easier to get past it. I still would believe it shows poor foresight, but at least it shows you can admit to a mistake.

That's not the stance I'm looking for.

Also, I've been dismayed by Lieberman-esque remarks at times, which seem to parrot RW talking points. Granted they aren't as bad as Lieberman, but still when she says "the US is safer now.." or that "we are making some progress...", she is giving credit where first of all none is deserved, and second, diluting the party's own message. She seems to be looking out only for herself and her political career.

Her corporate ties don't sit too well with me. She did vote for the '01 version of the bankruptcy bill. Has she ever said whether she would have voted for the '05 version?

Why does she seem to be so buddy-buddy with Rupert Murdoch?

She has not claimed a stake in any major issue over the last few years. Instead, while the war rages on and kills thousands of Americans and Iraqis, she rails about the pettiest thing imaginable - video game sex and violence. Oh, and of course, there was also flag burning. Sorry, but her sense of priority seemed truly out of whack.

I have little reason to believe she can win over independent and moderate republican voters, especially males.

Unfortunately, many people out there, do hate her irrationally. Personally I don't get the obsession. Maybe, as a woman in a powerful she intimidates many. I don't know. I also think the media would love to rehash old garbage about fake Clinton era scandals. I'm not interested in hearing the crap again myself. I'd rather move on from that. Nominating Hillary will not allow us to do that.

She also would prove to be an effective get out the vote effort for the extreme right.

But I'll give her credit on a few counts:

She's a tenacious and tough campaigner.

She's very sharp and quick to reply to attacks.

She did win upstate NY which is somewhat conservative...

But it'll take me a bit more to convince me that A) She can win nationwide (especially states that Kerry lost) and B) She will be a significant change from the status quo.

Granted, I'll still drag myself to vote for her if she gets the nomination. Because even if she won't be the kind of change I'd prefer, she'd be better than any republican running.

[earthlover]

185. Good post....I am finding Hillary to be depressing

I too would vote for her, and maybe even work for her, if she got the nomination.

But not without some worry.

Actually, maybe her winning would not be such a victory. Consider that her term would be fraught with divisiveness. The right wing would not stop their attacks against her. It would be a continuation of the fights during Clinton's administration.

Yet Hillary does not really offer much in the way of a hopeful message to lead us away from all this divisiveness as a country.

Yes, she would be marginally better than the other republicans in the race, that is, the republicans in the republican party.

But I don't relish the Democratic Party being led by someone with such wishy-washy flip-flop-to-dwarf-Kerry "leadership" while the right wing is in constant warfare over how extreemely liberal the administration is.

I would much rather see a president who can lead us into a more progressive direction than Hillary ever would be willing to....and without all the baggage she would bring to the plate.

It is just so depressing with Hillary as the nominee. I see a bleak future if she wins, and even bleaker future if she loses. And the most likely result would be she would lose.

What is even more depressing is that 08 should have been a year where we could have made great gains over the Republicans. It could have been a major break with the Republican era, and it could have led to a new era of Democratic rule. With Hillary, we would need a miracle just to get her elected.

[OneBlueSky]

178. the main problem in this country today is the influence of corporations . . .

on our government . . . giant corporations and their lobbyists are so powerful that they even write the legislation and regulations that govern their own industries . . . every critical problem we face -- the war, environmental destruction, healthcare, arms proliferation, energy, etc. -- is the direct result of the actions and policies of mega-corps, and their influence in Congress and on the executive . . .

for ANY meaningful change to take place, we need a populist president who will stand up to the corporations, re-regulate them, and ensure that actions they take which harm the nation (e.g. outsourcing all of their jobs) will have consequences . . . this is particularly important in the area of healthcare, where HMOs have inserted themselves into the equation for the express purpose of siphoning off hundreds of billions of healthcare dollars for corporate profit . . . HMOs do NOTHING to better the health of Americans . . . in fact, their greed dictates that they deny as many claims as possible in order to increase the returns to their stockholders and executives . . . because, legally, increasing profit must be their number one priority at all times . . .

Hillary Clinton is a dyed-in-the-wool corporatist -- about as far from a populist as you can get . . . just look at her list of contributors . . . any healthcare plan she proposes will maintain HMOs as its backbone, and those hundreds of billions of healthcare dollars will continue to go to corporate profit rather than to providing healthcare services . . . similarly, any energy, environmental, or foreign policy will accommodate mega-corps in ways that are detrimental to the nation and its well-being . . .

I don't hate Hillary . . . but she is one of the last candidates I want to see in the White House . . . trading corporate Republicans with corporate Democrats will result in no meaningful progess on any of the critical problems we face . . .

[mrigirl]

198. OneBlueSky-

I couldn't have said that any better! That's exactly why I don't want Hillary either. I work in the medical field and I completely agree w/ you about the HMO nonsense. I see it every day. Hillary will indeed be just another Corporate President w/ her own agenda.
The only candidate that I do not see as of right now that isn't being funded by massive corporations and thier lobbyists as much is Senator Biden. He's on his own in this race.
Go ahead and say what you will about Biden- but he would be one of the few who would be a Populist President and do what's best for us not THEM.

[Vidar]

179. Up until 2006, I would have had no problem voting for Hillary.

She is tough & highly competent. It is stories like this, "Hillary woos outsourcers", reported on this site, that have forced me into the "anyone but Hillary" camp.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=2934453&mesg_id=2934453

For Hillary & the vast majority of politicians politics has become all about money, doing the right thing & the constituents be damned. Hillary has sold out to the very same capitalist, corporate gangsters that control the current sad, little puppet in the White House

[Perry Logan]

182. Anti-Hillary = MISOGYNY

[earthlover]

186. No more than anti-Obama is racist, anti-Richardson is anti-Mexican....

Get a grip. We all know that Hillary is a woman. However, if you read all the intelligent posts above it would be obvious to anyone with a clear head that there are a lot of reasons not to support Hillary, and I have not seen her sex even hinted at as one of them.

I will turn the question around on you. If Hillary was a MALE...and HE supported the Iraq War, never admitted it was a mistake on HIS part, was buddy-buddy with Murdoch, voted for the first BK bill, was the King of Triangulation, spoke out of both sides of his mouth, hardly ever took a stand on anything especially not in a progressive direction, had about 8 years in the Senate as His only political experience besides being married to a popular politician....if HIS negative were so low that about half of Americans would never consider voting for him....was the candidate of the establishment, and had a better-than-average chance for being nominated but didn't do so well as others in matchups with republicans. Someone who has yet to propose a health care plan, doesn't rule out the use of nuclear weapons, attacks his opponents for saying they would talk with our enemies even though he had said just the opposite in the past, someone who has issued strong talk about possible war with Iran......

Would you vote for HIM?

Or is the vote for Hillary because she is a HER, and you think all of this doesn't matter because it would be good to have a woman in the white house?

[MH1]

188. You nailed it - for some people anyway.

I have had a couple people tell me that the reason they support Hillary is because they want to see a woman as President.

Come to think of it, those are the only people I know personally who strongly support her over the others. (Admittedly, I haven't asked most people I know who aren't into politics, and those who are into politics, 2008 discussions are pretty much avoided as we are trying to get other work done.)

I am sure however, that just as there are valid reasons why some of us dislike her, there exist somewhere, actual Hillary supporters for whom her gender is not the driving issue. Just because I don't know them doesn't mean they don't exist. :)

[ludwigb]

189. How Dare You Exercise Common Sense?

And call it like you see it? You must be a sexist!

[bettyellen]

187. LOL, for middle america perhaps- but Progressives have a different and valid set of reasons

that have nothing to do w/ her sex.

[mnhtnbb]

199. That is total BS. I'm a proud, liberal, feminist (woman) and Hillary completely

turns me off. It has nothing to do with her genes and everything to do with
her position on the issues and the fact that I don't trust her.

[rucky]

190. The company she keeps. n/t

[LearnedHand]

193. (honest assessment of my own feelings here)

Thanks for this very thoughtful question. It and all the answers have made me examine why I generally am uncomfortable with the thought of Senator Clinton being the dem candidate. I think it's because many of her public statements about the war and about terrorism have sounded as if they could have come from the bush* camp, and honestly, at this point under the bush* regime, I find myself 180 degrees opposed to anything bush* says, even it it's reasonable and something I would have agreed with if it had come from someone else's mouth. My gut reactions, then, to Senator Clinton's warmongering are actually reactions to bush's* warmongering. I find it very very hard to see a difference in what Clinton is saying from anything bush* would say.

This is not a good place for me to be in -- to automatically discount anything that sounds like bush* just because it DOES sound like bush*.

[proud patriot]

195. She's not as Liberal as I am

I'll support her in the General , but I'm hoping for
a more Liberal Candidate .

[AnnieBW]

200. I like Hillary, but I'm not voting for her

I think that she's been a very good Senator so far. But there are two reasons why I'm not voting for her. One is the dynasty issue. It's time for fresh ideas, not just recycled ones from the 90's. The other is the fact that many people, including moderates WILL NOT vote for her for President. Period. The Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy will feast on this issue, and bring up all of the crap from Big Dawg's administration to haunt her, rather than focusing on current issues.

Don't get me wrong - I'm very happy that a woman is the front-runner. I'm just not happy that it's that particular woman.

[Vinca]

201. She's not liberal enough for me and I'm in no mood to elect

a politician who wants to sit in a circle with the 'pukes and sing Kumbaya. Screw bipartisanship, it's time to give the country back to the people and take it away from the corporations. So far the only candidate who gives me hope is Kucinich.