Can anyone give me a good reason to support Hillary?

I've held this for a long time:

-She is the most unelectable candidate
-She is the most right wing

I have yet to hear any valid rebuttals to either point. Does anyone actually have any?

if she gets the dem nomination. I'm staying out of the primary frey; although I would lean toward General Clark if he gets in the race.

:kick:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=3147704

Because she's a just plain terrible, terrible candidate.

I just hope we don't beat each other up too bad in the next 12 months. There is no doubt in my old bald head that regardless of what you may think of Clinton, she will be quantum leaps better then whomever the gop nominates and she will surround herself with folks quantum leaps more competent then the trash in positions of leadership now in the bush administration. I've yet to warm up to any of those who have declared. I was a Clark supporter in 04 and I still hold him in high esteem. I hope he is in the next administration in some capacity.

She has a lot of top, powerful people working to nominate her, including a notable former President. And more than enough money. They can buy her the nomination, but not the general election. I have a lot of trouble imagining the scenario in which she wins in November. Too many people dislike her, and that is that.

I have been a political junkie since 1960, and I pick the winner every time. Right now, if Gore does not come in, I see Rudy being sworn in in January 2009, because Hillary will be the nominee.

Why do you have an Edwards avatar if you don't think Edwards can win? (I don't think he can either).

Go Obama, Clark, Gore, Edwards, Biden!

I'll support her, but I'd really prefer Al Gore.

to get even lol

That makes her electable. Also, she has a perfect environmental voting record. She will run the government efficiently, manage the economy and get this deficeit under control. In person she is a warm and friendly person and is probably a liberal at heart desite her recent hawkishness. Her SCOTUS choices will not reverse Roe v. Wade. I'm not saying you ought to support her. You asked for reasons, and this is what I could come up with. On the other hand, she will never be more popular than she is and will not likely help us increase our majority in Congress. If you can think of a former Confederate state she will carry, let me know. Also, please let me know how she will carry Ohio, Penna. or Wisc.

I don't support her. I'm hoping to not have to vote for anyone who voted for the IWR in the primaries and she in particular somehow managed to avoid taking a stand on the war until it was absolutely necessary.

I'm hoping that Gore gets in but barring that I'm looking at either your guy (I'm assuming he's your guy from your avatar) Richardson or Obama--moving down the line it's Kucinich, Dodd, Biden THEN Clinton.

That being said, if she's the Democratic nominee, I will end up having to support her so I'm not going to tear the woman down. She's far better than any of the Republican candidates.

One thing she has going for her is the "Clinton machine". Bill and Hillary know how to get the job done, screw with them and they will get back at you. Once again, Hillary lacks the native charm of Bill who could stab you in the back and have you thank him profusely in the same breath but if Democrats want someone who won't take any crap from the Republicans--she's your girl.

Well, yeah, but pretty much eveyone I know is far better than any of the R. candidates and that includes cats.

I want a provincial like Richardson, not a rock star like Obama or Clinton or even Edwards. Everyone already knows those senators and has their mind made up. Richardson, like most swing-state governors, will not be seen as a party animal and has the potential to be a concensus candidate with only the far right 28% being against him.

This country is in bad shape and we need a take charge guy/gal to repair the damage of 8 years of George W. Bush and the Republican Congress.

Generally speaking governors are more likely to get elected and also more likely to know what to do and how to do it when they get into office. (Alright, Bush is the exception that proves the rule--although no one could argue that he hasn't "done" things)Senators have spent their political lives involved with a great deal of talk and generally very little action.

Like I said, if Gore gets in the race his experience as an active and influential vice president for Bill Clinton added to his more recent work as an entrepeneur and activist makes him my top choice. Since I don't think he's going to do it, Richardson is at the top of my list of remaining candidates. I like the fact that he combines experience in Congress, foreign policy street cred and has been a successful governor of a swing state. I like his positions on the environment and most social issues. He sounds like he's had a change of heart on NAFTA. I can live with his positions on gun control and the death penalty although I don't share them. I like the idea of a candidate from a western state and the fact that he's Hispanic with an Anglo name is a plus.

I should add, however, that my liking a candidate is usually the kiss of death. For some reason the Great American Public does not share my taste in prospective presidents.

I know just what you mean. In '06 my Congressman and personal friend became Ohio's junior senator. I frankly did not know how to react to the news. My people never win! It was weird.

I support Richardson for all the reasons you stated, the mixture of executive and Federal experience. In point of fact, I actually appreciate his views on gun control and if he faces off against Guilliani it will cut in our favor in places like Ohio, Florida, WV and Penna.

Kerry raised more money than any other Democrat ever.
Much good it does when the other side gets unlimited advertising for FREE.

Yes, but less than Bush. Also, he did not spend it on a concise message.

But the amount of airtime devoted to promoting Bush** compared to Kerry
was more like a 10-to-1 ratio, when you count the Swift Boat Liars and
the endless echoing of their "message" for FREE, with NO opportunity for rebuttal on the "news" programs.

It is wrong, but a reality we need to accept for planning purposes nonetheless.

unless they are big enough to BUY A NETWORK.

someone else who really is progressive and isn't a corporate shill, then we'll be stuck with the choice of Hillary or whomever the republican is. She'll be the lesser of two evils. I'll vote for her if it comes to that.

Sometimes we end up settling for the least horrible option when there just aren't any good options available.

She's better than any of the Repiglicans, but she is UNELECTABLE!

Might get some Republican votes.

unless you wanted to wait out this 8 years of hell, just to have another 8 on your plate.

I think we've learned how long 8 years can be under GOP control. The only way to guarantee that it happens again is by electing this woman. I've been through too much to throw it all away, or to let it happen again. I hope that I am not alone.

her voting record is actually pretty good. You can find it at project votesmart, if you're really interested.

"Electibility" is a pretty subjective criteria, especially this far out from the election.

Arguments about HRC's electibility and her reletive position on the political spectrum have been a mainstay on the general discussion forums for months. If you haven't found any rebuttals to these arguments by now, then I doubt you will. Or I doubt your sincerity in asking the question, I'm not sure which....

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

^ I am.

Oh. And she may not be the 'front runner' for long. ;)

Both her positive and negative poll numbers hover around 49%. She will, therefore never be popular like Reagan or even Bill Clinton. This suggests another race like 2000 and 2004 where one state will decide the election. We can't afford that. We can't afford Congressional candidates holding onto to those very short coat-tails. You know that the R propoganda machine can turn shit into gold in the minds of swing-voters, so don't assume they are washed-up. I thought the same thing in '00 before our superstar candidate effectively (if not legally) lost to a half-assed, moron governor.

Thats insane. Once people have a chance to hear what she has to say, she will get alot better numbers. Right now she is a theory, people are basing their opinions on buzz. She is 10 times the candidate Kerry was.

I mean, Hillary has lots of "baggage," but I'm sure most of the others do as well - and if they don't, the right wing will just make it up anyway (a la the Swift Boaters).

I'm sure they won't let the facts get in the way of a good smear campaign.

Those numbers could move a little in either direction. Kerry had the advantage of being relatively unkown. His numbers were pretty flexible until he allowed Bush to define him. This isn't about the candidate. It is about what the public wants, what they think they know and how those wants are influenced by media.

If she was the HRC we knew in 1999, this would be no contest. HRC would be the presumptive nominee and the Ds would be laying palm fronds before her feet. As it is, she has moved so far to the right on this war and on some economic matters that most of us don't know which HRC is running. She won't end the war in 2009. She won't support national health care. If she wins will she be a de facto R.? While moving right on economic and foreign policy matters, do her social views make her too far left for swing voters? Will voters' ambivilence make them vote split tickets putting HRC in office but giving the Senate and maybe even the House back to the Rs? I frankly think that the reason we did not do better in the 2004 Congressional elections is because Kerry was at the top of the ticket.

If Richardson can somehow survive the "national primary" on Feb. 8?, I think he has a real shot at being a concensus candidate with the ability to pick up three of the four big states.

If people make up their minds based on emotional reasons, then yes, it is hard to change their minds, but even those minds can be changed with the right stimulus. George Bush proved that in 2004. Despite all the scandals, all the problems, all the lying, and all the stupidity, FEAR still won.

If people are even only a little bit interested in reason and logic and common sense on a particular issue, they will be willing to change their minds when presented with evidence that supports a change in view.

HC is an interesting case in that she has been the subject of intense RW propaganda for a long time, most of it baseless conspriacy theory accusations or just plain old character assasination. This of course is the root of her alleged "unelectability". But, she- more than anyone else- knows this, and chose to run anyway. One would think that she has developed a plan to try to overcome this hurdle, which any serious candidate would have to do. (The fact that she would get villified by the left for strategizing is presumably part of the calculus too.) It will be interesting to watch this battle unfold. Truly a heavyweight bout the likes of which we have not seen for quite some time.

remember when Lieberman was the front-runner for the Democratic nomination in 2004?

Obama, Gore, or even my guy, will likely inspire the republik base to stay home, she will inspire them to crawl to the polls, over broken glass and flaming coals if need be, to vote against her. Considering your chosen handle, you don't seem to have much of a grasp on it.

But it might not be true, and the election isn't today anyway.

how do you imagine it will change in the next two years?

... most of the people here have the political instincts of a slug.

The RW has been swiftboating HRC for 15 years and it has worked quite well.

Lots and lots of people hate her and it ISN'T GOING TO MATTER ONE WHIT WHAT SHE HAS TO SAY, NONE OF THESE FOLKS (and it might be as high as 40%) ARE NOT GOING TO LISTEN.

If we don't get HRC off the ballot, we are looking at losing in 2008.

Thats sound strategy. She will mop the floor with any GOP asshat they nominate.

To say the least, that's quite a bit of a stretch. That's a new low on why anyone should support Senator Clinton in the primaries. I'd rather stick needles in my eyes.

and this person here actually WILL stay at home if HRC comes out.

Actually no, I'm not being totally honest. If HRC were to come out (which she won't), Nader would then get my vote, and labor.

if Hillary gets the nom?

your credibility just went through the floor.

:dem:

Yes. Deal with it.

and you repeat that sentiment (and I hope you do)

it will be the admin. of this site "dealing" with it by kicking your ass out of here.

-----------------

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

If you think that mirrors the "neocons and lil shrub", I suggest you bring that point up with the owners of this website.


enjoy my ride on the titanic? is that the best insult you can come up with?


enjoy your stay here at DU....

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

They want her to be our nominee because she would lose to almost any Repiglican, especially Guiliani.

1. Can you name 2 red states she can flip?
2. Why?

3. How many blue states will she also lose.


(Judging from recent polling, which, I know, is only a gauge, she will lose at least two of them should Guiliani be the nominee).

if there is one candidate who can give Republicans a beating on this issue it is Hillary Clinton!

unfortunately I can think of many more reasons why not to support her in the primaries, we have better candidates with better ideas and a better chance of winning in November. the healthcare debate in 1994 has made many like Hillary terrified to even touch the issue. And the only stance I've seen her take since she started running is universal healthcare for children. :wow:I don't oppose that, but if I want it..I'll vote for Mike Gravel or John Edwards!

But she had to vote "yes" for the binding vote so that the inspectors could finish their jobs or somthing. Just a silly, minor little detail- pay no attention to that part.

You should support her because she has always been against this war and Bush, and she always will be. She was never "for" the war in any way, shape or form- that's just some Liberal urban legend.

If you dont believe that she has always opposed this invasion, just go read the speech she gave before she voted "yes" to the invasion- but dont look at anything else.

wish I could nominate this post. As is I am saving it Dr. Fate.

What criteria do you measure that by? Money? Staff? Polls? Oh wait, let me guess, none of the normal ways of measuring electability, now we invent a new way of measuring it, designed especially for HC: Who has the most RW propaganda show up on the Google.

Most right wing? Again, what criteria would you accept?
Clinton:


Obama:


Richardson:


And just for comparison, Wes Clark:

Do you have a link for those graphs? That is so cool! We Clarkies are always trying to tell people that Clark is more liberal than most of the others running, but no one who doesn't know him believes it.

He's also the only Democrat I know of that has said out loud on teevee, that he's a proud to be a liberal.

not more reasons to vote against her!! :banghead:

drawing the flies to a particular area..

The Drum Major Institute evaluated the whole Senate based on 8 key votes to support the middle class, from protecting social security to fair trade to Medicare drug protections to the minimum wage:



Only 9% of the Senate (all Democrats) were awarded the highest grade of "A" for supporting the middle class on all 8 issues:



Hillary was one of those 9 Senators who got an "A" for consistently supporting the middle class (along with Boxer, Kennedy, Kerry, Sarbanes, Corzine, Lautenberg, Leahy, and Feingold). For comparison, both McCain and Hagel got an "F".

http://www.drummajorinstitute.com/congress/outerenvelope_senate.htm

Hillary is way too DLC for my taste, but she's hardly "the most right wing" while Biden and Richardson remain in the race.

If you need some good reasons to support Hillary in the general election if we do not succeed in nominating a more progressive candidate, why don't you start with the 8 issues and key votes identified by the Drum Major Institute.

So, she's got that going for her.

whether she heads it or someone else heads it.

And whether our first choice -- her or someone else -- heads it or not.

And that vote would be a wise one, given the far right composition of the announced GOP candidates and the likely far right composition of their platform. They would continue to owe fundamentalist Christian voters and would continue to pander to their limitations and bigotry.

I believe none of our Democrats would do that.

Including Senator Clinton.

I would also prefer to live in an America where Senator Clinton is making judicial appointments than one in which John McCain, Mitt Romney, Sam Brownback, or Rudy Giuliani is making them.

moot point.

;-)

taking any crap from the repugs.

Besides we need 2 presidents to clean up this mess.......Hill and Bill!!

And in this climate.....she IS electable......and it's about time we have a woman for president in our country!

I want her to use Bill's amazing charm and diplomacy skills to clean-up the mess in the middle east. 8 years of nothing from Bush regarding the Israeli/Palestinian conflict has made our country a much more dangerous place to live. Remember Bill.... was very close to bringing peace to that conflict.

Hillary could handle domestic affairs while Bill could concentrate fully on the middle east.

I know it is just a dream, but Gore would be wonderful as the Energy Czar, focusing on global warming and alternative sources of renewable energy.

That's it in a nut schell, I hope you will keep an open mind. We still have a long way to go. The debates should yeild some interesting insights.

Bill can definitely be an asset.

She is the most unelectable candidate: What justification keeps you in that mindset? Her gender? Her marriage? Her blow dried hair?

She is the most right-wing: What has she done lately to show you she is the most right wing?

I'm sure you can substantiate both points, I just dont like to see the generalities fly around with no real substance.

UNELECTABLE......what a load!!!!

especially re: the blow-dried hair.

Just read on..:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=3147704

Fact is there is a very high percentage of the population that will never vote for her under any circumstances whatsoever, possibly as high as 48% leaving no room for errors. And she is the biggest war apologist running right now.

my bad

:beer:

so deep you can probably order Chinese takeout from the real McCoy.

In 1969, Rodham entered Yale Law School, where she served on the Board of Editors of Yale Review of Law and Social Action and worked with underprivileged children at the Yale-New Haven Hospital. During the summer of 1970, she was awarded a grant to work at the Children's Defense Fund in Cambridge, Massachusetts.

During the summer of 1971, she traveled to Washington to work on Senator Walter Mondale's subcommittee on migrant workers, researching migrant problems in housing, sanitation, health and education.

For the summer of 1972, Rodham worked in the western states for Democratic presidential candidate George McGovern's campaign.

During her second year in law school, she volunteered at the Yale Child Study Center, learning about new research on early childhood brain development. She also took on cases of child abuse at Yale-New Haven Hospital and worked at the city Legal Services, providing free legal service to the poor.

She received a Juris Doctor (J.D.) degree from Yale in 1973, having written a thesis on the rights of children, and began a year of post-graduate study on children and medicine at the Yale Child Study Center.

During her post-graduate study, Rodham served as staff attorney for the Children's Defense Fund, and as a consultant to the Carnegie Council on Children.

She joined the presidential impeachment inquiry staff advising the Judiciary Committee of the United States House of Representatives during the Watergate Scandal. Rodham later became a faculty member (one of only two women in the faculty) at the University of Arkansas, Fayetteville School of Law, where Bill Clinton was teaching as well.

In 1976, Hillary Rodham joined the venerable and influential Rose Law Firm, specializing in intellectual property cases while doing child advocacy cases pro bono.

President Jimmy Carter appointed Rodham to the board of the Legal Services Corporation in 1978.

As Arkansas' First Lady, Clinton chaired the Arkansas Educational Standards Committee, where she successfully fought (against some opposition) for improved testing standards of new teachers.

She also chaired the Rural Health Advisory Committee and introduced a pioneering program called "Arkansas' Home Instruction Program for Preschool Youth," which trains parents to work with their children in preschool preparedness and literacy.

Hillary Rodham Clinton was named Arkansas Woman of the Year in 1983 and Arkansas Mother of the Year in 1984.

Throughout her time as Arkansas' First Lady, Clinton continued to practice law with the Rose Law Firm. In 1988 and 1991 the National Law Journal named Clinton one of the 100 most influential lawyers in America.

Clinton co-founded the Arkansas Advocates for Children and Families and served on the boards of the Arkansas Children's Hospital Legal Services and the Children's Defense Fund.



Early years, yes. However, facts demonstrate what is important to this candidate.
more to come.....

she - or Obama or Edwards - can win a national election.

None of them will be able to cull the swing-Bubba vote needed to shore up a couple of purple states.

That is the best reason to support Hillary.

She has run two absolutely flawless and gaffe-free senate campaigns, getting 55% of the vote the first time and 67% the second time. Hillary may not be perfect but she knows how to run campaigns and win elections.

I remember when many considered a small-state governor with no foreign policy experience to be "unelectable", back in 1992. Don't underestimate the Clintons.

Not exactly the most difficult state for a Democrat. Her 55% in 2000 was well below Gore's numbers in the state and in 2006 she was running in a very Democratic year against a joke opponent. Hell Sam Brownback got over 69% in 2004 and over 65% in his first Senate campaign in 1998. That doesn't make him a strong candidate.

I'll vote for the candidate of the party, but I'm still hoping Gore will get in, and that Richardson will be the VP. That's a solid ticket that would run a clean government.

strong suit.

Biden but never had goofy hair-plugs, never plagiarized a generally unsuccessful English Labor Party official, didn't fuck the public half as bad on the bankruptcy corporate-welfare-a-thon, etc.

Likewise, Hillary's no worse than Richardson but never lied about being drafted by Major League Baseball, never dropped the ball on Los Alamos security, never tried to take away citizenship from kids born in the USA, never tried to expand the death penalty while also trying to eliminate habeas corpus petitions under the US Constitution from state court death penalty cases, etc.

;)