How can so many of Hillary's supporters be so blind to her weaknesses?

[ginchinchili]

It amazes me how blind so many of Hillary's supporters are about the animosity felt toward her throughout America. I'm reminded of it from an endless array of sources on an almost daily basis and supporters like yourself don't even realize it exists. It's so frustrating.

It's the same kind of feeling I had when the majority of the country was backing Bush during the run up to war in Iraq. To many of us it was clearly bad strategy heading for a train wreck. We yell and flail our arms, but very few were listening. So all we could do was sit back and watch the disaster unfold. Here we go again.

Hillary is a smart and talented woman, but she is not the best qualified candidate running. Why further divide the country, risk losing the general election, hurt Democrats in local and state-wide elections, and hurt Democrats' longterm ability to build support for the Party throughout the country when she isn't even the best candidate running? We can do much better for our Party and our country with someone else. It just doesn't make sense.

[Fredda Weinberg]

1. We're not blind. We're practical. Please, let's give each other credit n/t

[roguevalley]

89. I want the best candidate, no matter the sex or color. Being

practical means settling. I cannot forget her voting record on the important things. I don't give a damn if the ACLU etc gives her a 100% rating. Those votes aren't the ones that will get my cousin out of Iraq. The votes she took, the most principled votes of our generation, she failed. If my cousin gets killed, the blood is on her hands too.

[mitchtv]

2. That's why we have primaries

she's better than ANY GOPers

[journalist3072]

3. Really, these anti-Hillary threads are getting boring. It's the same old talking points

Hillary's too polarizing to win next November. She's too cold; no personality....yada yada.

Do the anti-Hillary folks ever have an original idea, or do they get their talking points from Ann Coulter, Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity and their ilk?

[saracat]

24. You know, most of us who do not support her , are really good Democrats

and I am sick of being accused of getting talking points from the RW because I do not support this candidate. And I have many valid reasons why I do not. I am getting sick of having Hillary rammed down my throat. The more I learn about the Clintons, both of them, the less I like them.

[LeftCoast]

72. There's a difference between 'not supporting' and outright attack

And if you're being criticized for using RW talking points, did you even stop for a moment to consider that you might be?

Honestly, I haven't picked a candidate yet (and being in California it's probably a moot point anyway), but I really am astounded by the emotionality of the group attacks on HRC. I mean, it's one thing to be opposed to someone and to point out issues or flaws but a lot of what I've been seeing just reminds me WAY too much of the way republican attack dogs go after anyone with a D after their name.

HRC is not perfect, but she is a Democrat no matter what some people around here say, and that makes her a hell of a lot better than anyone the republicans can put forward. That's all it boils down to.

[Usrename]

96. Here's the problem with that.

If the RW rank-and-file liked her, but she was despised by the RW leadership; then I would be thrilled.

Instead, she is loved by the RW leadership and despised by the rank and file. Why doesn't that bother you?

Why is she any different than Lieberman? Really, curious folks want to know.

[sufrommich]

98. Which right wing leadership love her?

I must have missed the lovefest.

[vssmith]

103. Rupert Murdoch

Bill uncapped the number of radio station one person could control. RM now owns over 1200.

[ElizabethDC]

4. Every candidate has their own particular blend of strengths and weaknesses

for me, I feel that Sen. Clinton's strenghts do outweigh her weaknesses, and that's why I chose to support her.

[zulchzulu]

15. Well said EDC

I support another candidate, but I respect that people are welcome to have passion for their candidate.

The more informed people are about their candidate and perhaps show up in public to display their support, the better we all are. As I'm sure you know, when you are in the public arena showing your support for a candidate, you have thought about why you support that candidate and can engage in discussion face to face with others.

I hope all is going well in your efforts.

[msongs]

5. what sources? are they really "endless"? "endless"????? wow nt

[sampsonblk]

6. She's weaker than the guys she's trouncing in the polls?

Surely you can do better than that.

When she wins, the RW types will go ballistic. I agree with you on that. They are a very vocal and vindictive minority.

But numbers don't lie. There are more Dems than Repubs, and she has a huge amount of support among us. So, despite their animosity, she can win. Any of our candidates can win. And all the GOP candidates are garbage so far.

[saracat]

26. And More GOP vote than do Dems. Dems don't vote and that is a fact.

There are more Dems than GOP but the GOP vote consistently in larger numbers and Hillary is enough to galavanize the GOP to vote in what would ordinarily be a depressed GOP year.And Yes, Obama and Edwards do much better against the GOP than Hillary in GE polling.

[sampsonblk]

52. Not this time

With their current numbers, they can't muster the number of voters that we have. As things stand today, more people will vote Dem that Repub this time around.

Their only hope is to cheat, or to do something drastic to change these numbers in the next 13 months. Their party has shrunk because of Bush, Iraq and Katrina.

On edit: The GOP nearly caught up after 9/11 (http://people-press.org/commentary/display.php3?AnalysisID=95) but they have since tanked to the point of real danger for them in 2008 if nothing changes. (http://www.galluppoll.com/content/?ci=28429)

On the Gallup Poll, please scroll down to the graph that includes leaners, labeled Party Affiliation Quarterly Trend.

[Dawgs]

60. Current numbers don't mean shit now. Why is that all Hillary supporters use?

Why can't you tell us what's so great about her, other than she's a woman and a Clinton?

[sampsonblk]

61. I was addressing the issue in the OP

The issue as I understood it was whether or not she could win. Apparently the current numbers are not to your liking.

If you want to know all the good things about her, I suggest you start a new thread and ask that question.

[yellowcanine]

71. Well she did win election as Senator twice and the second time she won all but

four (out of 62) counties. And the folks trashing Hillary are using poll numbers to say how unpopular she is so how is that any more reliable?

[yellowcanine]

80. Curious how the Dems took over the House and Senate in 2006 then.

Hillary fear will not galvanize the GOP vote. That's the mistake the NY Republicans made in the 2000 Senate race and the national Republicans appear to be about to make the same mistake again.

Today's WP poll says otherwise on the supposition that Hillary is some kind of polarizing/galvanizing candidate. Hillary is no more polarizing than any other candidate, Republican or Democrat, except perhaps Obama (39% would not vote for ever vs 41% for Hillary).

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/03/AR2007100302036.html?hpid=topnews

"Many Republicans have said that they are eager to run a general-election campaign against Hillary Clinton, describing her as a highly polarizing candidate who would unite and energize the opposition. But, as of now, Clinton appears to be no more polarizing than other leading Democratic contenders. Nor is there a potential Republican nominee who appears significantly less polarizing.

Forty-one percent of those surveyed said they definitely would not vote for Clinton in the general election if she were the Democratic nominee, one of the lowest "reject rates" among the leading candidates in either of the two major parties. Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) registers the lowest definite opposition, at 39 percent."

[illinoisprogressive]

7. I wonder why they even support her. republican, never answers questions, no stands, ect

[ginchinchili]

8. Now maybe try addressing some of the points I made

I know, it's easier just to say, "get over it" or "screw the Repubs, Go Hillary!" You're just driving home my point. It's just blind support, I guess because you like Bill so much. I like him too, but she's not as talented as he is and she wouldn't be senator of New York right now, much less leading in a Democratic primary for president, if she had never married Bill. And if you disagree with that, it only demonstrates an inability to think objectively about her and this race.

[ElizabethDC]

10. You make a lot of assumptions

such as that the support is blind, or that I like her just because I like Bill (not that I *don't* like Bill, but I have no problems seeing Hillary as her own person). I think it's impossible to know where her career and life would have gone without Bill - maybe we would never had heard of her, or maybe she would have been president already. Impossible to know.

[yellowcanine]

76. Maybe because you really didn't support your "points" with facts. You need a citation for

the "endless sources" for one. Without citations what you say is not making a point, it is making an assertion. Same with your claim about her never being Senator of Presidential candidate without marrying Bill. First of all, you can't really know that, and second, the same claim could reasonably be made about Bill - he never would have been President save for having married Hillary. In any case, whether the claim is true or not, it has little to do with Hillary's qualifications or lack of qualifications to be President. The fact is, she IS the Senator from New York and she has a record to run on. The people of New York apparently think she is qualified to be Senator. Why don't we let the Democratic Party members decide whether she should be the nominee and let the American people decide whether she is qualified to be President and not prejudge the situation? As for "blind support" did you ever stop to consider that maybe you are indulging in "blind opposition" to her as a candidate? I still support Obama but I am open to supporting Hillary if that is the choice. She has good ideas on healthcare, she has been a good Senator from New York, she has shown leadership in working with both Democrats and Republicans to get things done, and she has demonstrated that she can run a disciplined and effective campaign. I have a prediction. If Hillary is the nominee and the Republicans make her the issue - that is, run against Hillary, rather than putting forth a good candidate with ideas for how to govern, they will lose and lose big. Hillary will carry all of the 2000 and 2004 Blue States plus Ohio, Florida, Missouri, Virginia, North Carolina and possibly Texas, depending on the Republican nominee (Romney will not win Texas imo)

[Colobo]

9. Obama is what America needs.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

11. You are a class act. Two Obama support posts here. One negative, one positive...

Yours is much more effective. The other suggests that Obama supporters think Hillary is a republican, which is bizarre hyperbole that just makes Obama seem kind of crazy. Presumably advocacy is aimed at the undecided Democrat. The undecided Democrat knows Hillary is not a Republican, and will conclude that Obama must believe that. (which he doesn't)

But your posts are always positive and professional.

[Colobo]

17. Thanks, Kurt. I appreciate it.

[William769]

12. Ignorance is bliss.

And your proof positive of that. You tell people to back up thier assertions, when you don't.

[hayu_lol]

14. If one is a realist, then it seems obvious...

that the primaries are now down to two candidates:

Clinton and Obama.

The also-ran supporters can cry, scream, and carry on, but none of that changes What Is.

Richardson could easily take over the senate seat coming vacant in NM so he will continue to assist the new team.

I still believe that we need to shorten the length of the primary campaign. Perhaps no more than 60 days and then the election. No candidate can campaign for two years and not end up falling over their own feet. The media should refrain from making trouble for candidates by doing the selecting job for us.

[fadedrose]

13. I can't stand her (nmi)

[mark414]

16. cognitive dissonance

[alittlelark]

18. If she is our nominee.. SHE HAS NO WEAKNESSES

Before that hideous moment occurs - I will fight her w/ dollars and sweat.

NO MORE DLC dems (small d intentional).... Our party has it'e roots w/ Rooseveldt and the 'New Deal'... most that rail; against it benifited from it.........


Crazy whacko world....:mad: :puke: :puke: :mad:

[ShortnFiery]

19. NO! I will not lay down for another DLC Candidate.

Not. This. Time. :grr:

[alittlelark]

20. Sounds sweet... but wait until you see the R's Supreme Court picks!!!

How much further down the rabbit hole are you willing to go?

[ShortnFiery]

22. Oh that's Bull Shit too. If we realize fascism and perpetual war - the few CHOICES people have

will also include sacrificing their already born children to kill and die for HRC's mighty war machine. :thumbsdown:

The Supreme Court nominations will be milque toasties and doesn't mean squat in the larger scheme as we continue to slouch toward fascism. :(

[alittlelark]

23. OK - BIG PICTURE......

If you do not realize the SC picks are critical I don't know what to say.........


(Future World) Hillary gets the primary nomination........... who ya gonna vote for? Will you wimp out and not vote?


THINK about it.

[ShortnFiery]

27. Think about this - There's little to nothing LIBERAL about HRC - she'll nominate moderate right

judges. Our only hope is to vote in A Democratic Congress.

HRC is a "centrist" warmonger. So a few women have FULL choice - but at the same time, our young people are killing and dying in illegal/immoral occupations.

It's NOT big picture, it's insanity. :(

[alittlelark]

30. OK- so you'd rather have the R????

Honestly?!? W/O Federally funded elections we Are SCREWED.


Deal with it.



I am fighting against her tooth and nail.... but if she is the nominee (W/O a GREAT 3rd party push) I will


((((Vote for Her))))


I will hate it, but she is better than all but Ron Paul on the R, who will dismantle the Dept of Education, and be a nightmare.



GET REAL.

[Pawel K]

33. Some people never learn their lessons do they?

The next election if Hillary is the nominee you will have a Republican turd or a Democratic douche (thank you south park) running. If you are naive enough to vote for the republican turd (not voting is a R vote) then you have not learned a fucking thing over the last 8 years. Its the exact same bullshit arguments your kind was making in 2000. Look what happened. Would we be in any of this shit if Al Gore was elected president? It was people like you that share blame for where we are right now, but people make mistakes, shit happens, thats all in the past. In the future you need to learn from your mistakes and make absolutely sure you dont repeat them. Skip the hippie pipe dream and vote for the better of the 2. Sure, Hillary might not be able to move us very far forward but at least she won't be moving us a century backwards.

There is so much at stake these next 8 years. Possible war with Iran and Syria. Economy collapse. Radical right wing supreme court nominees again. All these things are very likely to happen with a republican in office. With Hillary all these terrible situations can probably be avoided. Don't be stupid, we can't afford stupidity at such an important time.

[Froward69]

64. Here Here!!!!

I hope everyone
1) takes the HRC blinders off
2) nominates the BEST person for the Job.
3) those who don't pay much attention, To start Paying attention.

[Steve_in_California]

48. Marxists, like HRC, not liberal enough for you?

[Dawgs]

56. The point is she can't win, and she will hurt our chances in picking up more seats in Congress.

What part of that don't you understand?

[LeftCoast]

74. Polling is not supporting those 'facts' you're stating

:shrug:

[yellowcanine]

88. Waste of bandwidth to get any of the Hillary bashers to support their assertions with any

polling data.....So far they haven't answered ONE of my invitations to do just that or to refute any data I have offered up that contradicts those assertions. Don't need no stinkin data, everyone knows that Hillary is hated by most everyone except for the people who think she is a lesbian and like that about her - one guy actually said that.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

91. True, we don't want the GOP making any more SCOTUS picks

With the DLC, they'll be just as corporate but at least they'll be pro-choice.

[Imagevision]

21. Hillary will constantly remind us of how long it took for Bush to drag the country down and

she will need another term to finish her job of restoring America.

How many times must one witness this played out scenario? It's just the same old, extremely old game plan which is why I yearn for new leadership like Obama, ah yes! such a breath of fresh intelligent air but of course the neocons that pulled Bush's strings will surely be there to tug Hil whenever necessary.

[BenDavid]

25. Gee! All you said was smart and

talented and did not give any examples of HRC's weaknesses....HRC is running one damn smart campaign and you will never hear her say it is already over without a vote being cast. She is doing what needs be done not only to win the nomination but to keep the Dems in the running for next years Congressinal elections too....You will see her campaign hard and heavy not only to win the Presidency but to make sure she will have a House and Senate with Dems still in the majority.....

I say this and no one that follows politics as I do can dispute what I am about to write....The reason the repubs won in 94 was becasue the damn Dems in the House and Senate ran away from Bill Clinton and his policies. They stuck knives in his back and instead of running on the Clinton economic plan they ran away from it.....If they would have stayed with Bill Clinton they too could have reaped the rewards of 23 million new jobs and would have kept the House and Senate and we would not have had this monkeyinamanssuit as president....

Ben David

[MLFerrell]

28. "Hillary is a smart and talented woman..."

I beg to differ. Ms. Clin-ton is undoubtedly intelligent, but talented? Talented at what? Dissimulation? Flip-flopping? Refusal to take a politically undesirable stance on anything?

Come on, Hill-Shills. Defend your, ahem, candidate on something other than the "first woman president". Please, I'm beggin' ya.

Make my day (seriously).

[PurityOfEssence]

31. Nothing about "moral" or "ethical" or "progressive", is there?

She's incredibly talented at dancing around issues and deflecting hits. It's sheer artistry the way she can cozy up to conservatives, facilitate corporatists and still be portrayed as the most tireless champion for everything she's fighting against. Now you see it, now...hey, look at that! Oooh.

[Steve_in_California]

29. The Polls are not the Polls. You're all being messed with by the media.

It used to be, not so long ago, that a poll would show not only the results from people who responded with a affirmative choice, but also show the results of the percentage of people contacted who expressed no preference or indicated they were still undecided--it used to be that way, when polls were honestly reported, but no more.

Today, it's all about making a splash, getting people to pay attention and stimulate them to get all fired up. It's a total sham. There are a very honest polls out there, and they show that fully 70% of the people contacted remain undecided. It doesn't take an expert in statistics to figure out that a "net" poll result showing Hillary Clinton at 50% means that in the real world she is polling at 50% of 30%, which amounts to 15% of all those who were contacted by the polling organization and gave any response.

But, telling America the truth would throw cold water on all the false hopes and artifical enthusiasm, which translates into ratings points.

The polls, therefore, should really be called the "nets"--both for the reason that the results reported to America are actually "net" results and also for the reason that the media is using these "nets" to scoop up American voters like so many fish.

This race is still very much wide open. The candidate to watch is the one candidate who most gained in public approval ratings after the last debate on MSNBC. Their on-line rating system showed that Hillary gained 1%, Obama gained 1%, Richardson lost 9%, amd Joe Biden gained 11%, bringing him just shy of 3% of Hillary Clinton's top rating.

Biden is gaining ground much faster than any other candidate in the race, of either party.

[calteacherguy]

34. Biden has 0% chance.

I don't mean that as a smear against Biden. He's a good guy, but Hillary is a great candidate.

The others have 0% chance as well, except for Obama. His chances are now less than 1%, in my estimation.

[Steve_in_California]

38. Barack is sinking fast . . .

Barack is sinking fast, which makes it seem as though Hillary is rising, when the reality is that she is losing ground to the most experienced politician in the race, Joe Biden.

With 70% of registered Democrats still undecided, it is a blatent falsehood that is being perpetrated on the public by the media when poll results are reported with no mention of the fact that the vast majority of voters, of either party, remain undecided.

Biden needs to be polled among Republicans and Independants as well, for his moderate views carry great appeal even with non-Democrats--people who would sooner jump out a window before they would cast of vote for Hillary Clinton. And it is the swing voters who determine the outcome of elections!

[rinsd]

70. Umm almost every poll has an undecided option

In fact some have none of the above & won't vote as options as well

See for yourself

http://www.pollingreport.com/wh08dem.htm

"Today, it's all about making a splash, getting people to pay attention and stimulate them to get all fired up. It's a total sham. There are a very honest polls out there, and they show that fully 70% of the people contacted remain undecided. It doesn't take an expert in statistics to figure out that a "net" poll result showing Hillary Clinton at 50% means that in the real world she is polling at 50% of 30%, which amounts to 15% of all those who were contacted by the polling organization and gave any response."

Which poll would that be? let's see a link.

"This race is still very much wide open. The candidate to watch is the one candidate who most gained in public approval ratings after the last debate on MSNBC. Their on-line rating system showed that Hillary gained 1%, Obama gained 1%, Richardson lost 9%, amd Joe Biden gained 11%, bringing him just shy of 3% of Hillary Clinton's top rating."

The polls are lying but MSNBC online approval rating system is the truth.

Ooooo-dee-lolly. :eyes:

[calteacherguy]

32. The reports of the "animosity felt toward her throughout America" are greatly exagerrated.

She's becoming more popular everyday.

[Steve_in_California]

39. People hate Hillary with a passion greater than I have ever seen directed at any candidate since

George Wallace.

[calteacherguy]

40. Clearly, you are misinformed.

Educate yourself...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3576695

[Steve_in_California]

42. You make a concessionist's argument.

Which means you lose the debate. At least those were the rules back in New Haven.

[calteacherguy]

44. Just follow the link. She's viewed more favorably than Edwards. nt

[calteacherguy]

45. Just follow the link. She's viewed more favorably than Edwards. nt

[Mojorabbit]

43. People keep saying that

but I don't know in real life a single Dem who likes her. My mother is the only person I know who is thinking of voting for her in the primaries because she thinks Hillary is for universal single payer health care.
Most people I know on the left have not made up their minds yet. Then again, it probably won't matter as I live in Florida and my vote probably will end up not counting due to the miserable state of the party here.

[MGKrebs]

54. I see you are from Orlando.

Here is a list of 1000 people from Florida who think enough of Clinton to send money. There are more, but you would have to narrow the search. I see donors from Orlando zip codes 32801, 32802, 32803, 32804, 32819, 32835, and then I got bored.

http://www.opensecrets.org/indivs/search.asp?key=nxaad&txtState=FL&txtCand=clinton&txt2008=Y&Order=N

[Mojorabbit]

63. Obviously there are people

giving her money from Florida. That is a given. I am saying that in my extensive network there are mostly progressives and she is none of their first choice. Most people I know have not made a firm choice yet.We have a lot of good candidates this time and plenty of time to choose.

[rpannier]

35. I can make the same post and substitute the name of anyone running...

In a recent poll...posted here on DU...she was rated as having the lowest "I'll never vote for this candidate"

41% said they'd never vote for her.
Obama was 43%
Edwards (my candidate) was 46%
ghouliani (I think) was 47%
etc.

[weeve]

36. Any Democrat but Hillary

I read earlier this week that three (THREE!) Supreme Court Justices will likely retire after the next election ( Stevens, Ginsberg, Souter ). Why in the world would the Dems even consider nominating the one candidate with by far the MOST negatives ? The one candidate that will most motivate the opposing side's base ... and the one that has already divided our side. Why in the world would we go along with the candidate that Big Media chose for us two years ago ( the most Corporate friendly, the one Rupert Murdoch has fundraisers for ) ? The most hawkish of all the Dem nominees, the one who says we'll likely need troops in Iraq in 2013, the one who votes exactly on the recent Iran resolution as she did on the one on Iraq ? This is SUCH a crucial election ( can you imagine this country's future if those three Supreme Court slots are filled by a Republican ?!? 8-1 decisions as far as the eye can see ?!? )... that it is imperative that we nominate the MOST electable Democrat, NOT the most divisive. I don't care how much Corporate $$ Hillary is able to raise, she is and will always be the Republicans absolute BEST CHANCE at keeping the White House and recapturing the Congress. To think otherwise is foolish. And we can ill afford foolishness (yet again) this time around.

Which is why I wrote an impassioned letter to Al Gore this afternoon, basically begging him to step in ... for the sake of my family, this country, and THE WORLD ! Being a pragmatist I will of course vote for whatever Democrat gets the nomination. On the other hand, I most certainly will NOT campaign for Hillary. After all, what does she need with the "little guy" ?

And Steve in California is spot on with his analysis of THE POLLS ! Don't buy into them one bit. Look at who is sponsoring them, and then look at which of the candidates would benefit these polling organizations the most. Hmmm ... ABC, Wall Street Journal, CNN, Newsweek, etc. Gosh, what do you know ... Hillary keeps coming out on top !?!

[yellowcanine]

85. "the one candidate with by far the MOST negatives" Except of course this is not true.

According to the latest WP poll....

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/03/AR2007100302036.html?hpid=topnews

"Many Republicans have said that they are eager to run a general-election campaign against Hillary Clinton, describing her as a highly polarizing candidate who would unite and energize the opposition. But, as of now, Clinton appears to be no more polarizing than other leading Democratic contenders. Nor is there a potential Republican nominee who appears significantly less polarizing.

Forty-one percent of those surveyed said they definitely would not vote for Clinton in the general election if she were the Democratic nominee, one of the lowest "reject rates" among the leading candidates in either of the two major parties. Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) registers the lowest definite opposition, at 39 percent."


Oh that's right, it is a media conspiracy to push Hillary so we should just ignore those polls. But aren't "MOST negatives" based on media polls? Consider me confused by your logic.

[Lerkfish]

37. not sure I agree with all that, but I would point out that they aren't blind to her

bad policies, they just keep avoiding any discussion of them.
That means they're counting on US to be blind.

[Steve_in_California]

41. No proof, but just a sense . . .

That a large part of Hillary's appeal stems from an unspoken-of sense liberals may have that Hillary's marriage is, and always has been, a marriage of convenience. And it is the same "lesbian radar" that causes so many people to hate her for her falsity and cunning.

[Lerkfish]

46. um, no. that has nothing to do with it. The real reason is she does not

support the same policies I support. She is not opening the tent for liberal issues, she is pandering to the right in order to look "strong" ( a misguided attempt, in my mind).
I wouldn't care if she were a kangaroo, she is not a liberal candidate, she is at best a centrist candidate who supports the war in Iraq and is looking towards Iran.
period.

its really occam's razor: she's not a liberal favorite because she doesn't favor liberal causes.

its not rocket science.

[Steve_in_California]

47. You really have no idea as to the actual definition of liberalism, do you?

You just want to think that your views are shared by true liberals because it makes you feel part of a group. Clinton is classic liberal. She has abandoned her Marxist leanings only for the purpose of winnning an election. If she wins, it will be right back to the "It Takes A Village " mentality.

[Lerkfish]

51. "marxist leanings"?

um...ok, done talking with you.

[Dawgs]

58. Again, no proof from a Hillary supporter.

Just, 'trust me, she's liberal'.

I love how Hillary supporters always ignore her stance on the Iraq war, and defend it by posting poll numbers or telling us how she's popular.

[yellowcanine]

81. ' "It Takes A Village " mentality.' Can you seriously argue that it doesn't ?

I mean really, this is one of the lamest criticisms of Hillary ever. Of course it takes a village to raise a child. Parents can't do it on their own. How in the world is that a Marxist notion?

[yellowcanine]

82. Oh for Christ's sake. Liberals love her because they think she is a lesbian and conservatives hate

her for the same reason? Man you are off the deep end of reality. That's just nonsense.

[Steve_in_California]

49. Poll numbers do lie.

70% remain undecided. Yet, these goofy kids can't see that they're being led by the nose.

[Perry Logan]

50. The anti-Hillary folks seem to live in a constant infantile snit.

During Hillary's Presidency, I'll bet they'll be trotting over here every day to repeat every eight-wing smear and rigged poll they can find. The Hillary-haters will continue to be a massive headache for the people at DU for the next eight years.

I wish they'd join a third party, as they keep threatening. But I'm sure they're lying, like a child throwing a tantrum.

[sendero]

53. Rather infantile..

... than just plain STOOPID.

[Dawgs]

59. I'm not worried. She will never be President. But, Rudy or Mitt might is she's nominated.

[Perry Logan]

62. Wow. You anti-Hillary folks are really scared shitless of Republicans!

[Froward69]

65. no just leary

and Refuse to be led down the neocon path to victory. that is "Nominate Hillary"

[Forkboy]

90. You right.I'm no longer scared of what judges get appointed to the SCOTUS.

And you shouldn't be either.

Thanks for helping me out. :hi:

[DemocratSinceBirth]

66. A Fallacious Meme Repeated A Million Times Is Still A Fallacious Meme

DSB

[yellowcanine]

78. Exactly what the New York Republicans said in 2000 about her being Senator.

Republicans and some Democrats continue to underestimate her appeal. The more people see of her the more they like her. Happened in upstate New York in 2000 and it will happen in 2008 if she gets the nomination, imo. I support Obama but I think Hillary is a better campaigner.

[sniffa]

55. remember jim jones?

how couLd aLL those peopLe drink the poisoned kooL aid?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

57. It Tasted Good

eom

[LanternWaste]

67. Do not all people illustrate a preferential bias towards our chosen candidate?

Do not all people illustrate a preferential bias towards our chosen candidate? I happen to think so. I also happen to think all people illustrate a negative bias towards candidates we don't support.

People will support her or people won't. Negative advertising masquerading as concern could be posted on any of the candidates, and would be just as (in)valid.

[yellowcanine]

68. Latest WP poll doesn't support your premise (animosity throughout America)

Latest WP poll this morning suggests otherwise.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/03/AR2007100302036.html?hpid=topnews

"Many Republicans have said that they are eager to run a general-election campaign against Hillary Clinton, describing her as a highly polarizing candidate who would unite and energize the opposition. But, as of now, Clinton appears to be no more polarizing than other leading Democratic contenders. Nor is there a potential Republican nominee who appears significantly less polarizing.

Forty-one percent of those surveyed said they definitely would not vote for Clinton in the general election if she were the Democratic nominee, one of the lowest "reject rates" among the leading candidates in either of the two major parties. Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) registers the lowest definite opposition, at 39 percent."


But maybe the WP is not an "endless source". Where is the citation for those by the way?

I am not a Hillary fan. My 1st choice is Obama. But I find it more than a little amusing at the number of Republicans - and DUers who ignore the history of Hillary Clinton as a Senate candidate and assume she cannot win Republican votes. The Republicans in New York State thought so too. She won all but four counties in her reelection bid. You don't do that without Republican votes. Animosity my ass.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

69. Don't Confuse The Seminal Poster With Facts

eom

[kenny blankenship]

73. You may as well ask * supporters

[Enrique]

75. same old stuff

again and again and again and again.

it's mostly just rude. LIke saying, "I don't give a fuck if you've already heard it, you're going to hear it AGAIN!"

[Yael]

77. Another K & R

:applause:

[sniffa]

79. another kick for the branch dividians

[bpeale]

83. and there are so many things to do ... so many things to fix...

that we cannot afford to be distracted by the republican attack machine for however long she is in office. we just cannot afford her.

[yellowcanine]

84. Well if that is your attitude we might just as well nominate whomever the Republicans nominate

and be done with it. Because the Republican attack machine will be turned on whomever the Democrats nominate. And that's a fact. Did we learn nothing from the presidential races of 2004 and 2000, not to mention Max Cleland?

[bpeale]

92. don't worry. if hillary is the nominee that's exactly what we'll get

everywhere i turn i hear republicans touting hillary & donating to hillary. have you ever asked yourself why that is? they want her to be the nominee because mark my words, the slime machines will be in full force & will hear only about every seemingly nefarious thing the clintons have ever done ad nauseum till she's gone from office. she will accomplish nothing. ABSOLUTELY NOTHING.

[yellowcanine]

93. I don't doubt that many Republicans think they can run against Hillary and win.

I think they are wrong. As I noted, the NY Pubs tried that. Twice. They put up crappy candidates twice and tried to make it about Hillary. And lost twice. And it matters not who the candidate is. The Repub slime machine will be in full force. So we might just as well nominate the candidate most of the Democratic Party wants. That may be Hillary, it may not. But it should be Democrats who make that decision, not Republicans. Let them put up their own candidate and we will put up ours and have at it. That's how it is supposed to work. If they want to donate to Hillary, so be it. If she is the nominee it means she will have more money in the general election to defeat their candidate. If someone else is the nominee, she can help them out with some of the pubbie money. Everyone wins except the pubbies. I can live with that.

[bpeale]

95. she won't be able to hold the democratic base together

game over

[yellowcanine]

102. I disagree. The "Democratic base" is the reason for her high poll numbers now.

And make up your mind. First we should not support Hillary because so many Republicans hate her. When I refuted that you had no answer so you moved the goal posts. Now she can't hold the Dem base together. Which is it? You seem to be hunting for an argument.

[bpeale]

106. i am not the only dem she would lose

there are many many dems who will absolutely NOT vote for hillary no matter what. and that statement no one, not even me, has to defend or justify to anyone else. not you, not anyone.

[LanternWaste]

86. No reason to assume anyone is blind...

No reason to assume anyone is blind to their particular candidates weaknesses. It's just as valid for us to assume that a person may believe particular strengths outweigh particular weaknesses. It's also valid to assume that many people simply don't believe your premise will be a decisive factor in the general election.

So yeah-- it makes a lot of sense to me.

[PurityOfEssence]

87. Clinton good. Clinton good. Peace and prosperity. Clinton haters bad. Nafta schmafta.

This is precisely the problem: the ranting and shouting of the various factions have driven the assumptions of her into people's skulls to such a degree that people have a firm conviction no matter what. She can suck up to the right and vote for as many trade giveaways and bellicose pronouncements about foreign countries as she likes and still be a tireless fighter for workers and an enemy of war.

It works both ways, and this is something she and her husband will NEVER learn: they can suck up to the right as much as they please, but they'll still be hated. The only thing they accomplish by this is dragging the country farther to the right. Things pass a certain undefinable threshold after which there's no changing most people's perceptions, and they've both long-since crossed it.

[L0oniX]

94. Repukes want to run against Hillary-ous.They think they have a better chance of winning that way.

Thanks for helping them out!

[DemocratSinceBirth]

97. They Must Be Masochistic Because Hillary Will Beat Them Like A Fucking Drum

eom

[sufrommich]

99. "Hillary-ous"

:eyes:

[DemocratSinceBirth]

100. Rush Would Be Proud

eom

[CreekDog]

101. Yeah! And when did they all stop beating their wives???!

[Trajan]

104. You cannot expect perfect harmonization ......

In anything .....

I will vote for whatever candidate emerges on top of the Democratic nomination process .....

Whomever that might be ......

If you are looking for a candidate without weaknesses, then you live in the wrong world .....

Try ... Pluto ....

[Mythsaje]

105. I am most emphatically NOT a Clinton supporter

but I think this argument is nonsense.

The Repugs don't actually like ANY of their candidates, and any one of them that wins the primary is going to disenfranchise a sizeable minority of potential voters. And if Dobson gets his way, they'll suck another 20% or so off the top.

This argument doesn't wash.