Honest Question to Hilary Supporters: Why do you support her?

Please take this in the spirit in which it is intended. I am honestly seeking the reasons that people actively support HC for the nomination.

I have several reasons I believe it would be a big mistake to nominate her. In a nutshell, from the political standpoint, I think she would have a hard time getting elected against a "reasonable" Republican candidate. And from a social standpoiint, if she were to be elected, I think it would merely perpetuate the morass we have sunk into. She is a defender of the Establishment, not an agent of change.

However, I realize that not everyone shares this opinion. I would like to at least feel somewhat more comfortble if she does get the nomination. So I would like to hear some positive reasons for supporting her. (If I respond, I promise to be civil about it.)

in the gay community seem to support her. I don't recall her being very gay friendly, she openly speaks out in favor of civil unions ONLY...I just don't get it. :shrug:

Many breakthroughs happened in their WH with regard to appointments and other initiatives for which she was the shepherdess.

BO, JE and HRC all have the same basic position on civil unions. One of the differences is that HRC does not have a "newly held" position on civil unions and she has always acted on her belief that gays and lesbians should be treated equally. JE just arrived in recent years and has said that he is against gay marriage because of his religion. BO - also new to the party.

If you are a Kucinich supporter and think his position on gay marriage is worth noting well so what. He was against a woman's right to choose and stem cell research until late in his career. He is too wrapped up in his role as out-liar to be noteworthy. We may be gay but we are not one issue voters. We use our whole brain.

Did you watch the Logo/HRC debate forum? If you are gay and don't know this then you might want to pay a little more attention. If you are not gay then why are you advising us - treating us like we are stupid?

Hillary indicated she was in favor of each state deciding. John E was speaking out of both sides of his political mouth on the issue. Obama, by contrast, is in favor of a nation-wide policy, including federal rights for same sex couples. We were listening closely!

JE was what you say.

HRC was speaking about the current laws as it relates to ability to change. HRC gave a good history lesson. It is a complicated issue.

BTW - is your name dolo amber?

We know the differences in positions. You determined somehow that Obama was pandering? Hillary's answer is not satisfactory to most older gay people, because it leaves out the essential concepts of equality under the federal laws, like social security. Under Hillary's position gay couples would be forced to move to the right states to have a marriage or a civil union which would give them nothing!

As for the history lesson on the evolution of civil rights for minorities in the USA, you know that I have lived longer than when there were separate drinking fountains in the Southern states, and anti-miscengenation laws in some states, don't you? I don't need a lecture from Hillary about how much longer gay people will just have to wait for their full rights!!

I've just located a transcript of the Logo Forum, which I heard live, so I'm going over that. He said that he never should have said that, and that this was not the issue. He was also VERY adamant about the separation of church and state in his speech in West Hollywood afterward, where I saw him live.

As for having just arrived at this position, it's exactly the same as when Dianne Sawyer interviewed him in the '04 election (I think it was still '03 at the time): she sandbagged him with this as the first question, and he said, no, he wasn't in favor of same-sex marriage but that those couples should have ALL the legal and social advantages without exception. He was very clear about this, and said it immediately.

I believe this would put him on record BEFORE Hillary Clinton for saying this, and he should get some credit for it.

Sticking one's head out and running for office gets one in some sticky situations, but it also gets one on the record for issues earlier at times.

(edited due to my incorrectness; currently reading Logo transcript)

was that a misrepresentation of what he said?

P.S. I am now a supporter of JE's.

Look up the transcript of the Logo Forum; this will dispel much of what the poster above is talking about.

He aparently DID mention religion as an issue earlier, but says in the Logo Forum that this was the wrong thing to do and then launches into a vehement statement about the separation of church and state and how the current administration has run roughshod over us because of it.

Somehow people think that he wants to leave the issue of civil rights of same-sex couples up to the states; he does NOT say this, and he's consistently specific (and has been since at least the Sawyer interview almost four years ago) that these couples should enjoy ALL the rights that opposite-sex couples do.

I'm pretty sure he's the first of the three to take these stances, but to be fair, he was probably the first of the three to be pinned down on them.

The full transcript is available from a couple of sources as a PDF; just google "logo forum transcript".

The language about separation of church and state is great, by the way.

several months ago - both JE and Elizabeth.

You can simply google the question or use DU's search feature.

Sorry to sound bit snippy but I am sick and tired of having to justify my support of my candidate in these backhanded threads.

But SOME of us don't spend our days going through the archives of DU to find answers, and we PRESUME people who support Hillary would be willing to "work" for her election by typing out a couple of paragraphs on your computer to show to hundreds of fellow Democrats!!

But if all that is beneath you... move on!!! Why did you bother to post your complaint???

Its a backhanded thread and its not the first time its been posted.

Always the same theme "I think Hillary is Satan incarnate, Hillary supporters justify your support of her to me".

O I see, Hillary supporters are ABOVE ALL THAT!!!

I guess they believe all they should do is just go to parties and raise more money for her machine?

They don't have to work as hard as every other candidate's supporters do??

REALLY, I've never seen anyone so lazy as you, a Hillary supporter, willing to argue with your Democratic allies here but not willing to write three convincing sentences as to why Hillary is the best of 10 or 20 candidates out there!!

:eyes:

You have time to pick a fight, but you can't spare a minute to briefly say why you like your candidate? That's fucked up.

into bashing not just Hillary, but also her supporters.

:boring: same ol same ol

:hi:

They are being "bashed" by being asked why they support her?

That's a unique way of looking at things!

We don't see the same treatment of other candidates, just Hillary.

Example: "Kucinich supporters, explain your reasons for voting for this guy. I personally think he is a huge flip-flopper who is pandering to the left wing and who is completely unelectable."

Do you ever see Hillary supporters post this type of trash? No, but we are routinely asked to defend her along the same, damn lines and we get a bit fed up.

You say...

"Do you ever see Hillary supporters post this type of trash? No, but we are routinely asked.... "

Maybe you should try to convince us that you have a convincing answer to this question if you don't want Americans on the DU to repeatedly ask this over and over......obviously no answer is out there!

Like no other candidates' supporters get lip on DU. The OP said nothing about "Satan Incatrnate. " But if, as they say, the shoe fits...

Is this your arrogance? Telling an old man to grow up? Nice! Now we know who's supporting Hillary, people with bad manners and unintelligible posts.

Especially before you go off all half cocked.

Then again maybe the other poster was unintentionally right.

:rofl:

Sometimes these threads are funny as hell.

A little early to start on holiday cocktails, but as along as the car keys are safe....:party:

:patriot:

:hi:

While in the same OP slamming said candidate?

Everybody certainly gets shit on DU from nearly every side.

But to deny the shit Hillary gets above the others is to deny reality.

"The OP said nothing about "Satan Incatrnate. "

It wasn't a literal quote and you know that. Or at least I hope you do.

Spend a day answering jackass DUers' questions about Dennis Kucinich before you go crying about how HAAAAAARD it is to be a supporter of the MOST POPULAR FUCKING CANDIDATE. :eyes:

She is the front-runner by quite a margin and she has more threads for and against her than anyone else here. Obama and Edwards follow up, and herein lies an odd dynamic: although, unlike in the '04 season, Edwards has many supporters (fairly consistently winning straw polls here) he's hardly the big standout on "fer" and "agin" threads. Hillary probably leads there, followed by Obama.

Historically, this makes sense on this board: Obama has the groundswell of the emotional new-person-on-the-block (I daren't call him "kid", lest I be tarred as a racist. Ooops, better not use that verb either, better say "labeled"...) and as a result, has lots of enthusiastic supporters and the attendant backlashes.

It's pretty much proportional. There are very few pro- or anti-Dodd threads, and there are quite a few more than those for Kucinich; nothing here but proportionality.

She takes many hits and she benefits from more favorable posts. I don't see what the problem is except for this: she and her supporters have a "victim identity"; intrinsic within her public persona is that she's been put-upon by the vast right-wing and anti-female conspiracy, and any resistance just buttresses this claim as further persecution.

I'll annoy you all further with this later on, but it's a tiresome and irrational dynamic: she's the tough and indestructible fighter who's capable of stopping the mighty juggernaut of reactionary evil singlehanded, but she's the poor, beset, fragile and trampled victim we should defend and protect through our brave, brave tears.

This is democracy (more or less) and that means that one must answer for one's actions. If you feel you've answered the endless question of "why support her?" enough, then walk away. Know, however, that when doing so you'll seem haughty and evasive and it will only fuel the fire more. The real questions of why one should vote for her over the others have simply not been answered effectively or it wouldn't keep cropping up.

Besides that, if the reasons for supporting her are as obvious as you intimate, it would take far less time to simply state them flatly (AGAIN, if that truly is the case) then it would to huff in some put-upon outrage that it's all already been said. It would literally take the same or less time, otherwise the issues are spurious or not that cut-and-dried.

We pluralists don't tend to cotton much to those who won't answer why they should be granted an exalted position. It's human nature, so join us down here in the dirt and let's have at it. If she's obviously the one, it should be an easy and succinct case to make.

"

This is democracy (more or less) and that means that one must answer for one's actions. If you feel you've answered the endless question of "why support her?" enough, then walk away. Know, however, that when doing so you'll seem haughty and evasive and it will only fuel the fire more. The real questions of why one should vote for her over the others have simply not been answered effectively or it wouldn't keep cropping up.

Besides that, if the reasons for supporting her are as obvious as you intimate, it would take far less time to simply state them flatly (AGAIN, if that truly is the case) then it would to huff in some put-upon outrage that it's all already been said. It would literally take the same or less time, otherwise the issues are spurious or not that cut-and-dried.

We pluralists don't tend to cotton much to those who won't answer why they should be granted an exalted position. It's human nature, so join us down here in the dirt and let's have at it. If she's obviously the one, it should be an easy and succinct case to make."...........

Brilliant recap of the facts!!!!!!!! And the opinions of those who are NOT falling in line as devotee's of Hillary, just because Bill makes such a contrast with George W. !

Mercy.

Compile a list of reasons for your support and save it for threads like this. Copy and paste...

Have a great weekend!

Yeah I usually just go back to old threads and cut & paste from there but as you probably know DU's search feature is imperfect.

You have a pleasant weekend as well.

Whayt an underhanded troublemaker.

then the GOP candidate gets to run as the "outsider" or "candidate for change".

With comments to the news that Tony Snow was leaving including hopes that he returns to Fox News and continues his "good work" I really figured it out.

Good luck on getting a straight answer.

The only answer I've gotten is "Because she can win." Not really informative and debatable. Although I think it is quite possible.

Currently I'm supporting Obama, but my major problem with HRC is simply her war votes. Maybe I'm not as radically liberal (as far as economic policies) as the rest of you guys.

I think she is the candidate most ready to take on the right wing propaganda machine and answer it blow for blow.

One reason, I can respect that opinon!

and sends it boomeranging right back at them.

She's not my first choice for POTUS, but whoever the nominee is, I will support to the hilt;
because AFAIC, the worst Democrat among the current crop of POTUS candidates is still a thousand times better than the best Republikan. (no, that is not a misspelling)

:kick:

I've heard this argument, and it's literally the ONLY argument for her that gains any traction at all: as expressed by a colleague of mine, it's that she'll fight them "like a junkyard dog".

The only problem with this is that it simply isn't true. She fights to defend HERSELF and to get elected, but when in power, she constantly positions herself for further positioning to the end that she'll position herself until she gets to the position where she'll alegedly DO something. I see no evidence for this. She's a committed third-wayer, and if someone came up with a fourth way, I think she'd sign on to that, too.

She is EASILY the most conservative of the three major candidates. Her votes regarding foreign trade stand out like a sore thumb. She's gone along with confirming Negroponte and Rice, both of whom were long-proven to be truly evil. After getting singed on health care years ago, she's not going to rock the boat with the insurance industry. Her support for faith-based organizations and calls for faith being used in policy are downright scary, whether she's just sucking up to the theocrats or whether she's one of them herself.

WHAT has she fought for other than herself? Yes, she's stood up for women's rights, but all of the others have too.

This is the greatest unsubstantiated claim of any of the major candidates: that she'll stand up to the mean, mean wepubwicans. Not only hasn't she, but she's cooled off her rhetoric on the subject to reach across the aisle. She coined the term "vast right-wing conspiracy", but even then it was an attack against those who were persecuting her husband personally. They both seem to think that these guys will "play nice", and they won't.

Yes, the country is so evenly split that one has to work with those across the aisle, and yes, there are some who aren't deeply, deeply evil, but she makes so many wrong moves and moves consistently to the center or right-of-center. I also worry that she thinks she has to be far "tougher" on foreign policy to dispel the prejudice that women are "soft"; this is not a time for more toughness with the rest of the world.

More than anything else, I don't see her "fighting"; I see her reaching accomodation with them. This isn't a bad thing in all instances, but here it's false advertising. Sell her as the one who can reach across the great divide and move forward; that's at least somewhat sellable in light of her Senatorial career.

Once again, the only times she's really fought like the heroine so many claim she is is for her self-preservation. That is not enough for me. I don't want a politician who simply knows how to still be standing when the smoke clears; that's only a virtue if the power of position is used to DO something. She has not, and she's done so studiously in order to offend as few as possible. To me, that's offensive. She's rich, famous and well-positioned; I don't see how I owe it to her to give her even more power because some people have been mean to her. She's running for a job that is for US; WE'RE the ones who count, and I don't think she has the best interests of the middle and lower classes high enough in her priorities. Hey, I'm only a left-liberal; I'm HARDLY a radical. She's WAAAAAY to the right of me, and that's a big deal.

Best post I've read all day. Thank you.

:toast:

:yourock:

is that she demonstrates leadership skills.

She seems like she would be able to handle anything that came her way.

She seems open-minded, that she would listen to other peoples opinions.

And those are qualities that a President needs to have.

...unlike the Motherfucker currently residing in the White House.

She's running against some skillful and intelligent men of accomplishment.

Is yours the straw man argument?

More like Reagan-was-an-actor-too, never-be-here-if-not-for-9-11, and Reagan-look-alike-Mormon. Only one could get the fundy vote and he's swiss cheese.

In all honesty we could put just about any of the Dem candidates in there and we'd win. They just gotta let Shrub keep up his f*ck up and let the Republicans kiss his ass all the while.

Or did you think she's already got the nomination all tied up and she's only running against the Rethugs now? I don't think you can sneeze away the accomplishments of Richardson, Dodd, Biden, these guys have been around in elected office since well before Hillary and Bill rented out the Lincoln Bedroom. Obama and Edwards had OTHER careers before entering politics. These are the men of skill and accomplishment I'm talking about. This thread is supposed to be about why people have selected a primary election candidate named Hillary Clinton, as opposed to all the others. Or at least I thought it was.

Not my intention to, but you threw me for a loop.

Just how important is getting out of Iraq to you, considering you want to vote for somebody who voted for the war?

One reason I'm not very enthused about Hilary.

to us all like health care etc.

Yeah they do!

Or have you stopped listening to them already?

The contender with all the media coverage, the one that's been practically nominated, garners only skimpy and vague support here, while the contender almost entirely ignored by the "press" can marshal point after point of specific, necessary and overdue policies from his supporters.

Something's wrong with this country.

100%

Many American voters are not really all that sophisticated, I find

* An eight-hour work day instead of 12 or 14.
* Protection of children when they're abused by their parents.
* Nutritional labeling on packaged food.
* The right to vote for women.

These, and many others, had "no way in hell" of being enacted.

Look, Hillary is a very smart and together person, and she's done a good job in her life and in politics. But this world so desperately needs bigger ideas, we elect her at our peril. Just as PBS is so dangerous because people still think it's "non-commercial" TV, she is dangerous because so many think she's progressive.

I'd add to your list of "unrealistic" and utopian plans Social Security and Medcare.

because she brought together vital interests for the benefit of our state. She demonstrated that she's flexible and capable of working well with others. When she ran for re-election, we knew it was to prepare her for greater things.

She's extremely popular here, up and downstate. That's meaningful in a time when civility is generally disregarded.

Because she will not lay low and take shit from the GOP. She will bring our troops home, she will work for improvements in Healthcare. She is gay friendly. She is tough and smart.

And she has no problem kicking GOP butts. They will probably want to think twice before they try to "swift boat" her. She will chew them up and spit them out.

And she can win.

I went to Kerry/Edwards rallies last time and was energized... there was no bigger disappointment when he conceded... he didn't fight the Swifties the way he should have... left money unspent... I don't know why Bush was not blown out of the water....

I lump Hillary with Bill.... they have the same people supporting them... working for them.... and Bill could shield silver bullets shot at him...

Hillary will not back down... she has been getting stronger every day... she has worked on the softer side of Hillary and people are rethinking what they thought of her... she is also tough... she answers questions and is bright... she has Bill to help her... face it everyone in power has to have help with learning the issues... they can't spend 24/7 reading it themselves...

there is also the woman factor... tired of the question, "will there be a woman president in your lifetime? YES

and the one reason I am both proud of and ashamed of... because "it will piss the shit out of the republicans who gave us Bush"

Rubbing the Republican's noses in it by electing another Clinton is a silly and childish desire, and it's at the heart of a lot of her support.

Yes, he was unfairly persecuted, but he also brought a fair amount of it on himself and with his supremely greasy way of handling the Monica situation, he showed himself to be, once again, veracity challenged. He had his day in the sun, and he did some good things like keeping the barrier between accounting and corporations intact and going into Kosovo. He also did a shitty job on welfare reform and REALLY screwed us with NAFTA. He's a mixed bag.

We're long past the time for a woman president, but I want the president who will be the best for the most people, and virtually all of the other candidates would. The other two in real contention are MORE ELECTABLE, and the polls bear this out.

Why should we gamble on a VERY RISKY candidate with a lot of baggage when she's not even the most populist of the bunch? Because it's time for a woman president? Because she's been so picked on? Those are silly reasons. Boo-hoo for her: she's rich, famous, powerful, unassailable in her job; hell, she's even got a Grammy, which is, as she says, pretty ironic for someone who's tone-deaf. (She pointed that out herself, and I love her sense of humor on that, just as I love her quip about Ashcroft covering Lady Justice's breasts: "Silly me, I thought Missouri was the 'show me' state.")

One should gamble on a risky candidate if that candidate's policies are the best, not the worst.

Hey, at least you came right out and said it, unlike many other of her obfuscators.

Well stated !

you used the word vengeance not me.... it is more of a you can't defeat us attitude... you see I don't think the Bill and Monica thing is any big deal... the Clinton presidency did a lot of good things for the country... with any president there are good and bad... one persons good is another persons bad...

I am a teacher by profession and try to be open to both sides of the argument.... working in a wealthy district I hear from a lot of republican teens... I have only confronted kids once on their rights to "their political views." That was the day Paul Wellstone died in the plane crash... I was at lunch at the time the news broke.... My students came in afterward, and a few of them were elated and saying, "Now Norm Coleman will be elected for sure!!!" I lost it!!!!

I am tired of hearing the GOP BS. It is time they are put in their place and not allowed to dictate who dems nominate or elect...

I also think that many DUers are narrow minded in that they have ideas of what they want and they will settle for nothing but... they are so damn liberal that they will eat one of their own if they don't like something about them... they will vote for the independent candidate... and therefore elect the republican... thus we have a Rep. Gov. in MN with 40 some percent of the vote telling us he was elected by the people... vetoing transportation funding taxes and then having our bridge and major highway fall into the Mississippi river...

people are so anti-this and anti-that on here... you can't see the two sides of the coin... yes we need health care but then there is the cost to employers... many have trouble paying... not every company has a CEO with millions... we get all compassionate for the premie baby stories on TV, then the multiples born as premies... there goes millions and millions out of the insurance company which goes back to our cost...

I have friends who are business owners and they can't afford the taxes that are proposed... they are torn between social issues and their own ability to keep their business going...

I actually like Hillary because she is a moderate... I loved Paul Wellstone for his outspokenness, but he even learned to play within the games of D.C. .... I had met him a few times and we spoke on public image and how the media and enemies try to trash politicians... he was constantly on guard...

I have no fear that Hillary can withstand the storm of any rep. attack machine...

I do not think Obama can win to be honest... he could easily crumble with the swift-boat attacks... not to say it would affect me but he is very vulnerable... he has a Muslim family background which is a big no no these days ... they have not gone after him because they save it for the big attack... actually Obama is my least favorite... he makes a great written speech but he crumbles at times with questions he is not prepared to answer... he is not seasoned enough for me...

Edwards will have trouble with Elizabeth being terminal.. again I do not think it matters but they will say it will be a distraction as her disease is terminal and she has very little time... (I feel bad b/c I really like Elizabeth) and John's history as a lawyer and suing people is huge... he will be a target big time as before... so every candidate has something they will attack... I like John on a lot of issues but I think he is too extreme sometimes and it will not make our ticket the strongest... many middle voters will not go for it... we need the middle to win..

I like Hillary for a lot of reasons... she is smart... she is professional... she will not put up with mud slung at her.... she has strong people working for her... she is flawless... she is able to see both sides of things to get things done... she will bring down the deficit as Bill did... promote health care... restore our image globally... be smart on the war... the vote for the war does not bother me b/c she voted to give the President authority if needed not to go to war (I never believed in it from day one, 3-19)... Bush fucked it up... we all want out but the honest thing is... we fucked it up now we have to put some damn Band-Aids on it so Iran doesn't move in...

I think she is very electable

I hope the original poster doesn't think I'm hi-jacking this tread, but to ask the question the other way around, IF...and I say IF... Hillary doesn't win the primaries and doesn't get the nomination, would there be any Hillary people here who wouldn't vote for one of the OTHER candiates who actually got the nomination??? Would a Hillary supporter vote for Ewards or Obama or anyone else if that person were to get the nomination???

If not, why not?

:shrug:

She leads in all national polls and most early primary state polls. MORE Democrats like her than they like the other contenders and, according to today's Rasmussen poll, she enjoys as much support as her top two challengers combined. That, of course, doesn't merit support but it does make your "honest" question seem a bit ostentatious, as though you have secret knowledge about Hillary the great unwashed who support her doesn't have.

I suspect, though, you don't really want an answer to your question. You're just seeking yet another "discussion" of your pet issues as they apply to Clinton. But what the hell, I have a little time tonight.

OK, first the bad news for you. There is no evidence that Clinton would energize "the Republican base" or that she would have a "hard time getting elected against reasonable Republican candidate." In fact, empirical evidence defies that mentality. She leads the GOP in head to head match-ups and her pos/neg numbers have settled even as those of her Democratic opponents get worse.

Further, it pure Nader Speak to declare Sen. Clinton "would merely perpetuate the morass we have sunk into" and that "she is a defender of the Establishment, not an agent of change." On what do you base that on? A hunch? Because it certainly isn't based on any reality I've seen.

I'm sorry if it is offensive to you or anyone else, but Hillary Clinton is rightfully judged in part by the record of President Clinton. Even Sen. Obama agrees there. Bill Clinton declared in 1992 that we were getting two for the price of one and he has emphatically stated since then she played a pivotal role in his administration. I realize that accepting this takes the winds out of the sails of most anti-Hillary folks, which is why they so desperately try to deny it.

A DUer named "dmallind" recently gave 10 points on how Hillary would indeed be "an agent of change" compared to "the morass we have sunk into," based on her husband's record.

Paraphrased, when did a Clinton ever nominate a virulent anti-contraception wacko as head of the FDA, or prevent the Surgeon General from supporting a sensible health initiative because it offended the fundies? Let alone censor websites that talk about earth sciences? What Clinton supports budget deficits of 300B+, not including an off-budget war - to finance tax cuts for millionaires. The last Clinton we had raised top bracket income taxes and got us a surplus. Name the Clinton who wants to overturn Roe or nominate “strict constructionist” judges at all levels. Now name the GOPer who hasn’t used at least one of those code words.

Combat deaths of troops sent into harm’s way by a Clinton = 0 (accidental deaths in Bosnia and Somalia was Bush’s baby before you try either). GOP prez? Gosh who knows but 4000 or so at least.

Clinton - plummeting violent crime. GOP prez - back up again! No difference there :sarcasm:

Health care. Sorry if the Clintons don’t want to do it your way, but GOPers don’t give a damn and 46 million is fine by them. Ask someone whose sick kid gets covered - even via a for-profit HMO if need be - if they don't think a Clinton is an "agent for change?"

Cronyism and corruption. No Clinton won’t pick people she doesn't know and trust for key cabinet or senior positions (would Kucinich? Would anyone?) but she is generally not too keen on unqualified buddies, no bid contracts (one of Hillary’s key issues I believe) and the rest. In fact Hillary actually has the best plan in this area I’ve seen so far:

Banning Cabinet officials from lobbying a Hillary Clinton administration.
Strengthening whistleblower protections.
Creating a public service academy.
Ending abuse of no-bid government contracts and posting all contracts online.
Cutting 500,000 government contractors.
Restoring the Office of Technology Assessment.
Publishing budgets for every government agency.
Implementing Results America Initiative to track government effectiveness.
Tracking and eliminating corporate welfare.
Expanding voting access and safeguarding voting machines.

Now does that sound like GOP to you? Why?

Finally, Clinton's resume speaks to me. Here it is:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3480059&mesg_id=3480059

Ask any Hillary supporter and you get "answers" very close to yours. To summarize:

1. I support her because she's ahead in the polls. (i.e. I support her because people support her)


2. I support her because the GOP probably doesn't hate her as much as you think they do. At least that's my unsupported opinion.


3. I support her because she's probably not a right-wing as you think she is. At least that's my unsupported opinion.


4. I support her because her husband was president.


5. I support her because she'd probably be better than a far-right Republican president. (unlike all the rest of the Democrats :eyes:)


6. I support her because she has a resume. (unlike all the rest of the Democrats :eyes:)


7. I support her because...you don't really want an answer, you just want to bash Hillary!!!

I'd love to hear one Hillary supported explain why HER policies would be better for this country than Obama's or Edwards' (or Kucinch or Dodd or Gravel or or or ...). Of course, that's SUCH an impertinent question to ask of the supporters of the inevitable nominee.

people can support a candidate for whatever reason they like. :shrug:

But stating "reasons" that are so tranparently ridiculous is some pretty weak advocacy for your candidate, don't you think?

People wanted answer why her supporters support her but when those reasons are given they're ignored.

You even added strawmen to make the bullshit complete.

Sorry that you feel that asking someone to speak in favor of her policies (and contrast them with the other candidates) is "moving the goal posts."

Oh riiiight -- your goal posts stop at the national polls. Well, you'd better hope she magically stays ahead, because if Obama or Edwards ever overtakes her, you guys lose the only "reason" to support her. Inevitability only works as long as she stays inevitable. Finding other cogent reasons to vote for her may be a bit more difficult for you.

The OP asked why people are supporting Hillary. Some people gave their answer.

You deemed it insufficient and issued new criteria.

And I will be voting for her in the primary regardless of where she is in the polling at the time.

Listing why she'd be better than a GOP president does not answer why you support her for the nomination.
Listing her plans without comparing them to any other Dem candidate does not answer why you support her for the nomination.
Talking about how much you love her husband does not answer why you support her for the nomination.

And especially,

Pointing out how far ahead she is in the polls DOES NOT answer why you support her for the nomination.

Of course, asking for an answer to the actual question that was asked is moving the goalposts... :eyes:

"Listing her plans without comparing them to any other Dem candidate does not answer why you support her for the nomination."

So he did list reasons for his voting for her? In fact it was a very detailed list.

Now you need it to be compared to other candidates.

That is called goal post moving.

I simply cannot wait until she is the nominee and I get to see people like yourself stamp their feet and act like two year olds threatening to leave the party.

Just spin, parsing and name-calling. That's what people see in Hillary's candidacy and that's why people will leave the party should she win the nomination.

It is the proper response.

Cry me a fuckin river. If you really felt that way, you wouldn't be obsessively jumping on every post I make in a Hillary thread.

Why not just admit it: you don't like debate, and you don't like being challenged. Whenever someone does that you either start insulting them or break out the victim stick -- usually at the same time.

Sorry, when you're hired for a job you'd better come with an impressive resume.

I promised to be civil, so here's my brief answer to your post.

If you want to call the destruction of democracy and the middle class by the Corporate elite a "pet issue," so be it. I happen to believe it is a key issue -- if not THE key issue facing our country because it affects so many other issues.

The Clintons aligned the Democratic Party more with Wall St. than Main St. since the 90's. Their embrace of the supply-side, Milton Friedman acolyte Alan Greenspan is proof of that. Their mindless support of the great NAFTA/WTO race to the bottom form of pirate globalization amplifies that.

Sure she would be miles better than any Republican. But that is damning with faint praise. We should do better. We must do better than that.

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

Not one I agree with, but at least it approaches answering the question.

Is that really the best the Hillary supporters can do? Name-calling and spin do not make for a ringing endorsement of your candidate.

Aviation Pro, applegrove, Fredda Weinberg, and mourningdove92? Have you disqualified them for some reason?

I'd take issue with Aviation Pro because it doesn't answer the question of supporting her for the nomination, but rather argues for supporting her in the general election. The others are reasonable responses, even though I don't agree with them.

At least they give a basis for discussion. I get so tired of the "how dare you ask" responses.

That's Hillary's supporters' stock and trade!!

They don't respect people who disagree with them... so how dare you????

More of that goal post moving you were discussing before. :rofl:

If you dont' want to answer than dont' answer instead of arguing a playing victim.
as usual, the flying monkeys just cannot show an ounce of decency or class.
no wonder you support Hillary. So much like you guys.

HRC bets on America, the gop bets against us. HRC bets on peace, the gop bets on oil, which goes up in war. Running against fascist thugs is a contact sport, and we need experienced knife-fighters.Does John Edwards seem to you to be an experienced knife-fighter? Does Obama seem to you to be an experienced knife-fighter? What most are saying in this post is if we send up a decent, honorable man, the GOP will respect that and play fair and not demonize the guy, even tho we already tried that with Gore and Kerry...HRC is the one to defeat the gop....

Ben David