Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Someone, please, explain the Hillary Clinton phenomenon...

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
HardWorkingDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-19-07 04:50 AM
Original message
Someone, please, explain the Hillary Clinton phenomenon...
Okay, without any favored candidate pushes or the like, can someone explain the Hillary Clinton phenomenon to me.

What I am getting to is, Sen. Dodd in a recent debate stated that fifty percent would absolutely not vote for Hillary Clinton.

Now, without going into things like "this is a myth of the corporate media" or stuff like that, give me facts.

Was Dodd citing some poll like "fifty percent of the American people" or "fifty percent of voters" or "fifty percent of Republican voters." I would like facts.

What I want to know is, how is Hillary Clinton doing so well in the press. Is it solid support or soft support? Because to be honest, I am completely baffled by how well she is doing. But with this, if she is our candidate after the primaries, I will support her race 100 percent. But right now, I am just confused at her strong showing this far and wonder if she is the Howard Dean of 2008, while someone else will be the Kerry.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Josiah1982 Donating Member (204 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-19-07 04:58 AM
Response to Original message
1. She's presidential and SHE'S A CLINTON!!!
This country loves the Clintons. Maybe not the repubs, but the Democrats love them. The Clintons are like the Reagans. they split the country in two...but there are more Democrats than repugs. People want the Clintons back in the white house beacuse life was GOOD!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Beaverhausen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-19-07 04:42 PM
Response to Reply #1
36. Not all democrats love the Clintons. Don't kid yourself
There is plenty of animosity towards a lot of what Bill Clinton did when he was in the White House.

And lots of us are just sick of the whole Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton thing. Enough is enough. We need change in the White House.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NewYorkerfromMass Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-19-07 04:51 PM
Response to Reply #1
37. wow that is a simple statement
could use a little back-up....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pearl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-19-07 04:58 AM
Response to Original message
2. I wish I could
I'm as baffled as you. I just have a sick feeling about the alleged lead before a single vote is cast. I simply don't trust these cravenly self involved pundits, pollsters and consultants.
After all they deserve much of the blame for the situation we find ourselves in.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JCMach1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-19-07 05:00 AM
Response to Original message
3. It's the Competency Stupid!
Perceived competency as a leader is driving the race in both parties... not issues, not ideology.

After 8 years of incompetency, the nation wants a leader who actually knows what he/she is doing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pnwmom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-19-07 05:07 AM
Response to Original message
4. I have NEVER seen any statistics that back up Sen. Dodd's assertion.
She has negatives in the low 40's. In New York state, she won by a very comfortable majority, drawing votes from MANY Independents and a substantial number of Republican women in upstate New York (red country). In fact, she drew 75% of the women's vote overall.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
zalinda Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-19-07 06:29 AM
Response to Reply #4
12. She only won in New York because she had
no competition. That's the only reason, both times. There was only a half-hearted, at best, run against her. Has she done anything for New York, damned if I know. She does come to the state fair every year. I guess NYC is doing okay, but here in central New York, not so well.

zalinda
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wyldwolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-19-07 06:34 AM
Response to Reply #12
14. so, zalinda, why did Republicans vote for her?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
zalinda Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-19-07 08:40 AM
Response to Reply #14
22. Because the repub that ran against her
was so weak, that I don't think they ran one ad. And, a lot of repubs here in NY like her, she mirrors their policies. But then there aren't many rabid repubs here in NY as there are in other places. I guess you call them Goldwater repubs.

zalinda
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wyldwolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-19-07 09:30 AM
Response to Reply #22
27. so you're saying Republicans, under some circumstances, aren't so anti-Hillary.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MonkeyFunk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-19-07 06:37 PM
Response to Reply #12
47. Not true
Ric Lazio was neck and neck with her for much of of the 2000 campaign.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
zeemike Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-19-07 05:19 AM
Response to Original message
5. I think the confusion is due to the fact that this country
Is ready for a woman as presedent...I know I surly am.
But the problem is that all we have to run is one that is so polarizing that she may not be able to, first be elected, and if elected may not be able to govern effectively.
I am not ready to relive the 90s all over again, and you know we will because the clinton haters are still alive and close to power.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MBS Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-19-07 05:26 AM
Response to Original message
6. I'm a mainstream Dem, and a woman, and I'm one of that 50%
Edited on Mon Nov-19-07 05:45 AM by MBS
and I know at least 10 others like me among my immediate friends. I know a few more who will vote for her only if there is really, truly, no alternative. In fact, I have only one pair of friends who genuinely support her. I never ever would vote for a Republican, and I usually consider 3rd party efforts pointless, so .. well. . I just hope that I won't face the dilemma of having her as the Dem nominee. Yes, I'm worried about SCOTUS, and would keep that in mind on election day.

I don't know about other states, but I predict that she will not do well (or at least not up to expectations) in Iowa.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nitpicker Donating Member (125 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-19-07 05:37 AM
Response to Original message
7. It's the unanswered questions
Edited on Mon Nov-19-07 05:39 AM by nitpicker
Everything from the land deals to the sensationalized deaths to the rental of the White House rooms to the shady contributors.

Plus also the Royal Treatment as the plutocracy tries to align themselves for grace and favour from a perceived upcoming administration.

But I suspect that most people closely associated with ANY administration since Carter's would have similar baggage.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
aquart Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-19-07 05:42 AM
Response to Reply #7
8. Oh, look! A list of Clinton "scandals"!!!
So how is Fox News today?

It's truly pitiful when someone starts off at DU with nothing but Republican talking points.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Basileus Basileon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-19-07 11:54 AM
Response to Reply #7
30. I hate the use of "unanswered questions" with, well, anything. Usually when people say that,
the questions have either been answered already, or are total bullshit.

For instance: "Nobody will vote for Barack Obama. There are too many unanswered questions, from the terrorist madrassa he attended, to his drug use, to the fact that he has secretly channeled large sums of money to Islamist front groups."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MonkeyFunk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-19-07 05:44 AM
Response to Original message
9. Clinton does well
because she's a fighter.

She was abused and harassed for 8 years in the White House, and instead of backing down, she ran for the Senate in a tough state.

She fights back - she doesn't give in.

People try to fuck her and she fucks them back. Twice as hard.

I love that about her.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nedsdag Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-19-07 09:20 AM
Response to Reply #9
25. "abused and harrassed."
Partly, it was her own fault for being secretive.

"She fights back." OK, she didn't fight for her own health care plan.

Besides, what is she fighting for? What is her vision for the future? "Fighting?" without a plan is not a plan at all.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MonkeyFunk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-19-07 03:18 PM
Response to Reply #25
34. bullshit
it was her fault they accused her of being a lesbian? Of killing Vince Foster? Of running drugs out of Little Rock?

She did fight for her health care plan. She lost.

And what is she fighting for? For children, for families, for the environment, for choice: the same solid liberal values she's been fighting for for decades.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nedsdag Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-19-07 06:34 PM
Response to Reply #34
46. Apparently, she didn't fight for liberal values enough.
As someone who has been involved in "abuse," what she went through is not abuse.

If she's as "strong and tough" as she think she is, then she should be use to the so-called "abuse" in political campaigns.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Rockholm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-19-07 05:31 PM
Response to Reply #25
41. Secretive about what?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
puebloknot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-19-07 04:39 PM
Response to Reply #9
35. While she was being abused and harrassed in the White House...
...and I agree that she was...she made her famous statement about the "vast right-wing conspiracy" that was out to get her husband.

And then she did a perfect 180 and has basically joined the vast right-wing conspiracy. Her "faith" talk puts me off mightily, as well as her connections to evangelical groups that have no business driving policy in the U.S. of A.

Hillary is a perfect chameleon, who changes her style to suit whatever situation she finds herself in. Wish I could feel good about her. I can't.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wyldwolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-19-07 05:55 AM
Response to Original message
10. "fifty percent would absolutely not vote for Hillary Clinton. "
It's easy to quote outlier polls - an isolated poll which shows something distinctly different than other polls. Most polls show her performing ahead against all GOP candidates and her negatives dropping with her numbers topping 50%. I can't be both ways. Either 50% won't vote for her or they will - but only against a Republican. :)

It's solid support. Multiple polls show her support more solid among Dems than that of Obama and Edwards.

Why do people support her? Several reasons.

In no particular order:

1. She's a woman and people have a sense of "destiny" about that.
2. She's a Clinton. People recall the 90s, the greatest economic expansion of our generation. As Laura Ingraham, rightwing talkshow host, said with some chagrin after Sid Blumenthal officially joined the Clinton campaign, "The gang's all here," meaning Clinton is assembling much of the same team her husband had in the 90s.
3. People who have looked at her 40 year record are genuinely impressed. I am.
4. People don't expect perfection. Only a very tiny subset of the party believe there's a perfect candidate. Hillary's supporters, though, are the more pragmatic.
5. Payback. Anyone with any sense knows any Democrat will be swiftboated. I, personally, can't wait to see the Clintons handle that again as they did in the 90s.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ovidsen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-19-07 06:28 AM
Response to Original message
11. Why I won't vote for Hillary
She supports a proposed amendment to the US Constitution that would ban flag burning.

Now, I have never burned a flag, and have little respect for those who do. But this is an issue involving freedom of speech and expression. The Constitution is a sacred document, and should be amended to address only the most serious of issues.

Flag burning is not one of them.

There's also her waffling on the Iraq war to consider. Was she for it before she was against it, or the other way around? I can't decipher her mumbo jumbo. And what's she doing representing New York in the Senate? Yeah, the state voted for her, but she's a midwestern woman who, in my opinion, "adopted" New York as her "home state" purely for political gain. She grew up in suburban Chicago, for heaven's sake, which has about as much in common with New York as Wyoming does. No offense intended to Wyoming, which is a beautiful state, but is also not New York.

I have never voted for a GOP Presidential candidate in my life, and I'm 56. If it comes down to Hillary versus some jerkoff Republican a year from now, I'll just stay home.

I'm hoping New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson gets the Democratic nod. He's smart, pragmatic, and knows how to set priorities and agendas.

Well, I can dream, can't I?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wyldwolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-19-07 06:31 AM
Response to Reply #11
13. you're spreading a lie
Edited on Mon Nov-19-07 06:33 AM by wyldwolf
She supports a proposed amendment to the US Constitution that would ban flag burning.

No she doesn't.

There's also her waffling on the Iraq war to consider.

You mean you hold it against her because she's changed her mind? You must feel the same way about Edwards, Biden, and Dodd.

(mods, please notice I stated the poster was spreading a lie. I did not call the poster a liar. For all I know the poster heard this from someone else and actually believes he/she is posting something accurate.)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ovidsen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-19-07 06:52 AM
Response to Reply #13
18. You're splitting hairs
From the Washington Post, 12/15/2005

Clinton, apparently, could not agree less. Along with Sen. Robert Bennett, a Utah Republican, she has introduced a bill that would make flag burning illegal. It is probably important to note that this is not a proposed constitutional amendment, and it is written in a cutesy way that does not explicitly outlaw all flag burnings -- just those intended to "intimidate any person or group of persons." That's a distinction without a difference to your average police officer. Not many cops belong to the ACLU.

Google Hillary Flag Burning and see for yourself. LOTS of stories.

I appreciate your candor. I am not lying and do not want to spread lies. But facts are facts. Hillary thinks outlawing flag burning is REEEEAAAALLLYYY important.

I think she has a couple screws loose.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wyldwolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-19-07 07:06 AM
Response to Reply #18
20. no I'm not
There is a BIIIIIG difference between a constitutional amendment banning flag burning and a federal law that would make it illegal to burn a flag on private property or for the purpose of intimidation. BIIIG difference. One outlaws it outright and is CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT. Read up on what that means. The other is a law that sets down specific incidents in which burning a flag would be illegal. For example, it should be illegal for you to walk on to my private property and burn a flag.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cali Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-19-07 06:43 AM
Response to Reply #11
16. oh for the love of accuracy:
Wrong. She does not support a Constitutional Amendment to ban flag desecration. She spoke out against any such amendment. She supported a bill that banned flag burning under certain circumstance. I'm not happy with vote, but it's a far cry from a Constitutional Amendment.

"As a New York senator, for example, she has consistently opposed a constitutional amendment that would authorize Congress to outlaw flag-burning. But in 2005, she supported a legislative approach aimed at achieving the same goal. She endorsed a bill sponsored by Sen. Bob Bennett, R-Utah, that would make it a crime to destroy or damage a U.S. flag with the primary purpose of inciting imminent violence, or to steal and damage a flag belonging to the United States or on United States property. The bill did not pass."

http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/analysis.aspx?id=19254

And guess what? Dennis Kucinich DID vote for a Constitutional Amendment banning flag desecration. He now disavows that vote, but he did vote for it.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Dennis_Kucinich

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Perry Logan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-19-07 06:39 AM
Response to Original message
15. Hillary's record suggests she is not the embodiment of pure evil...
Edited on Mon Nov-19-07 06:43 AM by Perry Logan
I notice that the people who won't vote for Hillary seem overly fixated on one or two issues--often wrongly so, as with the flag-burning bill. Irrational personal animosity is also a strong factor.

Here's some information on Hillary's record:


Senator Clinton supported the interests of the NARAL Pro-Choice America 100 percent in 2005.

Senator Clinton supported the interests of the The Humane Society of the United States 100 percent in 2005.

Senator Clinton supported the interests of the National Trust for Historic Preservation 100 percent in 2005.

Senator Clinton supported the interests of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People 95 percent in 2005.

Senator Clinton supported the interests of the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights 100 percent in 2005.

Senator Clinton supported the interests of the National Education Association 100 percent in 2005.

Senator Clinton supported the interests of the American Wilderness Coalition 100 percent in 2005.

Senator Clinton supported the interests of the Defenders of Wildlife Action Fund 100 percent in 2005.

Senator Clinton supported the interests of the League of Conservation Voters 95 percent in 2005.

Senator Clinton supported the interests of the Children's Defense Fund 100 percent in 2005.

Senator Clinton supported the interests of the American Association of University Women 100 percent in 2005.

Senator Clinton supported the interests of the National Organization for Women 100 percent in 2005.

Senator Clinton supported the interests of the U.S. Public Interest Research Group 91 percent in 2006.

Senator Clinton supported the interests of the U.S. Public Interest Research Group 100 percent in 2005

Senator Clinton supported the interests of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence 100 percent from 1988-2003 (Senate) or 1991-2003 (House).

Senator Clinton supported the interests of the American Public Health Association 80 percent in 2005.

Senator Clinton supported the interests of the International Brotherhood of Boilermakers 100 percent in 2005.

Senator Clinton supported the interests of the Service Employees International Union 100 percent in 2005.

Senator Clinton supported the interests of the United Auto Workers 93 percent in 2005.

Senator Clinton supported the interests of the AFL-CIO 93 percent in 2005.

Senator Clinton supported the interests of the United Electrical Radio and Machine Workers 84 percent in 2005.

Senator Clinton supported the interests of the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Worker 100 percent in 2005.

Senator Clinton supported the interests of the American Federation of State, County & Municipal Employees 88 percent in 2005.

Senator Clinton supported the interests of the American Federation of Government Employees 83 percent in 2005.

Senator Clinton supported the interests of the National Committee for an Effective Congress 95 percent in 2005.

Senator Clinton supported the interests of the Americans for Democratic Action 100 percent in 2005.

According to the National Journal - Composite Liberal Score's calculations, in 2005, Senator Clinton voted more liberal on economic, defense and foreign policy issues than 80 percent of the Senators.

According to the National Journal - Liberal on Social Policy's calculations, in 2005, Senator Clinton voted more liberal on social policy issues than 83 percent of the Senators.

Senator Clinton supported the interests of the Alliance for Retired Americans 100 percent in 2005.

Senator Clinton supported the interests of the Disabled American Veterans 92 percent in 2005.

Senator Clinton supported the interests of the Bread for the World 100 percent in 2003-2004.

Senator Clinton supported the interests of the The Partnership for the Homeless 100 percent in 2003-2004.
http://www.vote-smart.org/issue_rating_category.php?can_id=WNY99268

She was promoting universal coverage before it was cool. Furthermore she helped to create the SCHIP program. And most importantly she was dead on in the debate the other week where she said political will was the most important thing needed to push health care reform through and we know without a doubt she has that.

She has fougt unrelentingly for a woman's right to choose as well as women's rights both domestically and abroad

Create a Strategic Energy Fund - Hillary has proposed a Strategic Energy Fund that would inject $50 billion into research, development and deployment of renewable energy, energy efficiency, clean coal technology, ethanol and other homegrown biofuels. Hillary's proposal would give oil companies a choice: invest in renewable energy or pay into the fund. Hillary's proposal would also eliminate oil company tax breaks and make sure that oil companies pay their fair share for drilling on public lands. Instead of sending billions of dollars to the Middle East for their oil, Hillary's proposal will create a new clean energy industry in America and create tens of thousands of jobs here.

Champion a Market-Based "Cap and Trade" Approach - Hillary supports a market-based, cap and trade approach to reducing carbon emissions and fight global warming. This approach was used successfully to limit sulfur dioxide and reduce levels of acid rain in the 1990s. By capping the amount of emissions in the environment and allowing corporations to buy and sell permits, this approach offers corporations a flexible, cost-efficient method to do their share to reduce emissions and combat global warming. The program will reduce emissions, drive the development of clean technologies, and create a market for projects that store carbon dioxide.

20% Renewable Electricity Standard by 2020 - Hillary believes we need to shift our reliance on high carbon electricity sources to low-carbon electricity sources by investing in renewable energy sources, such as solar and wind. As President, she'll work to require power companies to obtain 20 percent of their energy from renewable sources by 2020.

Make Federal Buildings Carbon Neutral - Hillary believes that the federal government should lead the way in reducing carbon emissions from buildings. Buildings account for 40 percent of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions, and the federal government owns or leases more than 500,000. Hillary would require all federal buildings to steadily increase the use of green design principles, energy efficient technologies, and to generate energy on-site from solar and other renewable sources. By 2030, all new federal buildings and major renovations would be carbon neutral, helping to fight global warming and cutting the $5.6 billion that the federal government spends each year on heating, cooling and lighting.

Protecting Against Exposure to Toxic Chemicals - Hillary wants to make the products we use safer, especially for children. There are tens of thousands of chemicals used in the U.S. and hundreds of new chemicals introduced each year, but little health testing is conducted for many of them. Hillary would require chemical companies to prove that new chemicals are safe before they are put on the market, and would set more stringent exposure standards for kids. She would also create a "priority list" of existing chemicals and require testing to make sure they are safe. To improve our understanding of the links between chemicals and diseases like cancer, Hillary would create an "environmental health tracking network" that ties together information about pollution and chronic diseases.

Hillary's Record

Hillary has been a leading member of the Environment and Public Works Committee since she was elected to the Senate. Today, she chairs the Superfund and Environmental Health Subcommittee and in that capacity has promoted legislation to evaluate and protect against the impact of environmental pollutants on people's health and clean up toxic waste.

Global warming and Clean Air
Spoken out forcefully about the need to tackle global warming in hearings, speeches, rallies and on the Senate floor and co-sponsored "cap and trade" legislation.
Worked to reduce air pollution that causes asthma and other respiratory diseases by writing and helping to pass new laws to clean up exhaust from school buses, and other diesel-powered equipment.
Supported legislation to reduce pollution from power plants, including harmful emissions of sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, mercury, and carbon dioxide - emissions that contribute to poor air quality, smog, acid rain, global warming, and mercury contamination of fish.
Aggressively fought the Bush Administration's ill-advised attempts to weaken clean air laws.

Improving Water Quality and Protecting Drinking Water
Helped to overturn the Bush Administration's attempt to allow more arsenic in drinking water.
Cosponsored legislation to protect lakes, rivers and coastal waters by fighting the spread of destructive invasive species, such as the zebra mussel.
Helped ot pass new clean water laws, including measures to protect New York City's water supplies and clean up Long Island Sound.

Protecting Public Lands
Fought oil company efforts to pen the Artic Wildlife Refuge in Alask and Pacific and Atlantic coastal waters to drilling.
Cosponsored the Roadless Area Conservation Act, which prohibits road construction and logging in unspoiled, roadless areas of the National Forest System, and voted for additional funding and manpower to combat forest fires in the west.

Reducing Dangerous Chemicals and Cleaning Up Hazardous Waste
Supported legislation to restore the "polluter pays" principle by reinstating a chemical company fee to fund cleanups of highly contaminated "Superfund" waste sites.
Cosponsored the "kids-Safe Chemical Act," which requires chemical companies to provide health and safety before putting new chemicals in consumer products.
Proposed legislation to create an environmental health tracking network to enable us to better understand the impact of environmental hazards on human health and well-being.

Tackling the Toxic Legacy of 9/11
Pushed for health care benefits for first responders, residents and others whose health has been impacted from breathing the toxic dust and smoke in New York City after 9/11.
http://www.mydd.com/story/2007/8/20/134810/677

The following are polls from progressive groups, rating Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, on how often they vote for progressive issues. For each group, http://www.theleftcoaster.com/archives/011142.php

Clinton Vs. Barack Obama (progressivepunch)
Overall Progressive Score: 92% 90%
Aid to Less Advantaged People at Home and Abroad: 98% 97%
Corporate Subsidies 100% N/A
Education, Humanities and the Arts 88% 100%
Environment 92% 100%
Fair Taxation 97% 100%
Family Planning 88% 80%
Government Checks on Corporate Power 95% 97%
Healthcare 98% 94%
Housing 100% 100%
Human Rights & Civil Liberties 82% 77%
Justice for All: Civil and Criminal 94% 91%
Labor Rights 91% 91%
Making Government Work for Everyone, Not Just the Rich or Powerful 94% 90%
War and Peace 80% 86%
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Alamom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-19-07 06:57 AM
Response to Reply #15
19. Always amazing. Thank you. nm
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-19-07 07:07 AM
Response to Reply #15
21. What is Hillary's stance on getting out of the Middle East?
What is Hillary's stance on stopping the outsourcing and bringing the jobs back to U.S. shores?
What is Hillary's stance on going after the War Criminals in bu$h's illegal war?
What is Hillary's stance on the obscene profits of the oil companies?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Peace Patriot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-19-07 11:51 AM
Response to Reply #15
29. Thank you for this information about Clinton. It's very helpful to see her
progressive record and endorsements laid out like this.

I find a lot of her proposals to be just minor tinkerings with the gawdawful situation we find ourselves, whereby we are ruled by the Church of the Corporation, much like medieval Europe was ruled by the Catholic Church, especially during the period of the Holy Roman Empire, in which the Church--the Pope--actually crowned the emperor. The Church superseded state authority, and was so powerful that few could even imagine a different condition. It was so powerful that it was in many ways invisible. It was just a given. It was the air you breathed. Its claim to authority direct from God was unquestioned. And thus it amassed great wealth, chose kings, crowned emperors, instigated wars, had its own legal system for prosecuting religious "crimes" (the Inquisition), extracted special privileges from all states (land grants, protection of its clerics), and pretty much cornered the market on all education, learning and communication (so that knowledge was greatly restricted, and was limited to what the Church wanted you to know--with 90% of the people unable to read at all), and furthermore dominated the very imaginations of human beings by controlling all artistic imagery.

Truly, the parallels to our Church of the Corporation are...haunting. And this is the perspective from which I view Hillary Clinton's candidacy for president (emperor, really) and the entire spectacle of national politics--this larger perspective of who gets to choose who gets the national spotlight, who sets the parameters of political debate (what is permissible, what is not permissible), who gets sufficient money to be heard, who gets marginalized or demonized and driven out, who controls the imagery, who creates the "saints" and the "devils," who designates the status of persons (monarchs, nobles, knights, tradesmen, serfs, peons--re our glitteratti of multi-millionaires, celebrities, "stars," etc. vs. all the nobodies), who creates the large black holes in the knowledge and political savvy of our citizens, and, ultimately, who gets to crown the emperor.

The "who" who holds all of these powers is not the people. Really, this is Thomas Jefferson's worst nightmare, I think. The semi-visible power holder is the Church of the Corporation--so pervasive in our society that we can barely see it any more--and its popes, cardinals, bishops, clerics (the writers of the narrative) and artists (the makers of the images) (i.e., pundits/'reporters' and P.R. firms). The hierarchy are the CEOs, billionaires, powerful law firms, banks and financial institutions, run by a handful of people, in a very tight-knit, closed society that worships money and power.

The theology of the Church of the Corporation is very narrow and purposeful, and is enforced doctrine (on pain of excommunication)--just like the Medieval Church. The purpose of it--and its general thrust--is to enhance the power of the Corporation (similar to the Church claiming authority from God, and demanding obedience to its narrow, purposeful doctrines on that ground). Core Corporate doctrine includes the "personhood" of corporations and their "rights" as big business groups, say, to own the public airwaves or to copyright human DNA, or create frankenseeds that endanger the human food supply, with impunity, or to pollute with impunity, etc. They think their "rights" include all human and civil rights, and much more. That is part of the Doctrine.

The most outlandish of these "rights" was quite recently asserted, and is their "right" to control the counting of our votes, with electronic voting machines, that the public must pay them billions of dollars for, and that contain 'TRADE SECRET,' PROPRIETARY programming code, that the public has NO right to review. This "right" was recently asserted in a court of law, in Florida, and the judge agreed. Even in a highly questionable election (18,000 Democratic votes for Congress 'disappeared' by the voting machines, in an election decided by only 350 or so votes), the "right" of the corporation--ES&S--to profit from the election system trumps the right of the voters to know how their votes were counted.

This is similar to the Medieval Church's sale of indulgences. Indulgences were tickets to Heaven. They cut years off your stay in Purgatory (where, after death, you are punished for your sins), or helped free loved ones and others from Purgatory before their sentences were up. You paid cash for them, to the Church and its clerics, and purchased your "right"--on the basis of your wealth--to go quickly to Heaven, or send someone else quickly to Heaven.

It is nonsense, in other words. A scam. "TRADE SECRET" vote counting. Har-har. Suckers!

But it is solemnly proclaimed by a judge, and all bow down, and, while some people may think it absurd, it is A RELIGIOUS PRECEPT. Challenge it at your peril. Virtually all the 'Democrats' in Congress have knelt down to it, crossed themselves, and prayed to the God of the Corporation not to punish them for heresy--for perhaps having some stray thoughts that it might not be a good idea.

But back to Hillary. Actually, she voted against 'TRADE SECRET' vote counting, and was one of only two Democratic Senators who did so (her and Schumer)--an interesting fact about Hillary. However, she likely voted against it in the confidence that everyone else was voting for it, to please her New York constituents who are very attached to their old, reliable, and virtually unriggable, lever voting machines. The rest of the country can go to hell. New York rules! It is one of two or three power centers of the Church of the Corporation, with a stranglehold on information and imagery over the rest of the land, and so some area-restricted "liberalism" can be permitted there, as long as the core teachings of the Church are respected. New Yorkers are aware of their vital role, as acolytes of the Church of the Corporation, in choosing and crowning the emperor, and so they play along, as long as THEY have some democratic rights.

Really, that's how it went. Unriggable lever machines for New York. Electronic voting machines, run on 'TRADE SECRET,' PROPRIETARY code, owned and controlled by rightwing Bushite corporations, for the rest of us.

Pardon me for being cynical about New Yorkers.

MAYBE Hillary can be lobbied on this matter, to restore democracy throughout the land. We don't have a democracy any more--not with this 'coup de grace' of 'TRADE SECRET' vote counting. It is rather like the Medieval Church's power to consign you to Hell--and then they offer you a deal where you can pay to get out. The whole thing is so corrupt as to be beyond belief. We need a Reformation!

Oh, and did I mention that the Medieval Church was an international institution? (No, I did not.) Global church--the one, true, universal Roman Catholic Church, sans borders, immune from national laws, speaking its own universal language (Latin--that the vast population of peons didn't know), acquiring and owning vast properties in many lands, extorting privileges and dominance everywhere it went, requiring kings and nobles to pay up, and to build great churches and monasteries, and to mount bloody Crusades to the "Holy Land," to get themselves to Heaven. It was quite a racket--much like corporate globalisation today, which, through agencies like the World Bank, the WTO and the G-8, assaults labor and environmental protections that nations dare to pass as laws, bribes and bullies national leaders with promises of wealth and jobs, undermines and destroys the sovereignty and power of the people, and, in the case of the U.S., actually hijacked our military for corporate resource wars.

The Iraq War, as we know, has nothing to do with our national security--or with our sovereignty or patriotism--and everything to do with corporate power: The power to drain our treasury dry, and indebt us for the rest of the century, to pour trillions of dollars into the pockets of the warmakers--international corporations like Halliburton, Blackwater and Bechtel--and to slaughter a million innocent people to get their oil.

The Bush Junta has been like the rule of Pope Innocent III, who rallied kings and nobles to go slaughter 20,000 French "heretics," who dared to adhere to the old and original Christian religion (Gnosticism). That horror within the confines of the Christian European community--not even against the Arabs--is similar to what the Bush Junta has done to our democracy. It placed a prison around the human mind. It brutally enforced One Doctrine--which, lamentably, had been cemented with state power way back in the 5th century, but had never been so bloodily imposed, internally, on such a large scale.

Militarism in defense of Corporate interests is the One Doctrine now. It has been forced upon us. It has raped and imprisoned our minds. We are the Cathars. We are the dissenters. We, the people--the 70% of the American people who are peace-loving, and justice-loving, and who hate war. And we have been crushed--out of sight, out of mind, in the national political dialogue--just like the Cathars. They have not slain us yet, but they might as well have.

And the Bush Junta is also, of course, similar to the Pope-instigated wars against the Arabs and Persians in the Middle East, in the bloody Crusades that went raping and torturing and killing across Europe to the land of gentle Jesus.

Hillary will not challenge corporate rule. She will not challenge the war industry. She will not question this Church's doctrines, or its absurd assertions of its "rights." She will serve the the popes, cardinals and bishops of the Church of the Corporation, who crown her as empress. That is the office that she seeks, which is not conferred by the people; it is conferred by the Church. The clerics, preachers and image-makers of this Church propagandize the people to accept whomever is chosen to rule over them, as their only option, and convince them that this is THEIR choice--but the American people are merely like the cheering mobs that come out into the street to hail the emperor who promises to bring them "peace in our time" and bread on their tables. There might be some truth to it, or, more often it is giant scam, which will result in the poor being used as cannon fodder and slave labor, and becoming MORE poor, as the kings and nobles and Holy Roman Catholic Church suck up all the wealth.

Which do you think it will be--reading the entrails, as we are forced to do, as our only clues to what these candidates for emperor will actually do in office?

She reminds me of LBJ, to some extent. Back when we had real elections (controlled by money, but at least not with 'TRADE SECRET' voting machines), after JFK was assassinated, his VP, LBJ, ran for president on a populist platform--including the "war on poverty," strengthening of the New Deal, and civil rights and voting rights proposals (re racial segregation and bigotry). He also portrayed himself as the "peace candidate," and painted his opponent, Goldwater, as a warmonger. Once in office, LBJ proceeded with the populist program, but also escalated the war on Vietnam, which continued to be escalated in his next years in office, and ultimately claimed two million lives in Southeast Asia, and the lives of over 55,000 U.S. soldiers. The narrative of the justification for this war was "anti-communism," but its main and overriding purpose was to lard the war industry with more and more taxpayer money--an enormous corporate welfare scam. MORE wars were needed, to justify that industry, which should have been de-mobilized after WW II, and was not.

Much like the original Crusades--numerous looting and rapine expeditions, to vastly enrich the Church and its compliant kings and nobles.

I suspect that some such "devil's bargain" will control policy in a Hillary regime--and I really don't think any of the others will be different (except Kucinich--and possibly Edwards, who has shown some independence from the Corporate Church). Obama, Dodd, Richardson, Biden--all acolytes. Dodd, a particularly deceptive one. (He engineered 'TRADE SECRET' vote counting controlled by rightwing Bushite corporation.)

One of these acolytes will be "chosen." There are a lot of signs that Hillary is the "made" candidate. But they may have more illusory drama to play out, for our edification, before the Church crowns its emperor. I doubt that a Republican will be anointed. They need to go to Act II, or the ticket-payers may get restless.

Hillary will not restore our shredded Constitution, or our rights as citizens. Nor will she disavow their latest brutalities--such as torture and detention without trial. She may not use them as brutally as the Bush Junta, but she will hold them in reserve (to be used against us, if necessary). The same with NSA/corporate domestic spying, other police state measures, corporate looting and corporate war. She may temper them a bit, "sell" them better, and provide some little alleviations of the sufferings of the poor--mostly illusory, such a hike in the minimum wage that is then eaten up by corporate gas gouging. She might even make a show of some corporate regulation and slightly better taxation policy (from brutally pro-rich to not quite so brutally pro-rich). But, in an era that cries out for a Reformation, she will act as the Church's apologist. She will be a Thomas More, when what is desperately needed is a Martin Luther--a break from the past, to clean out all this putrid corruption that the Church of the Corporation hath wrought.

We need to completely re-think and restructure our universe. The U.S. is no longer the planet around which the sun revolves. Galileo's truth can be glimpsed in the distance. After what the Bush Junta has done to us--much like the Catholic Church did to Europe, with its Crusades, and Inquisitions, and costly "indulgences"--change is coming, and must come, and it is not going to be an easy time. The Church of the Corporation has looted us, and betrayed us. We spawned this monster, as an engine of prosperity, and it has now turned on us--moving its headquarters, funds and jobs to China and India and Dubai and Singapore. It first trashed us, and our laws and our democracy, and our attempts to control it, then sneered at us with contempt as it stole our elections and drained our treasury, and hijacked our military for its nefarious purposes, and even created its own mercenary army with our money.

There are a few more things to loot, but we are mostly tapped out. And we are about to have imposed upon us an image--a mostly illusory being, called "our president"--who will consolidate the enormous gains of corporate power under the Bush Junta, prevent any serious rebellion against the Church, let them accomplish what they will, by further looting, warmaking or other policy (such as the "war on drugs"--another war industry boondoggle), and will of course mount no serious defense of the people against our mind-bogglingly greedy and conscienceless oppressors. On our backs, they built a Global Corporate Church--a stateless and lawless entity with no loyalty or patriotism, intent upon dominating the world.

To create this illusion of a president as a woman will be damned clever of them. They do have to worry about "the mobs in the streets" and what they might do, once they figure all of this out. Threatening women's rights, then offering them a female "candidate," whom many women will approve of, thinking she will protect their rights, is positively machiavellian. Abortion rights is only one tiny part of the picture of the oppression of women. Poverty is a much bigger factor in the freedom/enslavement of women. The Church of the Corporation will concede abortion rights, as long as it can keep looting, at home and around the globe. What do they care? They have no values of any kind, except greed and power. Women who fall for this one are fools--but I can't blame them. I fell for LBJ as the "peace candidate." In 1964, that was my main concern. And what did I get? A crazy, senseless, horrible bloodbath that went on for a decade.

We need RADICAL change and reform. We need to address 50 years of immense war profiteering. We need to bust corporate monopolies, and, in some cases, pull their corporate charters, dismantle them, and seize their assets for the common good. We need to cut the war budget by 90%, down to a true defensive posture (no more wars of choice!). We need to restore our Constitution and our right to vote. We need to attack this monstrous Church of the Corporation in every way, and bring it down. We need to re-assert our strength as a progressive people, and join with other peoples around the world--with the Bolvarians in South America, for instance--to get this done. The survival of our planet, and of the human race itself, depends on it.

Pandering to the corporations on health care, war, global warming, and other vital matters--to get dribbles from the global corporate banquet table--is just not enough. It is not enough for our democracy. It is not enough to save our planet. But, of course, this is why these pale, illusory compromisers, and flip-floppers, and ambitious tweedle-dums, and apologists for the Church and its war industry, are presented to us as our "candidates," from which the Church will choose its emperor. As in the Middle Ages, the tyranny over our minds is the most important tyranny. They would like to create a successful illusion--one whom the "mobs in the streets" will cheer. They work at it, they do. The Catholic Church worked very hard on its illusions, day and night, non-stop, over decades and centuries. The illusion IS the oppression--pretty much. They failed with Bush, in the end--not for lack of trying. People didn't buy it, and are growing quite restless. They would rather have an illusion that people buy. It saves them a lot of trouble, as to bloody repression. (This was the "mistake" the Cathars made--the French "heretics"--providing a popular example of real Christianity in the midst of a vastly corrupt empire of the Roman Church. I'm reminded of the Bolivarian revolution in Venezuela, Bolivia, Ecuador and Argentina--real democracy at work--which our Corporate popes lust to extinguish.)

So, what are Hillary's policies? And what will she do, if she is...ahem...elected? Does it really matter? She is the "image" being sold, as the front for an oppressive and ruinous ideology. All we can do is hope for the best--hope that it won't be too bad--hope that we can make some tiny inroads for the poor, for our rights--in the context of the Church of the Corporation and its Doctrine and its overweaning power. And hit the ground--as the Bolivarians have done--with massive, intense, grass roots organization to rebuild our democratic institutions--first priority, transparent vote counting.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
martymar64 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-19-07 05:43 PM
Response to Reply #29
43. Nice use of historical analogy
I agree that we need our own Martin Luther, but when the Church of the Corporation (I love that term) pushes back, then we will also need our Wat Tylers and William Wallaces and Oliver Cromwells to mobilize the people and push right back.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cameron27 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-19-07 12:08 PM
Response to Reply #15
32. Thank you.
I'm so f'n tired of this sh*t. Vote for who you like, but Clinton isn't the devil, and no one in this race is a saint. I've lived through the RW attacks on the Clinton WH, and I'm not in the mood to see the very attacks being used in a place that calls itself the Democratic Underground.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LeftCoast Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-19-07 06:43 AM
Response to Original message
17. No other Democrat has taken as much from the RW outrage machine
Not only that, she's thrived.

That's how I see her 'phenomenon' anyway.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
THUNDER HANDS Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-19-07 08:42 AM
Response to Original message
23. she is the de-facto incumbant
for lack of a better term, she represents the age-old adage of "the devil you know."

as in, I'd rather go with the devil I know, rather than the devil I don't know.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Armstead Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-19-07 09:15 AM
Response to Original message
24. She was anointed in 2000
Ever since her husband left office, Hillary wasd cast as "the one to beat" by the DLC and the beltway media.

In 2004, remember the "Will she or won't she?" talk about that Democratic nomination process?

Thus the official narrative has always been Hillary against the Also-Rans. That's been the tone of the media coverage, and the direction of the DLC and the Corporate Democratic Establishment.

Meanwhile, other candidates are shut out of the public discussion. What -- honestly -- has Hillary done to make her more qualified than Dodd or Biden or Richardson? How -- honestly -- are her non-positions more likely to appeal to the rank-and-file than the traditional Democratic liberalism of Edwards or Kucinich?

More importantly, to address your question,the media coverage and the campaigns are shallow and superficial. This lends to all candidates being reduced to cartoons or non-entities. How many people -- outside of the world of political junkies -- really know what Biden or Dodd or Obama or Richardson stand for? How many people know what Kucinich's and Edwards liberal message really is?

Instead the coverage has been All Inevitable Hillary All the Time with the diversion of Obama the Meek, Edwards the Angry with occasional mentions of Dennis the Clown.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BeyondGeography Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-19-07 09:28 AM
Response to Original message
26. Combine brand loyalty, the Democrats' penchant for nominating unlikeable people
genuine excitement about the first woman president and a reptilian desire for revenge on the VRWC and you get Hillary.

Oh, there's more, but not much more. How this adds up to good things for the country is a discussion I'm not capable of participating in. Whether this country even wants or deserves a good president is another question.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CK_John Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-19-07 09:40 AM
Response to Original message
28. Because she is at the top of her game and people go with a winner. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kurt_and_Hunter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-19-07 12:02 PM
Response to Original message
31. Dodd was citing a Zogby online poll that has been pretty thoroughly discredited
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
applegrove Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-19-07 12:33 PM
Response to Original message
33. She is a great debater. She is a known quatity. She is brilliant. She is
funny. She is experienced.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Broke Dad Donating Member (345 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-19-07 04:58 PM
Response to Reply #33
39. Actually, the Clinton campaign in Iowa is about intimidation and estrogen
The Clinton campaign is strong arming the press when it does their job and reports on her mistakes. The Toledo Maid Rite tip scam is exhibit A. They leave no tip. They claim their tipped with their credit card. The Maid Rite people show everyone their ancient credit card machine that can't process tips. Then the Clinton campaign claims to have left a $100 bill. Then they send a staffer to leave a $20 after the story blew up. And then they tell NPR, "Don't ever run a story again without letting us vet it OR you will never get a press pass again!'

Second, my Mom will be 70 in December. She is supporting Hillary solely because of her gender. When I point out to my Mom all of Hillary's anti-populist statements and positions, my Mom says "It doesn't matter. It is time for a woman to be president!"

The big name supporters of Hillary in Iowa are all bet hedgers. Very few true believers.

The Clinton organization in Iowa is very top down. And it is only in the most urban areas. That is very good news for Edwards and Obama who are working the grass roots, especially in rural areas like honeybees. No hamlet or precinct too small to visit and canvass. I am personally calling the remaining undecided Dems in my precinct to urge them to support Edwards. My Obama friends are doing the same for their guy. Hillary is just bombing us with glossy mail three times a week.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Rockholm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-19-07 05:34 PM
Response to Reply #39
42. Estrogen? OMFG. That is bery funny.
And I do mean bery funny. So, let me see. The REST of the campaigns, both republican and Democrat, are all about TESTOSTERONE and what else?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FreeState Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-19-07 04:56 PM
Response to Original message
38. She is the iPod of candidates
Edited on Mon Nov-19-07 05:35 PM by FreeState
Don't get me wrong I love my iPod - but there are other options out there - the problem with them is they dont have iTunes. Its all depended the ecosystem the candidate has built up around them. Most people know the Clintons and automatically dont ask about her positions on a lot of things - the same is not true of the other candidates - people are quick to ask questions and get disappointed when they do not live up to the hype. Thats what she has - an ask no questions instant support ecosystem that the other candidates can not mimic or make easy for the average voter with the attention span of 10 seconds..
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Disturbed Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-19-07 05:25 PM
Response to Reply #38
40. Would Sen Clinton even be a Senator if her name was
Hillary James or... ? Would she be the front runner in this Pres. run?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tom Rinaldo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-19-07 06:42 PM
Response to Reply #40
48. Would Al Gore ever have been a Senator and run for President if his name was
Al Wilson or...? Names unfortunately give some politicians an edge. Al's Dad was Al Gore Senior who was a popular Senator from TN before Al Gore Jr. became one. But Al Gore Jr. also had real ability as well as a magic name, and Hillary Clinton does also, whether you appreciate her policies or not.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Vinca Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-19-07 05:54 PM
Response to Original message
44. Hard as I try, I can't warm up to Hillary at all.
When she speaks she has this condescending, talking-to-the-short-bus-people tone in her voice. Then there's the disingenuous clapping. Beyond the superficial stuff, she's the most hawkish (short of the Republicans who are trying to out macho each other). I'm looking for a peacemaker, not Xena, Warrior Princess.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tom Rinaldo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-19-07 06:14 PM
Response to Original message
45. She is not my favorite politician but she is very impressive
Hillary is obviously very bright and she thinks and speaks quite well on her feet. She is well informed on a host of issues and can speak knowledgably about them without notes. She is almost always well poised under virtually any circumstance, and even when she is not at her best she still comes off fairly well. She can be tough but she can use humor effectively also. Hillary is battle tested,she has lived in the cross hairs of enemies for at least 15 years. She's also a real pro by now after being a fully involved spouse of a former Governor and former President over a career that dates back decades. Now she has two runs for the U.S. Senate and 8 years in that office under her belt as well, and she has Bill Clinton available at any time for private consultation, along with most of the high level members of the former Clinton Administration.

I don't remember another Presidential front runner holding up this well for over a year in a highly contested race to the degree that Hillary has pulled it off so far. Hillary is very good at this "game" and that reflects well on her intrinsic competency and ability to excell under pressure, which are qualities in high demand for an American President to possess. When I watch her in action I see a very skilled individual performing at the top of her game, and that brings with it a degree of respect.

I am not talking about stances on issues, I am talking about basic ability, and Hillary has it and it shows. People can respect her for that without even having to like her, and for a lot of voters and even the media to a degree, being able to win their respect is at least half of the battle. Most voters want a President who they think is tough enough and smart enough and experienced enough to handle all the unforseeable problems that person will have to grapple with while in office, without losing their cool under fire. Hillary scores well in that regard.

As to the percentage who say they will never vote for her, while high numbers there are never a good thing, I don't think we have seen the final word on that. Hillary Clinton has been demonized for a long time, but many of those who say they can never vote for her haven't actually spent much time studying her in action. If she becomes the nominee that will automatically change and almost everyone will take a second look at her, at least in direct comparison to the actual Republican alternative. I don't think her negatives are cast in stone. If she wins the nomination I think Hillary will come across as highly competent and a voice of relative moderation and wisdom to Independents and centrists, compared to whoever the Republicans nominate.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HardWorkingDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-20-07 02:02 AM
Response to Original message
49. Does anyone else think maybe her campaign's internal numbers...
Show something that is not generally known?

For example, is there a possibility since it has been eight years since the Clinton years that maybe new voters are telling her campaign things that are being missed?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mrfixit Donating Member (137 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-20-07 07:54 AM
Response to Original message
50. Other than a popular husband and a huge corporate warchest...
I have no idea. I suppose it helps to have a portion of the MSM on her side, too. Add a healthy number of Washington insiders still loyal to the BigDog, and it starts to make sense...

However, she is ENTIRELY too polarizing. The Repiglicans would just NEVER stop - there are too many shadowy deals and unanswered questions...even among Dems, she is polarizing. For instance:

I would vote for Dodd, Biden, Obama, Edwards, Richardson. I REALLY want to vote for Dennis Kucinich, however.

I could not vote for HRC.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Mon Apr 29th 2024, 02:32 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC