Do you know anyone who actually wants Hillary to run?

The majority of people on this forum (including myself) can't stand Hillary and don't want her to run.

Yet she's the frontrunner in '08 by a rather large margin according to the polls.

Who are these Democrats who are supporting her? Why do they think she can win? Does anyone here know a Democrat like that?

I just find the whole thing baffling.

So there.

i think he'd like it ...

She should forget about running for President, unless she does a complete about-face on the war.

That would be doing the party a big favor.

The media apparently is more eager for her to run than a lot of other people, including some in DU. Of course I may end up being wrong on that.

I'll even go out of my way & campaign & raise money for her.

Sorry, but I think a Hillary candidacy in 2008 would be a disaster. The minuses would far outweigh the pluses. It would be one of the ugliest, nastiest campaigns in history.

She should stay in the Senate, IMO.

It would be ugly. And newly-disillusioned Repub's would come out to vote against her, who would otherwise have just stayed at home. I think the media wants this more than Dems at large do.


edited for grammar

but I know more people who don't. I am one who doesn't want her to run. I think the ones who want her to run think it would be like the good old day with the Big Dog in the White HOUSE. It isn't so much that they like her. (I met both of the Clintons in 1992, and I think she is a cold fish. He was awesome.)

I like her, but I don't want her to run. She simply cannot win, and her name at the top of the ticket would devastate Democrats in swing states by mobilizing the haters to turn out and vote GOP.

Mark my words: Hillary as the nominee in 2008 would be the end of the Democratic Party as we know it.

Oh, wait a minute, the press because they want to beat her up.

I think she'd be a great candidate....

I don't like Hillary so that means I don't like Democrats?

Uh huh.

and were appalled when we chastized Gephardt for standing next to Bush in the Rose Garden in support of the war in Iraq.

That IS laughable...

The pukes are drooling all over themselves at the prospect, but they are the only ones talking it up that I hear.

for her IF she won the nomination. But I REALLY REALLY want Al Gore to run for election in 2008.

Because she'd probably be one of our worst prospects in 2008. I hope folks are calling into Eddie Schultz's show to explain just why she's angered the Dem base so much, and still does.

but he's getting it!

Shoulda heard him going on about Schumer today!
He's coming up to speed.

The more high-profile voices criticizing the present government the better. I am hoping that a Not-Hillary front-runner emerges in the process, and that the Democratic Party wins in the general election by nominating him or her instead.

why? From my understanding... because she's a democrat and she has spunk (for lack of a better word, while she was first lady anyway) and she's a WOMAN. I don't think they really hear much about her as a senator, but I know a number of men and women that want her to run because she is a woman and think she is the only woman with the balls to do it. A couple of soldiers were telling me, when the Iraq War first started, that they think a woman is less likely to involve us in stupid illegal wars and want Hillary to run and win.

If they thought she'd be less willing to involve us in stupid illegal wars, they're probably disappointed with the extent that she has indeed involved us quite a bit in the stupid illegal war in Iraq, and now wants to involve us in more. Most of my friends frankly don't care one bit that Hillary is a woman or if she has "spunk"-- that's something that Barbara Boxer has as well, in spades, without selling herself out to the War Party. I think a lot of us were for her initially, but she's totally jumped ship. I'm all for a sensible national security policy that allows for the use of force if necessary, but not fiascos like the current one in Iraq.

They definitely want Hillary to run-- a dream candidate for them, uniting the Republican base as they've never been united before, plus splitting the Dems and forcing many of us to a third party. It would be a gift-wrapped dream for them.

OTOH, I don't know many Democrats who want her to run. Four years ago there were quite a few (I was one of them), but after her really infuriating hawk turn, her continuing support for big operations in Iraq and baying for an invasion of Syria, her ultra-corporatist turn with support for outsourcing and all kinds of other destructive corporate practices, I haven't found more than one other Dem (among dozens) who really want her to run.

Most of the folks I know aren't the types who blog or really participate much in online forums at all-- they're moderate Democrats who really don't do much politically outside of Election Day, but they're just as infuriated at her. Hillary's only so-called asset at the moment is name recognition, which is basically useless when the primaries actually commence. She's angered the base far too much, and it's too late to change her war stance-- by now, she's got too much invested in being a neocon-supporting hawk in the Middle East. It's something we won't tolerate.

Hopefully she will run so many ads that people will grow sick of her.

I really cannot imagine knocking on doors and "talking up" someone who has been so supportive of this war. Will she really be able to get grassroots volunteers? If they come to my door, I'd like to tell them a thing or two.

and to win the nomination.

The people I know who support her like that she is a strong woman, they generally like her positions -- which are mostly "moderate" but to the left of Bill's -- and they like the fact that a win by her would make right wing heads explode.

Personally, I haven't decided who I'll support in the primary (way too early for me and I need to get through midterms first), but I won't rule out supporting her.

while simultaneously splitting the Democrats. Sorry, but supporting a disgusting, offensive invasion of a country that never attacked us, based on lies is not a "moderate" position in any way (much less "to the left" of Bill's positions). It was bad enough when Hillary initially supported and talked up the IWR, despite the mounting evidence even then that the WMD claims were being exaggerated or even fabricated. Hillary was the one person then with enough stature in the Democratic Party, and in the Congress, who could have put a brake on the drive to war and force us to take a time-out to ponder the evidence. What she showed then was an abject, spineless failure of leadership.

I was one of her supporters then, and even with that cop-out I didn't totally jump off her bandwagon. But then she continued to talk up the war, talk up how good a thing it was, and then push for prolonging our stay in Iraq and expanding it. Even starting to brandish the US sword against Syria.

Sorry, but Hillary's domestic stands are pretty much irrelevant when she merely starts parroting the objectives of the War Party that seems to have netted so many Congressional members in both parties. War consumes so many resources that it renders domestic priorities moot in practice. And since war has such an enormous direct impact on so many millions of people, directly killing potentially millions, turning the rest of the world against us and making us a terrorist target, there is no more fundamentally important an issue than one's stands on these wars in the Middle East. That's the reason why so many millions of Dems, despite her stands on other issues, would defect to a Third Party if she were the nominee, especially since there are now a number of antiwar themed third parties cropping up that might have the opportunity to get off the ground in 2008. We cannot have warmongers dominating our ticket.

I appreciate that you don't support her, but the question was, "do you know Democrats who want Hillary to run for president." The answer is "absolutely, I know plenty." (The view that opinions on DU are representative of views of the majority of Democratic party is, from my experience in a swing state, incorrect).

As I said, I personally haven't decided. It depends on who else there is to support (factoring in that I wouldn't defect to a third party myself, but to each their own). I live in Florida, so my primary vote doesn't count anyway.

The Dems that I know for the most part do not participate in DU or any other blogs online, and their aversion toward Hillary is substantial right now. Note that a fair number were much like myself-- very positive in 2000 and 2001, yet bitterly disappointed after 2002 and irate in the years since.

For the most part they don't know of any other alternatives within the Dem Party (the name recognition thing) and this is why some of them still want her to run, but the vast majority of them would prefer someone else who isn't so closely identified with the Iraq War. And there are many who-- whether or not they're aware of other Dem candidates-- are so angry with her stands, that they'd vote Third Party. We had a long discussion on the 3rd Party issue recently and why it really is attracting far more than people than I would have expected, and it's because 1. many folks really do see viable third parties rising up in 2008, since there are so many disaffected voters in both camps and 2. some have argued that if a War Party candidate is on both tickets, better to hold our noses and try to oust a Republican in 2012, rather than settle for a War Party neocon Democrat who might likely guarantee 8-12 more years at least of continuous War Party rule.

So in regard to anger at Hillary, I really don't think that DU is that much further away from the Dem mainstream. It's probably more deeply felt here in DU, and we're different in that we *are* well aware of strong alternatives to Hillary (which Dems in the mainstream really aren't, for the most part), but there's substantial bitterness at Hillary, Biden and Lieberman from the rank and file.

That is, I know several people who would support Hillary (and they are her constituents in New York, as well), and I would consider supporting her in '08, though I have several other preferences.

I don't really worry about what Republicans say they want or don't want, and if it's Hillary vs. Any Republican, I'll vote for Hillary. And I do think anything's possible in a presidential race, and that she could win.

By the way, the people I know who really like Hillary (mentioned above) are not DUers, and are pretty much Democratic mainstreamers (bunch of retired women in their seventies).

What if she is running against someone like McCain? Our only hope then is if McCain's support for Bush comes back to haunt him. Other than that, it will most likely be a landslide victory for the GOP.

My distaste for her goes beyond the fact that she is a polarizing figure and don't think she can win. I'm also irritated that the Democrats can't do better than the Clintons and we have to rely on this one family to win elections for us. I appreciate everything Bill did for us during the 90's but that doesn't mean his wife will be the same way and I think it's time to find some new faces.

She also strikes me a being a bit of an opportunist at times.

that, I agree with. It would be a good thing, I think, because it would mean that the tali-born-again wing has lost control, but I don't think it can happen. Guilliani either.

I don't know whether Hillary could win or not (I tend to think not, but I haven't closed my mind yet), but I believe that the people I know who support her think she can.

campaign? Is there a way for us to find this information? I am certain that Republicans want Hillary to be the Democratic nominee.

Of course, I also know Hillary is a wise enough politician to hide any contributions she may receive from such sources...

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

She would have NO coat-tails down here. If she campaigned in N.C., everyone would hide. And we actually do have some pretty good people here.

have told me that there is no way they would vote for Hillary.

Not voting for President in 2008 is a real option for these folks!

Also, I would gladly vote for Clark, Dean, Kerry, Edwards, Kucinich or any other great democrat that wins the primary. We are never going to find a candidate that fits everyone exactly. I certainly do not mind some compromise with whatever candidate is chosen. I am in awe of the talent in our party, and it is only enhanced by having the talented, courageous and very popular Senator Clinton.

Hillary is no friend of LGBTs, and she is as prowar as Bush. She is as unacceptable as Biden, Bayh, or Lieberman.

I know some who would probably vote for her if she was the candidate, but none that are for her in a big way, or would work for her during the primaries. I'm not sure the people I knowwold work for her as the candidate. They might vote for her, though.

They don't feel as strongly as I do about the DLC... yet. But, the day is coming. At the UU coffee I went to this morning, so many people were talking about anti-corporatism and economic inequity, and actually were talking about opposing the DLC, I was heartened. These are some very liberal voters, to be sure, but to hear them talking about being against the DLC was a thrill. People are catching on. She did not get good reviews in that room, I can tell you.

TC

At least not any Democrats.

They are Democrats by registration, but they are mostly uninformed. When Hillary's name is mentioned the response is a "big" ugh. Would they vote her, well, they've voted before for candidates they didn't like before. But as for running, no, they are tired of the wars of the 90s and don't want a rerun.

Many of them would feel better voting for a change with a Hagel or McCain type.

Remember, most people don't follow the policies. They do know that they are getting screwed, they just haven't put it together yet.

I'm sure with all of her money, some Hillary think tank is spinning some bullshit to blunt her Margaret Thatcher side. It is all just a game to them, and we are just the pawns.

I think her candidacy would just bring out the repugs with all their Clinton crap.....no more. I think she's probably OK as a NY Senator but her attitude towards the war isn't what I want to hear anymore.

Of course, polls are totally meaningless unless they say what you want them to say...

http://www.pollingreport.com/2008.htm

before the last election also. :shrug:

If someone had asked at that point, "Do you know anyone who actually wants Lieberman to run?" I would have said, "yes, 18% of registered Dems do" because for one shinging week, Lieberman led the pack with 18%.

Hillary has constantly led the pack with over twice that.

Your reply was really irrelevant to the question the OP asked.

we disagree on a LOT of stuff,Wyldwolf, but I don't see anyone stronger or more capable than Hillary out there.

(Unless Howard Dean braeks his promise not to run, and believe me, he's serious about that)

Hillary opposes full civil rights for LGBTs and she wants Chavez overthrown.

Hillary is no better than Bush!

After the repugs take a drubbing at the polls in 2006, the neocons
will turn tail and withdraw from Iraq, which will then fall into
a bloody civil war, and an Iran style Mullahcracy will take over.

when it advised the Beltway Democrats to vote for IWR. The war will be over in no time, no one will care about Iraq in 2004, the DLC said.

The war won't be over by 2008, and if a Republican or a Democrat like Hillary gets elected, the war will still be raging by 2012.

If democrats capture more seats in congress in 2006, as I expect
we will, the dem dominated congress will not keep funding more
dollars down a rat hole. Just watch and see, Iraq will wind down
in a hurry after eletions in 2006.

If they can buy their six pack of beer and a deep dish pizza,
they won't give second thought to one of the most unnecessary
wars fought by the US.

That was not easy considering she was accused of being a carpet
bagger.

if she gets the nomination.

these people always seem to be detached from reality.

I see no way she could put together an electoral victory. She'd guarantee at least another four ruinous years of repuke rule.

And I am in a VERY progressive area of a VERY blue state.

because of the amount of money she is raising.

By the time of the primaries, I feel all other candidates will be shut out due to her money advantage.

And if she wins the nomination, I cannot see 1 state that she could turn to blue from red.

That had me surprised since I get most of my news here. I'm for Clark. But I think you'd be surprised just how many out there are for Hillary.

I cannot envision her actually winning. She has more baggage than LAX.

n/t

We need to DRAFT AL GORE!!!

Let her run for a job in Hollywood with that "star-power".
But we need someone to govern.

it will help you see things in the same way the DLC does.

my first choice.

I would rather have Nancy Pelosi..Now there is a real Democrat..she tells it like it is..

She is an opportunist and a trim.

And she has a horrible speaking style.

Most of my friends are sickened by the notion.

a Democrat that if accused of being a liberal will stand up and say,if a liberal is helping the middle class,the poor and real justice in this county and a equal opprotunity for all than your damn right I'm a liberal........

help the middle class,the poor and they do not want the government to
quarantee equal opprotunity for all.

Most Americans are individualist. They do not give shit about the other guy.

seem to like the idea. If I had to describe them, I'd say they were populist Dems rather than progressives. They talked of wishing for a return to an FDR-style Dem Party.

It will depend on who gets out the vote come primary time: those who don't want her or those who do.

She can best be described as a reactionary, a Herbert Hoover Democrat.

Because he knows what I do: DLC Queen Hillary wouldn't turn a single red state, would lose at least two BLUE states and guarantee at least eight more years of the Bewsh dynasty in the Blight House. People are sick of dynasties and the "base" SUPER hates the Clintons.

The majority of people on a Democratic forum can't stand Hillary? I think not. Please refrain from sports betting, or any other type of monetary-based handicapping, or you'll be broke in a hurry. The ones who voluntarily post most often may make it appear that way, but no chance you're correct overall, among 79,000+ registrants. I would comfortably bet my life on it.

I think Hillary as the nominee is extremely hard to handicap. Those who dismiss her chances immediately are way off, IMO. We desperately need a smart campaign with the right themes and emphasis. No doubt she would provide that, as evidenced by her husband, and the 2000 senate run.

The aspect that she's already a well known and polarizing factor for the past dozen years actually works FOR her, not against. No chance the GOP could Swift Boat her with old Whitewater crap, or something like that. It would bounce off with a laugh. Very good chance Hillary could charm a significant percentage and lift her favorability numbers significantly, similar to during her statewide New York tour in 2000.

We need to rescue a critical percentage of white women. That is the pivotal voting block right now, almost to the point nothing else matters. But is a white woman the vehicle to do it? I really can't guess, especially given the uncertainty whether the country as a whole is still too backward and biased to accept a woman as president in the first place. My early handicap is our best nominee is Mark Warner, especially since he opens up electoral possibilities in Virginia. But no chance I'm rejecting Hillary Clinton. Many, many others who are championed on DU have MUCH less general election chance than Hillary Clinton.

People blindly fall in behind "the best person to put forward", even though it's not the best person. It's like being in a casting session for grad student one-acts: well, other people want her, so I want to cast her too.

Edwards is my number one choice because I think he has what it takes to win.

I finally got tired of talking to one of them. He said I was negative.

Hillary Clinton is one of the more centrist and "establishment" figures in the Democratic party, whereas - although there is a wide range of opinion represented to some degree - DU is heavily weighted towards the far left.

Also remember that these things are self-reinforcing. People who post here in support of moderates or centrists are more likely to attract a lot of abuse that people who express more extreme opinions, which makes them less willing to do so. This means that the ratio of centrist to extreme posts gets even more heavily skewed, making expressing centrist views still more of a risk, and so on.

When it comes to counting support in the Democratic party as a whole, I'd place far more faith in opinion polls than in degree of support expressed on DU, I'm afraid.

and it is not just Republicans that loath her.

I know a bunch of rethuglicans that want her to run though...and that says it all really....

There is no grand ABB coalition in 2008, and people that held their noses and voted for Kerry in 2004 will not do the same for a warmonger pro-globalist pro-torture candidate like Hillary.

If you want to drive a wooden stake through the Democratic Party, just go ahead and nominate Hillary.

You are being warned!

My god, the ratings!

Probably the only thing that might revive the repug base after the shit storm of lies and treason is driven home.