We're electing a president, not God. Go Hillary!

do a poll asking about Hillary's likability

It is a false narrative, setup for a predetermined result

But now that I think of it, someone else does this too.

"Believe me"
"Unbelievable"
"Many people say"
"We're going to win big"
"Its going to be beautiful"
"Crooked"
"loser"
"Folks"

In this case, however, her opponent is severely, severely flawed. The list of flaws is nearly infinite.

I have no desire to list her flaws, nor do I intend to give anyone ammunition. Overall, she's an excellent candidate.

No one is.

I don't get why even admitting for one second that our candidate may even have the most minor flaw is acted on with such rage and aggression.

Also, "prove she's flawed without using opinions and using flaws that only she has or it doesn't count and you're a Republican troll!"... really?

All that said, I'm totally against some crazy ass hat coming on here and bad mouthing our candidate up and down. But if someone says, "she's not the best public speaker in the world", maybe don't instantly try to cruicify that person.

She voted for the IWR. Of course this is not unique to her, and she's sure as hell getting more flak for it than Biden or Kerry ever got. She's said it was a huge mistake and if she could go back and know then what she knows now, she would not have voted for it.

She kept a private email server. She's admitted this was a mistake, and it was. Again, this is not unique to her, and in fact previous administrations did FAR worse keeping private material safe. But yes, it was an error on her part.

She said that thing about Nancy Reagan and AIDS. The only big misstep she's made in this primary season. She knew she f*cked up as soon as she said it, and apologized a lot, but it was a dumb thing to say.

As far as inherent flaws, she is not a natural, soaring public speaker like Pres Obama or Bill. She's not a natural campaigner; she has said these exact words herself. Her tone is still too loud and strident at times in her public speaking - DEFINITELY not something that is unique to her, in fact all politicians do it, but the public objects more when it's a woman because of sexism. She comes across as closed-off sometimes, probably because she's been viciously attacked for the better part of 3 decades.

As a massive Hillary supporter, I've tried to be as objective here as possible. These are all the "flaws" I can think of. For a 30-year career in public service, I think it's a remarkably short list. She is the most qualified, prepared, and disciplined candidate running for president in history.

And it was compounded by her advocacy for regime change in Libya.

I will, of course, vote for Hillary. I don't think she will alter the course of US foreign policy and militarism, but it is absolutely imperative that Donald Trump (or any R who might replace him) be defeated.

is that the Bush administration lied to EVERYONE about the intelligence they had. Colin Powell lied to the f*cking U.N.! And the other thing about the IWR nobody ever mentions is that Bush WELL exceeded the very limited powers it gave him. They didn't vote to send us into full-scale war.

Which is forgivable.

Sure, today Democrats have reached the point where we will never trust a Republican.

But at that time, after the worst attack in our history, the idea that a President and his administration would lie us into war to take advantage of that attack, seemed unthinkable for most Americans.

Again ... Democrats have learned a great deal since then ... but some like to stand above in judgement safe in the knowledge that they did not have to make any meaningful decisions in this regard.

At the time, I was against the war and did not trust Bush in the least, but I hoped that I WAS WRONG. I did not know for sure that I was right. And I hoped that I was wrong.

Some liberals want to tar and feather Hillary over that vote. Yet most of them gave Kerry a total pass in 2004.

Its just one more thing for people who don't like Hillary in the first place to throw on their "outrage heap".

(as I often was in those days) celebrating my housemate's birthday (yes, his 21st birthday was on 9/11) in a rather subdued way as we'd all just pulled ourselves away from the TV at home and glued ourselves to the TV at the bar. GWB was coming on to do his address to the nation. I'd cried when he was (s)elected, genuinely cried, I hated him so much. And yet in that moment, I was glued to the TV, PRAYING that he did well, that he reassured the nation, that he could be a strong leader. I felt lost and afraid, and I wanted reassurance that everything was going to be ok. I remember the great upswelling of love that we ALL felt for ALL Americans, Republicans, Democrats, whatever, the outpouring of love that came from the rest of the world. We felt UNITED. And I (a literally life-long Democrat) wanted to be united behind our president to be strong in the face of this unprecedented new danger and pull together as a country. As much as I hated him, I wanted him to do a good job.

I can completely and totally forgive Hillary for the IWR. Nobody knew then how evil the Republicans were, that they would take advantage of this united feeling and lead us into an illegal and immoral war. How could they?

We know better now.

... and at about 11am that morning, as everyone where I worked talked about what had just happened ...

... I said to a colleague (paraphrasing) ... "Whoever did this has made a huge mistake. After something like this, there is no limit to what this country could potentially do in response. Americans will, correctly, demand a response. My biggest fear is that the Bush administration could go off 'half-cocked', retaliate indiscriminately, and ultimately make things worse."

And then in the days immediately after, Bush to his credit (and to my shock), came across as measured and resolute. Going into Afghanistan was the right thing to do.

And so he seemed to be doing the "right" things. Which gave him some credibility.

So when the administration made the Iraq pivot, I understood why some people immediately supported it. I did not. But I understood why many did.

And then as you said ... "Now we know better" ... but I do not blame anyone who "trusted" him at that time.

I find it very hard to believe that Hillary was fooled. She's way too smart for such a glaring lack of competence.

to war and I knew going into Iraq was bogus. People all over the world were protesting the imminent invasion. If we knew it was bogus she should have known it as well.

Some did, and slightly more than half the Democrats in the combined House/Senate voted against the IWR.

John Kerry, Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton, et al forever lost my vote in Democratic primaries.

We knew about PNAC and the neocon agenda and we knew the White House Iraq Group was conducting a marketing campaign of lies, deliberately misrepresenting the available intel. We predicted the opening of a Pandora's box, and it turned out to be even worse.

Judgment in matters of war and peace and an appreciation for the consequences of actions are vitally important qualities in a president.

Hillary Clinton has many strong qualities and is much more on the side of The People than any Republican, but from what I can see she is still a hawk. I hold little hope that she will enact any real change on the world stage.

We have seen all of the unintended consequences that people opposed to the IWR warned about. More terrorism, regional instability, we get mired down in an endless war, and the usual predicted failure of regime change. Many of us who have no expertise in foreign policy saw this result coming. I think she knew better and voted for it anyway. Maybe she became entrenched in 911 nationalistic pro-war culture? I don't know. I just hope there is a shift in that hawkish mentality.

she was willing to get her hands dirty in order to get the job done! Go Hillary!

I would say that is not my biggest concern about a Clinton administration, but it is very much something that could be legitimately considered as a flaw:

She has, as plenty of folks never tire of pointing out in her defense, been the subject of right wing attacks for 20+ years. They dislike her uniquely and personally.

Like it or not, electing Hillary means we are in for 4 or 8 more years of these same attacks, investigations, inquiries and probably impeachment attempts.

While it's likely that any democratic president will be under fire from Republicans, Clinton will undoubtedly get it worse than someone that has been specifically targeted by them for a quarter century.

Exactly, it would not matter who the Democratic president was, the rightwing would be outraged because that is who they are. And she our nominee...and if I had the power I would not allow the 'so concerned' attacks. This is DEMOCRATIC underground so let's support our nominee...the only one who stands between us and the orange menace

And I disagree that Hillary will get it "worse" than any other Democrat.

They demonized Bill, and then Obama, and now Hillary. The ONLY difference is that the 24/7 news and Internet access allows them to say more now then ever before ... but that would be true no matter who we ran.

Personally ... I am LOVING the angst her nomination is causing those RW ass-wipes.

And Dems should NEVER EVER pick a nominee based on how "mean" we think the GOP will be to that person as President.

Fuck that. We should not negotiate with those terrorists.

It's not my main concern.

But plenty of folks here never tire of pointing out that the right has a particular and definite grudge against Clinton, and it's not unfair to say that it's a potential problem that we are going to have to deal with for the next 4-8 years that's specific to this candidate.

Just as any minority candidate would.

Does this mean the Democratic Party should avoid running female or minority candidates?

We need to put responsibility for the flaws where they belong. The fact that so many do attack her (and Obama) unfairly means we all share a challenge to change a culture that tolerates so much bigotry and abuse of women and minorities.

On the verge of a massive blowout win.

'nuff said.

She's too ambitious.
She doesn't know when to quit.
She should just shut up when someone asks her a question.
She should give more press conferences.
She should answer correctly.
She should stop taking campaign donations from rich people.
She should only take campaign donations from poor people.
She's boring.
She thinks she's so smart.
She's aloof, and I hate looves.

Also, I hear from RW sources that she is at death's door. And she's killed and eaten more people than Dahmer. And don't forget about her hair and her voice and her pantsuits.

No one ever talks about how bad Trump looks in HIS pantsuits. And man, he looks BAD.

ambitious! Oh noes! No one who ever ran for President before was ambitious!

Of public opinion polling that both major party candidates have negative personal favorability ratings in all public opinion polls. Clinton averages minus 12 and Trump averages minus 26.
http://www.pollingreport.com/hrc.htm
http://www.pollingreport.com/S-Z.htm#Trump

Plenty of presidential candidates with high positives lose. Maybe having high positives is a flaw as half the candidates with high positives lose.

given that those opinions are based on real or percieved flaws in character or judgment

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/even-supporters-agree-clinton-has-weaknesses-as-a-candidate-what-can-she-do/2016/05/15/132f4d7e-1874-11e6-924d-838753295f9a_story.html

ANd as reality always dictates, it doesn't matter if the flaws are real or imagined in terms of the negative results they produce.

...she's an angel. Horseshit has its uses... but what Trump puts out ain't fit for fertilizer.

...with every new incident involving Trump, the media needs to show they are being objective. So, every story discussing the State of the race must include it.

I'll collect my 10 points now. Thanks.

her having high unfavorable ratings is a true flaw. It's certainly not something that she has much control over. For the most part, the people who dislike and distrust her do so because of what they hear about her, not so much because of what she has said or done. The average Hillary hater can't specifically state how she is crooked or what she has lied about, and they get quiet when you point out that she has the lowest percentage of false statements out of all candidates running (according to PolitiFact). They have nothing when you remind them that she was cleared by the FBI. They can't say how she is aloof or uncaring. They just hear those talking points against her from online wingnut sources or on the TV news spin machine and parrot them.