OK, I will go out on a limb about H. Clinton

I will support H. Clinton if she is nominated because:

1. She is smart and capable.
2. She has a command of facts and can hold her own with the leaders of Great Britain, France, Germany, Russia, China, India and Japan.
3. Yes, she is ruthless, but better ruthless than dumb and easily manipulated.
4. She actually knows something about the law.
5. She can parse the gray areas.
6. She will not constantly embarass our country with a litany of malapropisms.
7. She has the counsel of a former President who was competent on international, domestic and security issues.

Finally, I know she is brusque and ambitious, but she is tough and won't run away from a crisis.

As the Human Torch would say, Flame On.

Because you would support the democratic nominee and could think of positive things to say about one of the candidates.

:crazy:

Good reasons, all. How refreshing!

support her if she is nominated. I also think if she is nominated it will be a train wreck.

...is I remain convinced that the American people are not stupid. I think that a good majority of Americans see through the nonsense and bollocks (to borrow an excellent word from the Brits) that's served to us.

:shrug:

How so?

I have my own musings about that, just wondering about yours...

None of which originate with me. One is that she is a woman. I don't think we live in as enlightened a time as we tend to believe. I think there are plenty of people, particularly the over 70 crowd which votes in large numbers, that will not vote for a woman, any woman, for president. I don't think that will show up in many polls, as most people are reluctant to admit such biases in polls. Second is that she has negatives in the 40's and is so hated by the right that she is probably the only candidate that can mobilize the right wing to vote in this election. Third is her stance or lack thereof on Iraq. She will not be able to tap into the anti-war sentiment of many younger and independent voters whose biggest issue is the war. Casey Jones you'd better watch your speed.

On all points.

It's gonna be crazy...

and many of them -- including my mother who's living in Bush country -- will be THRILLED to finally be able to cast a vote for a woman for President.

And young women who haven't voted thus far will also be coming out in droves.

HRC's negatives have settled in the forties. Anyone who is going to hate her already does, and the idiots who won't vote for her because she's a woman wouldn't have voted for her anyway because of her positions on abortion, gay rights, etc. Meanwhile, the other candidates' negatives are rising as the public becomes more familiar with them.

So I think you're overestimating the challenge for HRC, and underestimating her potential strength.

It's the way in which they were raised.

Bravo for your Mom, of course, but your Mom is more enlightened than a good number of 70+ year olds who grew up prior to the women's movement.

I'd agree with you on women in their 50s, however.

But, us 30-something women still think she's a bit daft for not kicking out her cheating hubby. She had the means not to need his income. She had the education to find a job. She didn't have to stay with him - love or not.

According to all the polls and recent analysis... and that would seem to conform with my, admittedly small, personal experience of the over-70 crowd. My own mother and father, 82 and 91, respectively, have been very enthusiastic about a Hillary campaign from the beginning. And my dad was pretty much a "Reagan Democrat" for a number of years (Bush I cured him of that).

I think she has more problems with the boomer generation (my own) than with young people: she may not be their first choice, but they will definitely get behind her, insofar as they vote at all.

Fred Thompson's train has already derailed so a liberal New Yorker from a mob family is about all the neofascist conservatives have left.

to hope that the other side has a BIGGER train wreck.

Never met any. Not in this lifetime, anyway.

...I'd rather have another candidate for the nominee.

She drives them CRAZY and they respond by lashing out hatefully. I don't think they can contain their rage for an entire campaign and she will draw a sympathetic response from their overkill.

She's not my first choice, but I've only gotten my first choice in a nominee ONCE since 1972 so I'm used to being somewhat disappointed. She's very competent, intelligent and driven and, after 8 years of Bush, those qualities would be nice in the White House.

I kinda think that's a bad thing, but I know nothing about politics.

into a frenzy trying to convince the public that person is Satan incarnate. While their hatred might be a touch more severe in her case, by election day 2008 you couldn't tell the difference. Their overreaction, caused by that incoherent hatred, can work to our advantage in the general election with their vitriol backfiring big-time.

Anyway, I don't think Democratic primary voters should give a damn what Republicans think about our choice. I'm not afraid of their vaunted "turnout machine" quite so much after they lost the congress last year.

And, as I said, she's not my first choice but if she wins the nomination, she's got my money (all $100 of it that I plan to give), my time and my vote.

Just my opinion.

how many supporters of Dukakis or McGovern didn't give a damn what Republicans thought about their choice. That's the kind of hubris that has lost us a lot of elections.

This year I'll vote for John Edwards when my state votes because he's my preference, not because of how my decision might effect Republicans. My philosophy has always been to vote my heart in Democratic primaries, usually for the more liberal candidate-if thats hubris then I'm guilty. Then, in the general election, I vote for the Democratic nominee. That's my conception of how the system works.

As to Dukakis, I'm still trying to figure that one out. Its like 8 years of Reagan wasn't enough, Democrats had to nominate the one man George Bush could beat. I've never seen anything like it. Just remembering that election leaves me nauseas.

McGovern is a different story but I don't feel like reliving that nightmare tonight.

"Electability" is only one issue among many for me. I don't expect Republicans to show any class or breeding by respecting our nominee and they've NEVER disappointed me.

How can "electability" be a secondary criteria? Democrats tend to turn elections into some esoteric exercise; we forget that the point of the exercise is to actually elect someone.

may not be significant to me. In your responses to others, you argue that Americans aren't ready to elect a woman, especially one whose negatives are in the 40% range. In my humble opinion, thats absurd. Are there American voters so stupid and hateful they won't vote for a woman? Certainly. We call them "Republicans". Those people aren't voting for any Democrat anyway. Many people won't vote for Barack Obama because he's black (they're also known as "Republicans" or more commonly "bigots"). Should we refuse to nominate Obama because bigots will turn out in droves to oppose him? Must we base our nominee on how happy Republicans are with our choice?

As to her negative numbers, whoever emerges as our eventual nominee will have negatives in the 40's-at least in Senator Clinton's case they've already done what they can to demonize her. Now all they need do is sit back and watch her own party rip her apart, as many on DU take great pleasure in doing.

People select candidates using their own personal criteria. Far be it from me to try to tell you how to vote, or why you should select the candidate I prefer. Thats why I stay out of the stupid bashing contests, or "primary wars" on DU. Trashing ANY of our Democratic candidates is totally counterproductive and a waste of time-they're all far superior to any of the Republicans. Thats why I'm so rarely here these days. Once the nominee is chosen, the ridiculous hostilities will die down, the trolls will go home, and DU will again unite behind our party's choice. I look forward to February, regardless of the outcome.

Losing means the other side wins. When the other side wins, we lose. How is this hard to understand? Standing on principle is meaningless if you lose. I'm not being hostile, and I am not telling you who to vote for, but, sorry, the purpose of putting forth candidates for election is to have them win the election.

Richardson, Biden or Dodd will defeat any Republican who runs against them, therefore I feel free to vote my conscience in the primary. Apparently, you disagree. I think we should build up all our primary candidates rather than tearing them down. Again, apparently you disagree.

I also get that you don't like Senator Clinton and feel her nomination would be a disaster. Fine. I disagree. As I said before she isn't my first choice but I am a Democrat and a progressive and will support the choice of my party in the general election.

I'm not 12 years old and I'm not fond of being patronized. As a 53 year old retired civil servant who has voted Democratic in primaries and elections since 1972 I understand that the purpose of elections is winning. I "got" that the night George McGovern was crucified. One other thing I learned from that experience was that the only thing more shameful than Republicans trashing our candidates is when Democrats or progressive do so. It leaves me cold.

I was puzzled by your previous statement that "electability" wasn't something you looked for in a primary candidate. No more no less.

Its important, but not the only factor I take into account, especially when multiple candidates are electable.

If so, I don't see it. If anything, HC is trying to get away from that liberal stereotype that basically killed Dukakis and McGovern.

I'm watching to see which Dem. candidate is polling nationally as a winner over whichever Republican. That doesn't mean anything is certain but it is as close as I can get to certain. I never bothered with the polls when Dukakis and McGovern were starting their runs...

and hell, at least she's not shrub.

Sadly, she wouldn't be better enough to counteract the damage from *.

Both were perceived as promoting the economic and social growth of Sovereign Countries and the poor throughout Latin America. The "screw you" attitude of Reagan and G.W. Bush makes them villains in the eyes of the L.Amer. people. If Hillary and Pelosi continue down the road they have chosen to lead our nation then indeed the NeoCons will have achieved their ideal of re-establishing a Reaganesque empirealistic above the law and secretive government.

the comparison.But I agree with the second part of your equation.

Two totally different men and time with all their factors in history. AS a R.C. I grew up with a picture of JFK and Pope Paul VI on our home altar. My point is about perception, actions (deeds done), and communication in the socio-polico international milieu. No offense intended.

....

Would you still vote for him?

But I wouldn't be very happy about it.

He forfeit the right to call himself a Democrat when he refused to accept the results of his primary.

Beyond that, the Democratic Party has already made it abundantly clear that we're not interested in him as a Presidential Nominee, last time around.

There was a thread a few weeks ago that stated that he recently entered "Democrat" on his voter registration.

I think he's going to have some 'splainin' to do if he tries to run as a Democrat for re-election in 5 years, though.

...long answer, hell no.

Lieberman isn't a Dem.

The question is not whether there's a dime's worth of difference between Hillary and Bush. It's a question of how different is Hillary from Lieberman? Since Joementum seems to have re-joined the Dems, why shouldn't we support him if he's the nominee?

(I have my answer, but I'm guessing yours is a bit more difficult for you)

If the Dems nominated Lieberman it would be very surprising to me because I think he'd pretty far out of line with where I think the party is.

That said, if the party DID nominate him I'd have to consider my allegiance to the party, and that would depend on all the factors of the given moment. Who is Lieberman running against? What commitments has he made? Who are the other choices?

Assuming the world looked more or less like it does now (that is, no strong 3rd party candidate and no unlikely Repub nominee) except for Lieberman as the candidate: Given the choice of Lieberman as the Democratic candidate or Rudy/Mitt/Fred I'd still vote for Lieberman because I think it's important the Democratic party has more of a say in the next SCOTUS appointment.

But the real - and yet more complex answer - is that Joe Lieberman isn't the nominee and wouldn't be the nominee. He doesn't have that kind of traction in the party, both because of his politics and his campaigning ability. So for me, asking "what if Lieberman were the nominee" is like asking about an alternative universe in which everything is very different. For me it is like asking "What if Hitler were the nominee" or "What if water ran uphill instead of down".

I'd like to think Hillary would handle a primary defeat with a bit more grace, but she seems a lot like Joementum 2004 in terms of her votes and views. She's almost as out of step with my view of the party as Liberman was.

The difficult question is how to deal with a party who with every action tells you that your politics aren't welcome (even though they're shared by a majority of the country).

I thought it was a Photoshop job when I first saw it. Alas, it's frighteningly real.

And I think you'd have to be a stone fucking moron to not see that this country was run a helluva lot better between 1993-2001 than it is being run now.

We're dealing with a historically bad president, not only the worst in our history but probably one of the worst heads of state in world history. It would be hard to do worse than Bush.

Nevertheless, I also think Bill Clinton was far and away the best, most competent President of my lifetime.

I wasn't around for Kennedy, so make of that what you will.

He's much smarter and even more authoritarian. His judgment on policy and personnel is terrible. His personal life is a mess. His values and priorities are cockeyed.

I doubt he'd be able to make it through a national election.

Enough said

then you musta been duped too.

'Nuff said.

She's stupid and stupid enough to allow Bush to attack Iran

And I don't think she necessarily WANTED to go to war, but she voted that way to look hawkish and protect and further her own political aspirations.

Which of course I found - and still find - disgusting...

She knew exactly what that vote was for and how many lies were being told to Congress and the American people. She chose to vote for the IWR -- to put us on the path to war -- in order to further her own political ambitions.

She was playing her side of the politics, and with that vote she managed to wash her hands of the decision while solidifying her hawkish credentials.

I just think she is stupid and honestly believed what Bush said about Iraq

She's one of the smartest, quickest people I've been around. She's also someone who sends off a vibe of complete amorality.

Now you're a little psychic. How cute.

I put her creep factor somewhere between Michael Eisner and Larry Ellison.

Ideally, I would like to see us nominate a candidate who doesn't have that albatross hanging around his or her neck- Al Gore, for starters. Obama and Kucinich also can make that claim.

But Hillary isn't the only one who played politics with that turd of a vote. Edwards did the same thing.

Mark Penn was the dealbreaker for me.

Now contrast that with the flames that fly at any and all posters who deign to criticize Queen Hillary.

No straw man attacks on "haters", no arrogant chest-thumping about poll numbers, no Orwellian apologetics. Just plain, simple reasons that make a vote for Hillary seem like a valid choice based on the OP's priorities.

I don't agree with the your conclusions, but I truly respect the way in which you're presenting your ideas.

:thumbsup:

The irony Aviation Pro, is nobody hardly ever changes their mind around DU anyway. I won't try to convince you that are wrong, cause it would not change a dang thing - your still gonna support Hillary. And I absolutely and enthusiastically will not (at least through the primaries).

No flames here.


peace~ :)

Any THINKING PERSON wouldn't vote for her (even though many of us women would LOVE to vote for a woMAN for president.....Hillary is just "so wrong" for that role/honor.

Hillary has no core values except those of the repubIcan light DLC! REMEMBER THE DLC?

Nice way of saying "Only stupid people vote for Hillary".

God, I can't wait for this fucking election to be over.

.

Millions will do so reluctantly but the alternative is too horrible to even think about. The main reason should be the next SC Justices. She is appealing to Moderate Repugs & Swing Voters because without them she will lose. She does have a fairly good chance of winning because the Repub Candidate will not get enough Fundie votes to win. If there is a Fundie 3rd Party Candidate, she will most likely win.

I'm not thrilled about the prospect of another Clinton, but it's an acceptable proposition compared to any of the repubs currently on board.

Because she is better than a Republican. I will support any of these Democrats over any of these Republicans.

I just hope that she isn't nominated.

"1. She is smart and capable."

I'll grant you she believes a lot of other people are dumb.

"2. She has a command of facts and can hold her own with the leaders of Great Britain, France, Germany, Russia, China, India and Japan."

What does that even mean?

"3. Yes, she is ruthless, but better ruthless than dumb and easily manipulated."

She sure got manipulated into voting for the war.

"4. She actually knows something about the law."

Given her stances on flag burning, video games, she doesn't even understand the first amendment.

"5. She can parse the gray areas."

You mean she's two-faced.

"6. She will not constantly embarass our country with a litany of malapropisms."

Hurrah, she's functionally literate!

"7. She has the counsel of a former President who was competent on international, domestic and security issues."

Yeah, in the same way George Bush's father is a former President, and therefore he's a good president.

:eyes:

she will stem the movement of the Supreme Court to the right.

Another Pro-Hillary thread that lists 7 vague reasons to vote for her, but does NOT mention a single Issue.
The above "good personality" traits are all GREAT reasons to vote for Hillary as "Homecoming Queen", but NOT for President.

The ISSUES are why I oppose Hillary, NOT her personality.

*Extending the Iraq Occupation

*Support for expanding the WAR to Iran

*Expanding the FOR PROFIT Health Insurance Industry

*Expanding the Military/Increasing the Defense Budget

*Support for more Free Trade

*Support for increasing and expediting H1B Visas


Do "The Issues" matter to the Hillary Fan Club?

...but without the foundation there can be no discussion of issues. The last time, the American people voted for having a beer and being scared as a foundation for a President. This time, I believe the American people want someone who has the basic foundation and not a project.

I'm for amnesty for illegal aliens. They pick our crops, build our homes and keep our yards beautiful. I'm for an increase in military spending. In San Antonio the military bases and hospitals employ and provide excellent benefits to our citizens as well as help defend our country and give health care to the injured and wounded in recovery. And, I'm for free trade. It's building up the economies of Mexico and Latin American countries. With jobs and low cost of living in those countries we won't have an illegal alien problem. So I respectfully disagree with you on some of the issues.

If you support those issues, then vote on those issues.

I personally feel that something is out of balance when the US spends MORE on "Defense" than the next 30 countries COMBINED, and that spending even MORE is the wrong direction for this country and the World.
The money could be spent elsewhere and create as many or more jobs and help as many or more communities. Spending the money building a network of high quality Assisted Living Communities and staffing with quality personnel makes more sense to me than spending the money building bombs, but to each their own.

Also, I personally oppose expanding Slave Labor for Factory Farms Programs.
Immigration should be liberal, assisted, open, easy, and regulated. Immigrants should have access to LEGAL jobs that pay a living wage and benefits. Corporations and individuals caught hiring "illegals" should be heavily fined. Enforcement should target the corporations (Factory Farms) exploiting "illegals", and NOT the victims.

If you are still for "Free Trade", you just haven't been paying attention.
Illegal immigration across the Mexican border has increased exponentially since NAFTA.
The PROOF is IN.
NAFTA has been a Human Rights, LABOR Rights, and Environmental disaster in Mexico.


The Democratic Party is a BIG TENT, but there is NO ROOM for those
who advance the agenda of THE RICH (Corporate Owners) at the EXPENSE of LABOR and the POOR.

home to feed his/her family who considers himself or herself "slave labor." I live in a farming community. No farmer here is RICH. They borrow money to plant their crops and maintain their machines (tractors, etc.). They pay that money back with interest when the crop sells. If something happens to the crop it's the poor house for them (thankfully there is gov. aid). Tell me how 12 million illegal aliens are going to be deported? How many families separated? I'm sure you'll make money investing in Cargo Waggons - let the 21st century "Trail of Tears" begin. There is an Auschwitz camp built by Lou Dobbs just across the border waiting to receive these illegals.

Deportation would penalize the victims.
I DID say we shouldn't penalize the victims.

I am firmly AGAINST a General Amnesty for several reasons.
In case you weren't around, we've already tried that, AND it didn't work.
It was a very short sighted patch that doesn't address the PROBLEM.

The proper way to address the problem is to institute minimum wage and basic Human Rights protections for ALL Labor, and penalize those employers who violate the minimum standards.

The argument that this would put small farmers out of business is bogus.
Equal enforcement and equal protection would offer no one a marketing advantage.

Same sex marriage rights and more.

on those issues?
These ARE important issues, but Hillary offers nothing significantly different than any of the others.

not voting or throwing my vote away, I have but one choice: do everything possible to get her in office if she is the nominee.

...10) She has the highest negatives of all of our candidates 11) She will get GOP knuckle-draggers to vote against her in DROVES 12) she will cost us the WH in 2008 13) her condescending laugh/cackle drives me NUTS 14) her last name is Clinton and will drive the MSM into paroxysms of rage about Whitewater/Vince Foster/Monica Lewinsky/Travelgate/Socialized Medicine/She's gonna take your guns 24/7 from the time she is nominated until the day she is beaten in the GE.

15) She can't win. Period. She is poison to the Democrats chances of taking the WH next year.

and frankly, I don't even believe any of the polls any more. I will not vote for someone whom I have no trust in. I think she would be a kinder gentler smarter Shrub, but more like Shrub than you wish to realize.

Those who wish to swallow their principles, be my guest. I will not vote for her again. Her choice for top advisor, Mark Penn, says it all.

She is, has, knows, can and everything else you listed. I could add twenty more items, but there's something about her that just makes me feel hopeful.