Have you ever wondered if you're objective about Hillary?

Disclaimer: I not a Hillary supporter. My reasons for not supporting her boil down to the war. But if I'm honest, there's something else going on. It's not anything original; I've seen it expressed many times by others on this board. I don't think she can win. And that's a bigee.

I've seen polls showing her beating all the repug candidates. But I justify my skepticism by saying that she hasn't been swift-boated yet. I believe that the corporate media wants her to be our nominee because they can really, really smear her. They'll have all the Bill stuff to use, plus sexism as an extra punch.

I want someone that the corporate media doesn't want. I figure that if they're smearing them NOW, as with Edwards, it's a good sign.

Yet I saw a recent poll showing that Americans want to sit down and talk with Hillary more than any other candidate, including all the repugs. And that shocked me. I have such a low opinion of many of my fellow Americans (after they voted for chimp twice I'm more than justified), that that shocked me.

Perhaps I am not being objective.:shrug: That would be a mistake, since it is crucial that we nominate the best person in 2008. I'd appreciate any feedback in this matter.

I truly believe out sourcing of jobs overseas to countries without environmental and labor laws matching ours are not only killing the middle class, but also is a national security issue as these countries taking over manufacturing jobs maynot always be our allies.

It's not that it's Hillary but her positions and ties to the DLC that bother me.

Her positions on labor leave much to be desired.x(

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=3293026#3293082

IWR and the 2001 Bankruptcy bill that SHE VOTED FOR are the others . . .

but it was the working folks of the Democratic base who were hurt.

I want a populace candidate working for the people over the profit motives of the corporations.

what the hell is the difference between her and the current neocons? Her AIPAC speech targeted Iran for regime change. How in the hell is that any different?

I still sometimes wonder if she's learned anything from Iraq.

if she starts talking about hunting down the "terrorists" and killing them (oh wait THAT's how JOHN KERRY talked in 2004!) then we will know she's learned nothing.

I don't think Hillary has any values deeper than what benefits her.

are totally in bed with the corporate lobbyists. Obama is not far behind (http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/07/16/2561/) in what he would do for lobbyists.

and I do like her but I just don't agree with too many things. Health care, trade, her position or lack of one on the war etc.

On one hand I would feel so proud finally having a woman as President, I like her personally but I think you are right she is being pushed on us way too much and they are just lying in wait to go through all the Clinton issues all over again. There is going to be too much for the next President to do help us recover from the last two terms, we need someone that they won't be spending time bringing to court over some nonsensical issue.

"Likability" is not an issue for me. Her personality is fine.

I mean you take Bill Clinton, who the RW hate machine has already invested 16 years of bashing, and you keep it all good by electing his wife, another sequel after the disasterous (as acknowledged by both sides now) sequel that is "George Bush 2, the idiocy". And beyond all that, her base doesn't like her much, and she's not on the same page with the biggest issue, the war, who now like half of republicans are against.

Hillary Clinton makes zero political sense in a non-tinfoil hat world.

In the tinfoil hat world of course, she makes vast sense. She is part of a trusted bloodline in a time when the powers behind the thrown are extremely paranoid of a growing desire for change. Her very presence as president, continuing a 20 year dynasty of control by two powerful families will mock the idea of democracy by the people for the people, and discourage those who yearn for change. So from that perspective she makes a lot of sense, and yes, she can and will win.

This is the best way to figure out if a candidate that is in the Senate or House or was in either should garner your support. If a candidate was or is not from either of those check out their track record a Gov. or Lobbyist. Going by personal like-ability is short sighted.

And for the record, I LIKE Hillary's stance on the big issues, like global warming. She has it together. But this is political theater, the characters are endlessly painted deeply and intimately on the radio and news, and that's what the script writers have to deal with.

but it will be hallow victory at best? I can see that, too.

Helloooo? What the hell is everybody voting for??

I can't figure out why any DUer is supporting her. Call it biased if you want. She hasn't taken a clear liberal stand on ANYTHING. Why would we intentionally put ourselves through the right wing slaughter for someone who isn't going to significantly change anything.

I objectively believe she's a phony, nepotistic warmongerer.

She believes in nothing except that which gives her power of the moment. Having watched her in every debate so far and several C-SPAN covered events, it's quite obvious that she is a hollow person.

Her most disgusting political act is trying to play word games with her support for the war. In the process, she's doing nothing more than continuing the failed policy. And, worse, she thinks we're stupid enough to believe her bullshit.

I think Kucinich is more shrill than Hillary. But I'm with him on the issues.

Mostly during speeches, not during debates or interviews.

Kucinich's voice sometimes sounds like Yoda, but at least the guy has principles and ideas that you know he actually believes in. He's one of my favorite people in the entire Congress, aside from Senator Boxer.

This thread needs more adjective.

but I can not swallow this idea that she is entitled to the nomination. A friend told me the other day that as Democrats we owe it to Bill Clinton to nominate Hillary. I also had another person tell me Obama had a lot of nerve challenging Hillary as he (Obama) wouldn't be where he was today if it wasn't for Bill Clinton. I do not buy any of this crap. Hillary Clinton will not get my vote.

be swiftboated - and the others have not shown they can stand up to that experience as well as she has in the past. She has also been the most liberal progressive of the lot over the years - but in this campaign the others have all moved left so it does not stand out (except to the GOP who scream about how liberal she is).

That said, I an still waiting for her position on single payer as that issue is to me the most important to America in this go round - although I doubt it will be the most important in the election.

Mostly because of her Neo-Con leanings on Iraq; that's the big fish. Other than that, I think she's made horribly pandering noises on stuff like flag burning and video games, and I don't appreciate her attempts to "reach out" to the religious right crazies when they seem to involve tossing pro-choicers and secularists under the bus.

But mostly, it's Iraq- and yeah, I think I'm very objective. Like I said, once upon a time I liked her alot. If you had asked me in 1993 about a 2008 Hillary Run, I would have been all for it.

and triangulation turn off the left, and her personality turns off all kinds of people.

No wonder the Corporate Media want her as the Democratic Candidate.

I think her personality is fine. In fact, according to a recent poll more people want to have a conversation with her than with any candidate of either party. I think the shrill thing is a bum rap.

That's the only formulation I know...

Trust your guts, my friends.

my outrage at her husband's neoliberal policies, and my doubts about her ultimate electability, I will vote for her in the General Election. (The only case in which I would not is if Hagel is the R, in which case I'll log some kind of protest vote. Possibly a write-in. Tommy Chong comes to mind.)

The reason is that all these misgivings are outweighed by my shame and embarrassment over the fact that Pakistan--PAKISTAN!--has had a woman president, and we have not. It's time for us to join the TWENTIETH century and tear down that wall.

If he's tbe R, you won't vote for Hillary but you won't vote for him either?

the war will last longer under Hillary. So I can't vote for her in good conscience.

Yet I can't vote for Hagel in good conscience because he is a conservative Republican.

I will probably, in this unlikely scenario, write in Tommy Chong to register my protest against all "mainstream" candidates' complacency in the War on Drugs. At least it will be fun to see his name on the SoS site.

I live in California so my vote one way or another can't influence a Presidential election. I am reduced to thinking symbolically.