Why I am for Hillary

[gulliver]

With Hillary, I think I know what to expect. With Obama or Edwards, I don't.

I know to a high degree of certainty what a Clinton presidency looks like. It was good for everyone, including minorities. It was good for America, then loved and respected throughout the world. Under Bill Clinton we had exactly the kind of reputation we need for political and business success. All of America's meters were in the green under Clinton.

I think a Hillary Clinton presidency would be an improved version of the Bill Clinton presidency. It would be just as competent, more liberal, and less scandal prone.

I was extremely against a Hillary candidacy on the basis of not trusting the electorate. I frankly despised her. It was not that I thought she could not do the job. I knew she could. I thought that she was using her name recognition as first lady and NY Senator to try for a job she could not possibly win. And I despised her for that, because I thought she was willing to lose the Dems the presidency in a vain attempt to get past her own negatives and run for the office.

She did take that very risk, a risk that was not just personal but affected everyone. I didn't like that one bit. But I hoped my candidate (Wes Clark) would get into the mix. And then there were the Obama and Edwards alternatives. So I stood back and watched the debates and listened to all the candidates. The die was cast now. I didn't want Hillary in, but once she was in, it became time to get to know her.

If after listening to Hillary in debates and seeing her political moves in comparison with the other candidates I could have found a way to oppose her, I would have done it. But I began to see that Hillary's biggest asset was that she is the closest thing we have to a known good quantity. Then, in seeing the debate exchanges she had with the other candidates, and in watching her handle her stumbles and media dust-ups I began to see that she is very resilient, disciplined, highly intelligent, tough, and a black belt master political wonk. In short, I began to see Hillary as clearly the best prepared for the job strictly on the merits, leaving aside the demographics and image.

The demographics that persuaded me are the women voters. Hillary has much more policy gravitas, IMO, than anyone else running, Democrat or Republican. However, Hillary is also a woman, and a very effective "professional woman" as compared to the many I have known and worked with. She is exactly the type that excels in business: hard-working, intelligent, funny, schmoozy, and with a good style-consciousness but not an obsession about it. To my thinking, there has been no better candidate to both break the glass ceiling and excel in the role of the presidency in either party in my lifetime.

Hillary has a refreshing inability to mince words or inspire with them. I can't tell you how much I appreciate that straight talk and how much her pithy, multi-clause, in-your-face wonkishness inspires me. Hillary actually gives you things to think about. Her inability to reach soaring oratory is exactly what our poor, hype-drunk, media-ennervated country needs. She is not the type to try to stampede or herd people with emotionalism. In a Hillary presidency, the politics of fear would lose its voice. As with Bill Clinton, there would be humor and wisdom, but not abject demagoguery. A balance between rationality and inspiration would be restored.

Hillary can be both funny and tough. Her "funny" is kind of klutzy often, but usually more than sufficient. She often has to rely on her audiences good graces for a good natured chuckle. I personally don't like "too funny." I hate the Washington press corps when they laugh as Bush paints over serious issues with simple-minded or tweak-the-plebes humor.

I still think Hillary is not the best candidate we could run. On the merits, she is very close to that, though. On image, and in the face of an untrustworthy, fickle, image-blinded electorate, she is still far from a sure thing. However, I am seeing her negative image fade. A Hillary hater that watches her in debate can't help but be impressed and can't help but wonder whether the "calculating, harridan, loveless marriage leveraging, Vince Foster killing, travel office firing harpy" that burdens the popular imagination is just all so much wide-eyed hype. The superficial attacks ring old, implausible, and hollow.

So I think Hillary will win over a lot of people who used to hate her. Not all or most, but many. And I think that will prove not only good enough to give the Dems the presidency that the country so needs them to have, but it will be "redemptive" for the Hillary haters themselves.

[Fredda Weinberg]

1. Thank you n/t

[thunder rising]

2. HIllary will fire Howard Dean and take over the party to consolidate power.

[Frances]

6. ????

[bluestateguy]

9. Dean's term expires next January

It has been over 20 years since a DNC Chair served more than 4 years in the job.

I worry more about her giving Terry McAulliffe his old job back.

[Kucinich4America]

17. If it ain't broke.... or at least if it's less broke than it was in 2004, don't "fix" it.

What if President Edwards asked Dr. Dean to stay on the job, and he accepted. Yeah, I know there's an election, but an endorsement from the new President would be a huge plus.

This party still needs a lot of work, as if this very primary season wasn't enough evidence of that. I'd like to see Howard carry on with the restoration of the party, and cringe at even the thought of another DLC flunkie taking over and ruining everything again. :scared:

[ithinkmyliverhurts]

3. I'm not a Hillary supporter, but yours is a solid post.

Thank you.

[pampango]

20. Agreed, on both counts. Very positive and detailed post. n/t

[Tom Strong]

4. Hillary/Clark -- unbeatable

[maddiejoan]

8. From your keyboard --

I fervently hope that's our ticket.

[TwilightZone]

11. I'd vote for that.

Several times, if possible. :)

[Frances]

5. Extremely thoughtful post

Thanks for taking the time to write it.

[corkhead]

7. I knew what to expect from the Crawford Caligula, but that isn't a reason to vote for him

[mondo joe]

10. Did you even read the post?

"It was good for everyone, including minorities. It was good for America, then loved and respected throughout the world. Under Bill Clinton we had exactly the kind of reputation we need for political and business success. All of America's meters were in the green under Clinton.

I think a Hillary Clinton presidency would be an improved version of the Bill Clinton presidency. It would be just as competent, more liberal, and less scandal prone."

[corkhead]

18. The honest truth is no I didn't. I didn't get past the opening sentence.

If the OP writer is sincere in trying to persuade me into believing that her nomination isn't going to be the end of human civilization as we know it, then he/she needs to not start out with republicon talking points in the first sentence.

Clinton is going to have a very tough road trying to persuade the 49% of the electorate that say they won't vote for her under any circumstance to change their position. I think she has done nothing but dig a deeper hole for herself with her scorched earth, win-at-any-cost campaign.

If she ends up being the nominee, which I think will be the swan song of the Democratic party, I am not sure I won't sit this one out in November. I am not convinced she would be a whole lot different than pResident Willard Romney, who is who I predict we will have a year from now if she somehow gets the nomination. It has already been predetermined by our corporate masters.

It won't be because any kind of majority of people what to see her nominated. It merely confirms to me that our electoral system is completely broken and it doesn't matter anyway.

[mondo joe]

22. That explains why your post is a nonsensical response.

Edit to add: But thanks for responding and acknowledging not reading the OP.

[robbedvoter]

30. Which is why this is not YOUR vote, but gulliver's. We each get one.

Unless you live in Michigan or Florida that is.

[corkhead]

33. I am, in fact, a frustrated, disenfranchised Michiganian.

at this point, I don't want our delegates seated, because too many of them will end up in her coffers. It was dirty and underhanded that she stayed on the ballot.

[PATRICK]

12. A good positive post

but where we ultimately part ways is in not seeing the cost to everyone that comes from her candidacy, and a cost that may cost her the election, a mandate, an effectiveness to cope with radical crises far more serious than ever Bill was saddled with in his first years. And a criminality entrenched with these crises that no one has faced clearly enough.

Granting all the above, it comes down to whether the alternatives are far worse even in uncertainty than the certain price which is becoming more, not less stark, with the campaign's progression.

The Dem rally will not get much better than her steady numbers. The coattails will be burned away by GOP revival. The choice of the GOP candidate can even be Jeb. The means used to win will set her negatives higher behind that wall of concrete. There is newer material everyday to assault the "tested" theory. The Blomberg candidacy is an obvious reversal of the Bush/Perot/Clinton triangulation that will end up very possibly creating a planned "miracle" win for the GOP while disheartening the entire nation- including many relatively honest members of the GOp itself.

In that scenario- far worse than grumbling worries about Al Gore in 2000 or Jimmy Carter running for his second term(good, known and honest candidates) it is not surprising that this campaign can only succeed, not on the fine root qualities amply described above- but in destroying her rivals thereby making them appear theoretically worse.

We have been there MANY times before and no disrespect for the Clintons and their already packed moving vans, it is not time to make sacrifices for the most competent candidate but hopefully(as admittedly never has happened before)for that candidate to start making some sacrifices for the harsh unfair political reality. Why, because we have a treasure of a year, must ewe exhaust to the point of becoming vulnerable to the simplest frauds and propaganda? Why imperil the nation so? Why devalue the very possibility of change? Why the leap of faith over this abyss when so many lie ahead?

If we are so smart, how come everything is concretely going according to the most likely Rove plan?

[Spiffarino]

13. I disagree that Hillary is the best candidate

...but I'm going to K&R your post because you make an excellent case. It deserves to be read.

I'm going with Edwards in this one. He doesn't employ soaring oratory, either. He just goes right after the salient issue: What to do about the impending death of the American middle class.

Edwards knows and acknowledges that America's biggest problem is crony corporatism. He wants to end policies that give handouts to the wealthiest at the expense of the poorest. Unfortunately, Hillary won't engage in that debate because she's politically afraid of it. She's been beaten about the head and neck for so long for being a "liberal" that she shuns not only the word but the ideal as well.

[emilyg]

14. Thank you.

[Zodiak]

15. Here is why I disagree

Not once in the OP are any issue positions mentioned. Only strategy and winning...people's opinions versus how people can be helped.

As a voter, I do not vote for a strategy to win, I vote for the issues....which is why I am going with Edwards when the time comes.

When it comes to issues, Clinton looks an awful lot like what got us into this mess in the first place and her political allies in the party are absolute poison for progressive and populist causes.

So you will have to figure that winning strategy out with a lot of progressives and populists sitting out the election and refusing to do the groundwork. Forget arguing with me (I know the score)....think about how many you will not get to argue with who will not vote for her...ever, for the same reasons.

[robbedvoter]

29. Could be because. except for Gravel, the issues/platforms/records are quite similar

for the other candidates - so you go to what candidate you prefer.

[Zodiak]

32. Not so

I do my research.

Clinton and Obama are off from each other by 10% on my personal progressive scale. They are more closely aligned.

Edwards had a typical DLC style voting record, but I do not hear the same John Edwards this time around as I saw when he was a Senator. His positions on the issues are very different from the other two.

And let's not forget what kinds of Democrats they would be bringing to the White House. Clinton will put the DLC back in power and they will silence progressives for another generation. Obama may go for Republicans, but he has closed the door to the DLC.

Those that do their homework and feel passionately about the issues across the spectrum know full-well that this is not a race of personalities, but a race for the heart of the party when it comes to vision.

Bibartisanship, DLC, or populism. Pick your flavor.

[Kucinich4America]

16. more liberal??

Not unless you're Australian.

[george_maniakes]

19. great post! Is being for somebody and not against someone else back in style?

keep the good karma rolling!

[NoBorders]

21. I'm an Obama supporter and I appreciate this post.

Well argued. Thanks.

[Jed Dilligan]

23. Good argument

I disagree that the Clinton years were good for everyone, but good post

[Two Americas]

24. fair enough

Well said, and I thank you for that. More light than heat, as it were. We need more of that here.

I think you are correct that Senator Clinton would bring us an improved version of the White House of the 90's. I think you are right about her gravitas when it comes to policy and the mechanics of governance.

If we are looking for great content, the previous Clinton administration, and Senator Clinton's campaign are stellar and praiseworthy. The problem is that the right wingers have changed the context within which we have been operating and that makes the battle over content futile, as we saw with the last Clinton administration. The right wingers have destroyed the traditional political context, and have drawn us into a fight on their terms and on their battle field. We can never win in that context, their sound bites will always have more appeal than our policy wonkishness, and we will always be trapped in the "we are better than Republicans" posture - weak and defensive. As though "we are better than the Republicans" is even a legitimate question. Of course the fire fighters are better than the arsonists, but that doesn't excuse failure to put those damned fires out before the country burns to the ground.

I understand the appeal of Senator Clinton. Depending upon how a person looks at the challenge, how a person sees the battle, how a person sees the state of the country, the Senator could be an excellent and understandable choice to support.

But I encourage everyone, whatever happens and whomever they support, to look at the larger battle and to ask themselves if we can really have any confidence or hope that anything will improve if we do not look at the larger context, if we do not clearly see the enemy and where the battle lines are drawn, and if we are not willing to fight for our lives. The opposition is fighting all out. The opposition is clear as to the nature of the battle, the stakes involved, and about where the battle lines are.

Great positions on issues, political competency, a great track record - all of that is content, and will not avail us if we do not attack the source of the problems and if we do not shift the context the right wingers have created and are forcing us to live in. We are fighting with one hand tied behind our back.

[ruggerson]

25. Good post

[VotesForWomen]

26. i agree with the 'known quantity' part. at this point we need someone who knows how to

play the game and can do as much as possible to get our economy working again a.s.a.p.

[robbedvoter]

27. Thank you. I love these well reasoned posts as I am wrestling with a decision myself

Many good points in there. I'll bookmark it to read again as I weigh it all.

[DemExpat]

28. Great post!

:thumbsup:

DemEx

[philly_bob]

31. I'm an Edwards supporter and I appreciate this post.

If the primary process gives Hillary the baton, I'll be quoting from it. Thanks.

[Edgeoforever]

34. Thank you.

[H2O Man]

35. Nominated.

This is a really good OP. Thank you.

[JAbuchan08]

36. Wow that's almost the same reason I'm NOT voting for Hillary.

with Hillary I know what to expect - more of the same.

[DiscussTed]

37. I was thinking the same

We have "been there, done that".

I want something better for this country and indeed, the world.

[JAbuchan08]

38. It's like when George Bush was saying it was a bigger "risk" to go with John Kerry

than to stick with him.

You don't change horses in the middle of the stream :sarcasm: