I've got something to say about Hillary Clinton........

That "girl" knows how to fight...and that's important!

Hillary knows how to fight the Rethuglicans and their media machine well! She and Bill for that matter have a proven record of doing this, and I will consider this when determining who I will support during the primaries, i.e., who can win a general election. We need someone who will get in the mud and do what is required....otherwise, Dems will not win.

"And that is why, despite her negatives, Hillary would win against the Republicans. Their hatred of her will galvanize support among Democrats and independents (especially women).

Yes, she has high negatives. But watch THEM drive her negatives down. Being the #1 target of the most despised administration in history (and of their strident right-wing acolytes) is the one asset no one can take away from Hillary.

They will never hate anyone as much as they hate her. The irony is that their hatred will, if she is nominated, elect her.
http://www.tpmcafe.com/blog/coffeehouse/2007/aug/14/hillarys_secret_weapon_she_makes_republicans_lose_it

Sorry, but I'm not looking for a Democratic Mr. nice guy.

We need someone that can wipe the floor of these GOP assholes!


I may not agree with some of what she's done, but Hillary is no push over nor an apologist. I believe that if she gets the nom she will be like a mama bear protecting her cubs when it comes to making sure Dems win. She will spare no enemies......and folks, that is exactly what it will take. :patriot:

I don't trust her. Period.

to do so would make me the fool.

She knows her sh*t and doesn't take sh*t.

rec'd.

Hillary is a champion boxer in the politics ring, she will knock the repub opponent out.

She will not back down and can stand up to others. I admire that.

Good to be here at DU!

populist ideas? I believe we need a candidate who can and will fight hard for those PP ideals and against the Corporatist elitist BS we have been forced to endure for the last 20 years.

But I do believe that she learned what she needed to learn long ago. I'm also not saying that she is perfect, because she isn't. But compared to the others running, she has kicked more ass than they have. That's my point.

and support war and free trade and welfare reform. Become assimilated into the corporate Borg.

No one from the DLC should be. Ever.

TC

Immediately you assume she will be the nominee, and it'll be my fault that she goes down in flames. I love you big thinkers.

I am going to do everything I can in hopes she will not be our nominee. Ditto any other DLC-ers. We'll cross the bridge of letting a repuke get elected once the primaries are over, shall we? Why is it no one can say anything even slightly against Hillary here without getting slammed? And you all whine about feeling unwanted here. It's a riot. :rofl:

TC

And she's too conservative for me. She's a, put a finger to the wind, let's see what looks good to stand behind today, kinda gal. Remember she was once a Goldwater girl!

:rofl:

And her supporters know how to fight for her. I admire that, too.

and told to be ashamed of yourself ..... it kind of gets a bug up your ass and you don't feel like taking anymore shit.

And isn't my language "charming"?

In a clever kind of way.

This is like a Lieberman personality, not someone I want as
president.

I've scratched HRC off my list. She fights for herself maybe
but that is as far as it goes.

Cause they are the only ones who didn't vote for the War running on the Dem side.....and at the very least Hillary didn't co-sponsor the damn bill, nor did she write an Op-Ed supporting a Blank check vote posted on the State Department Website, nor was she sitting on the intelligence committee with access to the classified NIE that she just didn't bother to read.

In reference to the "surge".....you are being selective in what Hillary Clinton said about this. The surge quelching "some" of the violence in one particular restricted area of Iraq is what she was talking about. I'm not sure if that statement of hers should be interpreted as you have chosen to interpret it....because you aren't being fair.

She is someone I want on my side.

or four or five (I can't remember where I am in the line of recommendations).

Hill ain't goin' take no shit!

and that Dem is Gov. Brian Schweitzer. Hillary doesn't know how to fight. She is good at pretending she knows how to fight them.

your post....because when I look back, Hillary wasn't a "pretend" first lady for 8 years....meaning that she was on the winning team twice more than anyone running.

She took too many of the lumps to not get any of the credit.....and that's not right!

WASHINGTON - The "vast, right-wing conspiracy" is back, presidential candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton is warning, using a phrase she once coined to describe partisan plotting.

Once derided for her use of the phrase, Clinton is now trying to turn the imagery to her advantage.

Speaking Tuesday to Democratic municipal officials, the New York senator used the term to hammer Republicans on election irregularities. She also used the phrase similarly during a campaign appearance over the weekend in New Hampshire.
<>
Clinton made her charge of conspiracy in response to a question about her proposed bill that would make Election Day a federal holiday, and make it a crime to send misleading or fraudulent information to voters.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17593375/

I really don't remember her leading any OFFENSE against the slimeballs. She won a Senate seat in New York, but since then, she hasn't LEAD the Charge aginst the Repugs on any issues. She has been more Go along to Get Along than the Democratic Joan of Arc.

I think we need someone whose resume includes something besides "She can take a punch".
I want a junkyard DOG who will rip their fucking hearts out, not cover up and take punches.

Hillary is a panderer, not a leader.

Just one.

(No, beating third-tier candidates for senator doesn't count)

for the highest office in the land after being trashed for 12 years mercylessly by Republicans of every ilk. Add to this the fact that she is a female, lived in the White House for 8 years and is currently one of the most powerful senators in Washington.

I consider this a victory, and I give her the credit. It is obvious that you don't.

So.....please name what battles other Dem candidates running have won.

Nor was I asking about polls, which are utterly meaningless at this point. For example, Dean was 30 points ahead of Kerry one month before the 2004 Iowa Caucuses, and look how that turned out.

There seems to be some thinking that Clinton takes on the GOP and wins.

I see zero evidence of that.

In fact, as far as I can tell, she flees from any confrontation with them - and when she has to confront them, she caves instantly (e.g., going to war with Iraq, the "Patriot" Acts, "free" trade with China, etc).

While the other Democratic candidates might not be any more effective than Clinton at changing policy, at least some of them actually fight, rather than fleeing.

Years living in Governor's Mansion = 12

Years living in White House = 8


Years in Senate = 7


Years attacked by Right Wing = FOREVER

Sorry, I'm just giving the woman her props. I didn't say that I support her in the primaries as of today.....just saying, she can kick ass better than the rest of those running is all. :shrug:

The two bggest talking points used to promote Hillary is that she is "tough" and she is "smart".

I am still trying to figure out where she was smart or tough for the last seven years. She pandered to right-wingers, voted for the war, refused to see it as the boondoggle it was, and went after flag burners and video gamers.

I never saw her attack the Republicans....not once.

I never have seen "smart" policy come from her, either, and her campaign strategy is purposefully splitting progressives, which is pretty dumb, in my opinion.

So her two biggest assets are really just ghosts.....words that we use to comfort ourselves because of the inevitability of her nomination. In truth, she has weak support outside of the party compared to the other top tier candidates and the largest part of the party that will be expected to work for her in the general thinks she is a toxic DLC-style democrat who will keep us in a state of war and continue to let the corporate boot kick the face of Americans in.

In short, Hillary is a poor coice for a candidate in both the issues arena as well as the strategic arena. She offers nothing for the Democratic party except another Donna Brazile style campaign squeaker that can be easily stolen.

What battles has she won?

For the last 7 years the repubs have gotten everything they wanted. Just what did she do to stop them?

If you think that the Republicans "have gotten everything they wanted", you are deluding yourself. Hell, if they had gotten all that they wanted, the shit would be so hopeless, there would be no election on the horizon. I realize that the Pubs have gotten more than I would have ever dreamed of......but to believe that all that has transpired is "all that they wanted" and then lay the blame on the shoulder of Hillary Clinton; that's simply not rational.

Hillary is and has been a powerful politician, but to believe even one little bit that she could have stopped what the Republicans did single handidly, is nonsense.

You were asked a direct question to name any bit of policy or cause she's supported, and not only did you completely duck it, your response was adulation that she's managed to make herself powerful.

I'm not impressed by people who can achieve fame and sustain it; those who are dazzled by the "success" of attaining a coveted job annoy me. Lyndon Johnson--for all his many faults--was supremely right about one thing: the reason to have power is to use it.

If all she's going to do is carefully move up and position herself so she can carefully position herself for the next careful positioning, then who's to say she'd ever cash in those chips for something truly important? Should she get elected, who's to say she wouldn't spend the first term ensuring she'll get a second term where she'll spend her time securing her legacy?

Having completely avoided the question, you then demand that your questioner answer the question you refuse to address.

This strikes to the very heart of what bothers so many of us about her: far too many of her supporters are ga-ga over her ability to stay at the top of the heap. The only thing that matters in heapland is what you DO when you're there, and what she seems to do best is to find ways to keep herself there.

When will she stop maneuvering and actually stand for something substantive? If she has, then what the hell is it, and is it anywhere close to stances on the same subjects held by credible rivals? The concept that she's an adept politician has credence to the extent that she can withstand brutal assaults and still hold office, but this says nothing about statesmanship or leadership or moral value as a person.

When somebody challenges you to answer a question, you are under no obligation to answer or even to address it, but if someone does that and you avoid it completely and then respond with an indignant demand for the initial questioner to answer what you won't, you're violating one of the inherent protocols of discourse: fairness.

This is your thread. You threw down the gauntlet and dared the rest of the world to stand up to your emphatic pronouncement. After somewhat belittling others who differ, you not only refuse to substantiate your position in this instance, but you demand a higher standard of comportment from those whom you impugn. Some of us ingrates get a might testy at that kind of high-handedness.

It ain't right.

Would you please answer that poster's question? It's obvious that she's been thumped on endlessly by that vast right-wing conspiracy, and she's taken plenty of hits from the left, too, but just because she's adept at still being standing when the smoke clears doesn't mean anything other than that she's really good at taking care of herself. SO WHAT? Big damn deal. Feh.

Also, if you won't defend your own statements, don't get uppity and demand inferiors to do what you won't. We're delicate fucking flowers too, and it hurts us way down deep.

AGAIN!

Your lack of respect makes it clear that you deserves no answer besides this here.

You still have not answered the question about where Hillary has been tough. Capitalizing her name to make a point that the other poster demands ideological purity does not address the question. It is just another personal attack to marginalize your opponent. Most DUers are familiar with the fallacy of argument ad hominem.

Funny how that was the point that the poster made in the first place.

Answer the question, please. Where is Hillary tough? Where is she smart?

No generalizations...I want specifics because the talking point seems empty to me.

and you and I can agree to disagree about the case that you just made as to why she is or is not right on that point.

However, Purity's personal attack about me wasn't required in order for her to make her point in reference to her belief that I had not answered the question fully the way that she felt it should have been answered. I read thru this thread, and purity was the only one that felt free to basically call me out in the way that she did. If you agree with the approach of attacking a DU poster personally while requesting that poster answers a question that you feel poster didn't answer, that's your call.....

In reference to Hillary, I believe that she has stood her ground in respect to right wing attacks. She was the one that formulated "right wing conspiracy" and spoke of this to the public....at a time when few of us realized the full extent of what the right wing was willing to say and do in order to attempt to get their way. Hillary Clinton was assaulted before our very eyes back in 1994 when she tried to do something meaningful about health care. The RW attempted to destroy her and her ideas right then and there. And although they were successful (with the help of the media) in squelching her plan at the time, she's been able to come back strong and currently leads polls while running for the highest office of this land. Now, this may not sound like a lot accomplished there to you, but to me it says that she's a strong individual. You can disagree with my take on this, but far as I am concerned I have answered the question posed to me, even if the answer is not acceptable or not "enough" to you. Because you see, at the end of the day, we can agree to disagree on the answer, but accusing me of not having answered is really not true, it is simply your opinion.

Like you, I think that at this point in my life that I am honest enough with myself to admit some undeniable truths about Hillary's campaign thus far:

1.) HILLARY'S "NO PUSH OVER", AS YOU SAY: Like you, I see time and time again that she will not shrink away from a fight when it comes or from any false label that others try to pin on her. She hits back quickly and always with a rationale and well-measured response. We need this with any nominee that our party goes with. :)

2.) HILLARY AND HER NEAR "FLAWLESS CAMPAIGN": Yea, that's me: I'm the non-Hillary supporter who called her campaign "flawless" several months back and took the heat for doing so. But, hyperbole aside, she's run the most adult campaign so far. She's run the best campaign so far. She's reducing her negatives and increasing her lead in the polls. There's something to be said for having a world-class, ready-for-primetime campaign. We will need that in 2008. She's showing it already. I like that. :)

3.) HILLARY IS ALWAYS PREPARED FOR THE DEBATES AND QUESTIONS WHEN THEY COME: I like the fact that she is prepared, has done her homework when she shows up to debates. She doesn't rely on cutsie one-liners and off-the-cuff zingers when she is asked serious questions. Yeah, I like that a lot. :)

4.) AND WHAT THE HELL?! I'M GONNA SAY IT HERE: HILLARY PROBABLY DOES DESERVE TO BE PRESIDENT: Finally, and this will really get me into a lot of poo-poo, but Hillary, more than any of the GOP and Democratic candidates has been probably shooting for the White House since she was a little girl. It shows. Yeah, she's made some mistakes (IWR being the biggest of them all), but when you match her up against all the twenty or so GOP and Democrats running (other than Dennis), you almost have to say "she's earned it, for pete's sake". She's given her whole life to public service and has always shown great dignity in how she's held up through it all...even when her husband embarrassed her in front of the entire world. :)

I'm not picking on Hillary anymore. She says she regrets her vote on the IWR. And I'm taking her down off the cross. We need that wood way too much anyway. :)

Great post by you, FrenchieCat. I feel like you spoke for me today. :hi:

--DZ

You should post threads more often, you are one of the few people who don't support Hillary that can still remain objective.

Well, I've blistered Hillary for years here (back when it mattered during the IWR days), but I'm done with it. It serves no purpose anymore.

I also am suspicious of myself and others holding her to a higher standard than that of another man. I hope that I am a better man than that. I really do.

I've been an Edwards girl in my heart since the 2004 primaries. His domestic policy ideas are right in line with how I feel. But in 2004 I went with Kerry because he had more experience and I felt he was also the one who could win the primaries and the general. Today I still believe he did both and was never sorry for my support and vote until he didn't fight back regarding Ohio.

Edwards is still my main guy but even I can see that in our field, Hillary is the only one capable and experienced enough to take the general election. She also has the best machine behind her, plus Bill, plus $$. I can never see either her or Bill backing down if they try to steal it again.

So I guess what I've come to is, she's my gal because she (imho) is our only real chance in the general. DU was wrong about Kerry in 2004 getting the nod and I think DU will be wrong about Hillary.

That said, I will support whomever gets the nod in the Democratic Primaries. Anyone but a republican!

I was a big fan of Howard Dean and it tore me up to see him savaged by the right wing and corporate media, much the same way that John Kerry was to be later.

I know that there were a lot of Kerry fans here both before the nomination and after. And they are all great folks here at the DU.

I like the fact that you have been loyal to your candidate. I know that it can also be heartbreaking sometimes.

It's not a bad thing, though, what you wrote: "I can see that in our field, Hillary is the only one capable and experienced enough to take the general election." It takes a mature mind to get to that point when our heart is clearly somewhere else. I think it also takes a great love for our nation to get to that point, too...where the outcome of 2008 means more than even some of our purest ideals.

I want to win back the Executive Branch in 2008 and sweep in even more Democrats in Congress because I want a better future. So far, only this lady named Hillary Clinton seems to be acting like there's really a lot more at stake than just making funny one-liners and goofy statements to get the media's attention. She's showing she can handle being the president of all Americans. I like that.

.... that takes a contrary view from yours. Or at least concludes the outcome would be different than implied in your OP.

This line of thinking was right here on DU, in the last few days, in reply to some other thread, but I'll be damned if I can find the thread or the author. I mean not to take credit for this, so if whoever I am paraphrasing reads this and wishes to take credit, please do.

The line of thinking is that the Clintons' so called victory over the Republics was exactly that: the Clintons' victory over their Republican enemies. Their winning came at the cost of Congress and, ultimately, the presidency (Gore's loss in 2000).

I had never heard this stated this way before, and I'm still thinking about it. But it seems germane to your notion that she's a relentless, fearless, tough fighter.

I agree with you. She's tough as nails and no one's fool or patsy. The thinking I posted makes no argument against that. It questions her priorities and questions if she (and Bill) could or did give some thought to the impact of the their battles on the greater party good.

Their winning came at the cost of Congress and, ultimately, the presidency (Gore's loss in 2000).

Completely ignores some very major political shifts, Dem fatigue after they'd controlled the Congress for 40 years, Democratic retirements, GOP gerrymandering, Christian Coalition mobilizing, and running away from Clinton's record.

of these two opposite posits.

For example, it is a FACT the South has been trending Republican since 1968 or so. Statistics, party registration, and voting patterns prove this.

It is a FACT the GOP redrew Dem districts to favor Republicans in the early 90s.

It is a FACT there were over 20 Dem House seat retirements in the South in '94, opening the door to GOP wins.

It is a FACT the Dem's hold on Congress began crumbling in 1980 with double digit losses that continued through '94.

It is a FACT polling suggested in '92 that Americans thought Congress was corrupt - A Congress controlled by Democrats.

It is a FACT 1994 was the first year the Christian right mobilized on the issue of abortion.

It is a FACT Newt took all this and ran with it.

.... the Clintons tried to stop him from doing that and failed. It might also be a fact that they didn't try. I expect the first is true and the second is false.

There really is no credible way to spin the losses on '94 to be Clinton's fault.

Gore actually did win, and he actually kept the Clintons out of it. It was his call. Clinton had a high approval rate in 2000, so I'm not sure if Gore's call to divorce himself from the Clintons' was the correct one......but it wasn't their decision, I don't think.

In reference to losing congress, I believe that the media/GOP went at full trottle (contract with America), and the public bought into it.

Faulting Bill and Hillary for these events is simply not a fair assessment at where we were and exactly what happened.

Clinton was elected twice and left office after being impeached (but not convicted) with high approval rates. That was no small feat, IMO.

It was stolen from him. When Florida votes were counted Gore won, even after all the crimes Greg Palast presents OF REMOVING VOTERS FROM REGISTRATION LIST.
(Sorry to go off OP subject, but we should not think the deserter won anything. Ohio was stolen in 2004 too)

Why do you think she is tough? Is there something specific that she did to make you say "wow, she is one tough politician".

I can't think of anything specific, but I do admit that I don't know everything.

I really do want to know where this meme comes from....it might help if Hilary wins the nomination that I can name something specific when going up against a freeptard in a debate.

Just saying that polls now, and what actually happened just recently doesn't add up.

I don't have any real faith that John Edwards would win in the GE, and his 2004 actual performance doesn't support the idea in any way just because he would be at the top of the ticket. In fact, it will be easier for the GOP to argue and demonstrate Edwards to be a loser.....than it would the other two, each who have never ran for President.

At the end of the day, I think many will be shocked that what their betting on as a "Edwards got to be a sure thing compared to the rest of the Dem field" are going to be in for a rude awakening.

We already well know Obama's biggest flaws; the fact that he is an African American and some say relatively inexperienced.

We already know Clinton's Biggest flaw; the fact that she is woman and that she is somewhat divisive in terms of GOP hate levels......

Edwards however has put himself via televised words in a position that will make it easy for the opposition to stir up enough fear in enough voters. He has set himself up as the ultimate "I Was for it before he was Against it" candidate. The Montage of Edwards saying one thing, and then saying the polar opposite with the apologies inserted in the middle will be devastating. And considering that he can be painted as the weakest of all of the Dems on National Security, e.g., "War on Terror is just a bumper sticker", Video of Edwards primping, his mannerisms, etc...

As a more "conventional" candidate (white male), Edwards also won't be able to use his maleness or his whiteness as a reason for the attacks....which actually will put him at a disavantage when it comes time to fight back, IMO.

All the endless anti-Hillary threads sent me reading through her voting record, which is more liberal than I expected. So unlike some guys running, the more I get to know her, the more I like her. She's running an excellent campaign, does well in the debates, and fights back fast and hard. It's still her or Obama for me at this point.

And your laptop is working :)

(it's been a busy day and I just got back online, but yippee!)

I think the leading Democratic candidates will fight the republicans in their own individual ways. I've had enough of the Clinton/Republican war.

I believe my candidate will fight back and defend himself, unlike Kerry during that awful month of August 2004. But, he'll do it while at the same time bringing Independents and a few Republicans over to his side.

IF she gets the nomination, I'll vote for her.

I'm just tired. To each his/her own.

or Obama. All those nice guys are gonna lose! We need a real fighter!
With Bill behind her she will destroy those Thuglicans They have lots of experience fighting them. We have no idea how well Edwards or Obama can fight off those Repthugs and we the people have no idea how much vile garbage they'll manage to throw at the latter two. If they can't find enough...they'll make up something. We don't need any more candidates who fear their reputations might get tarnished. Kerry-Edwards comes to mind.

If Clark doesn't run...my instincts tell me to go with Hillary...but that's not set in stone and we have a long way to go before the election and a lot of things can happen or change.

I want a FIGHTER and that beats experience.

but I won't shed a tear if she loses. More of the same, either way....

Yes, if having an ole' war horse, take no prisoners pro-corporations first FIGHTER is what's important to you, HRC is your candidate. :eyes:

You really didn't say that, did you? Come on, you're bigger than that.

My sister tells me that she's realised that even she finds herself stereotyping Hillary. We've all been conditioned.

You want "bitchy"? It's Karl Rove sniping at Hillary on a GOP radio show with another man. That's bitchy.

And women have to walk a much finer line than men are allowed to walk.

A women who is passionate about what she believes in is 'bitchy'.

A woman who fights for herself is 'bitchy'.

A woman who, in face to face discourse, deigns to raise her own voice lest she be shouted down by a man is 'bitchy'.

A woman who is smarter and shows it is 'bitchy'.

A man showing/doing any of those things is perfectly okay .... held in high esteem, even.

It really **is** a double standard. Calling HRC bitchy may be acceptable in some circles. Calling her that, however, is just plain wrong ..... or a sign of envy.

She supported this war and did not speak out against it until January 2007 when she started her presidential campaign. Prior to that she only criticized the conduct of the war. She didn't fight the Alito nomination, and instead sat by while Kerry got slaughtered by the media. The only time I ever saw her with any kind of fighting spirit in the Senate was when the Medicaid Prescription law took effect, and it was a big mess, and she exclaimed that we should go back to the drawing board on it. Obviously, it wasn't scrapped and re-done so I guess she lost that battle. And, I'm not going to count violent video games, thank you very much.

Look -- I'm in a very, very bad mood about the FISA bill capitulation and some very grim signs that Dems may not fight that hard on Iraq come September. But this concept that Hillary Clinton has somehow successfully taken on the right wing machine for Democratic values and to further progressive causes is just a bloody joke. When I see her out there fighting at risk of being torpedoed in the media (which even Obama has begun to do lately with some of his foreign policy statements) for stating unpopular truths or ... let me restate that as popular truths for regular Americans but unpopular truths for the corporate media and DC Establishment, then maybe I'll believe her. As it is, she's got her "liberal" pundit Clintonista faction on cable and on op-ed pages to sing praises for her while denigrating her Democratic opponents, but I haven't seen her take a real position out of passion and for doing the right thing to hell with the Establishment. All I have seen is a cautious politician making defensive moves to avoid the attraction of the right wing machine, who attack her every day anyway.

Oh, and I believe the meme is still out there that 9/11 was Clinton's fault. Funny how Bill waited until 2006 to fight back on that one, after Democrats had lost 2 elections in a row. They only fight back for themselves, not for us. Just remember that.

They know how to fight for THEMSELVES. They do not know how to fight for principle or party. We've lost every battle under her stewardship.

And show won in a landslide in 2006...

It's hard to say what I really have against Hillary Clinton. It really is. For some reason I just don't feel I can trust her, or the people she affiliates herself with. There are days' as a matter of fact, when it seems like she's being forced down our throats. But, maybe that's only my imagination.

Hillary Clinton will never be my choice for President.

Oh well, if I figure out a way to articulate it, I'll get back to you.


TC

There are alot of things about her that I don't like.

But - I think she has what it takes to win.

and Obama is way up there for me.

However, I am looking at each candidate and what they bring to the table, and fierceness, for whatever the reason might be, is one of Hillary's positive attribute, far as I'm concerned during a general election.

This doesn't mean that I support her over Obama....because at this point, I haven't decided who I will support (even if I have decided who I won't support).

Bottomline is that each of the candidates have positives and negatives. I'm just trying to determine what those qualities are and how they may affect the general election voters in terms of totality (=long term rethoric consistency vs. inconsistencies, actual record, policies proposed and possible approach in how they expect to get those passed, type of experience doing what exactly, authenticity, actual personality vs. perceived image and demeanor).....cause at the end of the day, the general election is the race that we need to win.

Are Hillary Clinton Supporters unwelcome at Democratic Underground?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3464764&mesg_id=3464764

Clinton is qualified to be president.

But with her "My way or the highway" approach, she will not get one damn thing through Congress. Her approach worked so well with health care. Plus Hillary apparently cannot admit she made a mistake . . . ever.

Add to that Hillary is trigger happy. She has said repeatedly if there is another terrorist attack, she will bomb whoever is responsible. Sounds like shoot first and ask questions later to me. That has worked so well for W.

All of her "experience" is as First Lady. As a US Senator, her experience is on par with Obama and Edwards. And when has serving as First Lady been good training to be President???????? So is she running on Bill's mistakes or away from them?

If Bush was the Uniter, not the Divider, God Help US if Hillary who is the Divider becomes President. Gridlock will not even begin to define the Hillary Clinton era!

We can do better. America can do better.

No Thanks

I am not convinced that "their hatred of her" will win the election. In my view, it could either win or lose the election for her. I can see validity in both points of view.

--that is backing the Rethug assholes. She'd rather cozy up to them.

She doesn't really have much to fight them over, since she agrees with so many of them. :shrug: