A Clear Vote for Hillary - Mine

[Tom Rinaldo]

Hillary Clinton is now officially my presidential candidate. Though she is not my ideal candidate for President, frankly it is rare that “my ideal candidate” even runs for any office, let alone wins it. I thought long and hard about the Democratic choices still available for me to support for 2008, and after doing so I choose Hillary over any of them. I was greatly disappointed when Wes Clark did not run, I was greatly disappointed when Al Gore did not run, and I was disappointed that Russ Feingold didn’t run either.

None of those men still have a chance to become President in 2008 but Hillary Clinton does. My first team didn’t take the field this season but Hillary Clinton did. I believe she will run an excellent campaign against the Republicans if she becomes the Democrats nominee, and I think Hillary Clinton will make a good President for America when she takes office in January 2009. I do not hesitate to support her for President.

Of my other options only Joe Biden tempted me by having the skills, qualifications and judgment needed to be elected President in 2008, coupled with enough of an electoral pulse to keep from going D.O.A. before a single primary vote got cast. I don’t see an opening available for him though and I expect Biden’s run will shortly enter history as a footnote to 2008, similar to Senator Bob Graham’s role in 2004.

I think Bill Clinton was correct when he said this; Joe Biden, Bill Richardson, and Chris Dodd are ready to be President now, and so is Hillary Clinton. For the moment at least, of these only Hillary’s chances seem realistic. While I hoped to have a viable seasoned progressive who actually stood against the IWR to support in this race for President, it was not to be. Instead I am supporting a liberal, brilliant, extremely knowledgeable and hard working woman for President.

I’ve already faced it. Politically I am far further left than Hillary Clinton. I’m also far further left than most American voters, so this isn’t the first Presidential election where I find myself in this position. If ever I flirted with going third Party in a close Presidential election; 2000 cured me of that notion. I am not writing this blog to make the decisive case for Hillary Clinton, but I am writing to go on record about who I support for President and why.

All of the arguments have been raised by now for and against all of the Democrats running; it is mostly just a matter of what you believe. I can’t do more than give a brief personal check list here so and I won’t even try to anticipate and rebuff all the contrary arguments. Obviously many see all or part of this differently. They likely will make a different choice than I then.

I simply won’t consider Dennis Kucinich for President when voters in his home state don’t take him seriously enough to consider him a favorite son, and his grassroots activist base can’t even raise the money Kucinich needs to field a modest campaign in Iowa. I might have supported Chris Dodd for President had I ever got the feeling that more than 2% of the public could join me in doing so, while Bill Richardson has demonstrated an uncanny ability to uninspire people who started out inspired to support him. Perhaps I could support Richardson or Biden if one of them was actually viable, but I still wouldn’t feel compelled to. There is nothing about either one of them on whole that makes them preferable to Hillary Clinton for me. Though Biden has a lot going for him, I would rather elect America’s first woman President, just for starters.

As for John Edwards, I won’t consider him in the primaries when his entire political career consists of one term in the U.S. Senate, half of that spent running for President, leaving Edwards with a paper thin record of real political accomplishments much of which he now runs against himself. Someone else with John Edward’s current positions may be electable in America today, but if a real attack machine ever starts up against Edwards his bi-polar moderate sudden morph to progressive political persona will make him a sitting duck. And since he accepted Federal Matching funds and will be tapped out by the primaries, make that a near defenseless sitting duck between mid March and the Democratic National Convention. I question John Edward’s past judgment, I am unimpressed by his record, and I can’t ignore his inconsistencies. So I challenge his claim of electability also.

Which brings me to Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, the two perceived national front runners. Both are fascinating politicians who, if elected President, would shatter a glass ceiling that silently discriminated against millions of Americans for centuries. In either case that counts for something, and to me either counts for a lot.

They draw their appeal from different roots. Hillary Clinton, a prior inhabitant of the White House, draws strength from the recent past - before the calamity of George W. Bush’s two term presidency descended on America. She represents Democratic continuity as heir to the high point of power achieved by Democrats in several decades. While Hillary looks forward to America’s future she doesn’t embody it in the same way that Barack Obama does. He is younger, he is fresh on the political scene, and his race sets him apart from every past President America has ever known, at a time when the day approaches for minorities to make up the majority of Americas citizens. Obama, to many, represents our nation’s future.

Both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are bright and talented speakers, and they both speak carefully as well. Hillary plays up her experience and Barack is consciously inspirational. Their style differs, their appeal differs, but their politics do not differ as much to my eye as many people seem to think.

If Clinton triangulates, so does Obama, but he does so in different terms. Both show a proficiency to not get boxed in or pinned down. Both show an interest in accommodating different viewpoints even if their language stresses differing nuances; Hillary might highlight her ability to work together with different people while Barack might emphasize his capacity to bring different people together. It is not so very different, but primaries are about making mountains out of mole hills while fighting for the higher ground.

For example; the Clinton/Obama flap about their relative willingness to sit down in person with the leaders of nations that may not be our friends. Clinton and Obama essentially agreed but each had a need to appear like they didn’t. For Obama, it emphasized his bold convictions to stress a willingness to sit down with any world leader at any time to discuss the issues that might divide us. For Clinton it emphasized her “years of experience” to stress her understanding of how diplomacy builds from lower level meetings up to a Summit. In practice Obama would see to it that preliminary meetings were held prior to a Summit, and Clinton would make a Summit happen if doing so had any real hope of being fruitful.

To be blunt, I do not view Obama as a great progressive and Clinton as a centrist. Mostly Clinton has a longer record to find fault with, it’s the flip side of experience. Her record is a Liberal one. Obama has a cleaner slate; it’s the flip side of having less of a record, but his short record is no more Liberal than Clinton’s. We know that the Clintons have built practical political alliances over the years, and for better or worse, I see that drive and ability now in Obama also. I see real similarities.

Bill Clinton first got elected President in 1992; call him “Dem Politics 1.992”. Hillary Clinton first got elected Senator in 2000; call her “Dem Politics 2.0”. And Barack Obama first got elected Senator in 2004; call him “Dem Politics 2.04”. Their programs are not that terribly different. Upgrades are nice but not if they have not been sufficiently debugged. And while the latest upgrade might automatically appeal to cutting edge bloggers, that does not hold as true for the general public where the test of time holds greater value.

While I call it a major point in Obama’s favor that he opposed the IWR at the time, I note that unlike all 5 of the past and present Democratic U.S. Senators now running, all of whom voted yes on the IWR as did our 2004 Democratic Presidential nominee also, Obama was not actually sitting in a Senate hot seat when he made his earlier views known.. Me and my girl friend both opposed the IWR at the time also but I have to admit; I don’t think either one of us is any where near qualified to be President. It would be nice if it was that simple but it isn’t. Despite having voted for the IWR I think John Kerry would have made a good President. Despite having voted for the IWR I think Hillary Clinton will make a good President.

I believe while Barack Obama is a tantalizing candidate for President, he is not the right candidate for President at this point in a short political career. He may best represent the future, but we face challenges today that require both a firm grasp on the present and a sure hand to deal with them. That does come with experience. It is true of every field, statesmanship is no exception. Though experience devoid of vision has little to offer, a vision lacking the experience required to execute and achieve it remains a mirage. When last America elected a President, Barack Obama still sat in a state legislature, That was less than four years ago. Obama barely knows his way around Washington yet, let alone the power centers of the world. He will learn, but I think he remains a gifted student at a time when a highly accomplished pro is needed instead.

Both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are greatly talented. I believe his time hasn’t quite come yet but her time has. There really is a difference. Even the brightest apprentice still has much to master. Obama hasn’t faced real storms in National Politics up to now. His opponent in his first run for Senate was a virtual joke and Obama has not yet been called on to defend his record for reelection. His is an amazing story but the telling of it has mostly been positive to date. Obama has not been politically tested – he hasn’t yet faced the national Republican Party gunning to take him down, but Hillary has and she stood tall through it all and never missed a beat. She earned this appointment with destiny. It is time for America to elect our first Female President.

Hillary Clinton will be a strong and confident candidate. Her intelligence and competence will contrast well against anyone the Republicans can throw against her. She knows her stuff and that shows, and she has a popular two term former President standing next to her, and that too will help. Americans know that they were better off eight years ago than they are today, and that is the trump card that Hillary best can play. By and large Americans know what to expect from a Clinton Administration, By and large they expect it to be a lot better than what they have today. And that always wins elections. In uncertain times a strong dash of positive certainty is powerfully reassuring, and that too wins elections.

Hillary Clinton has strong support from women, she has strong support from Unions, she has strong support from racial minorities, and she has strong support from Gays and Lesbians. Each of those populations is a progressive pillar of today’s Democratic Party. Hillary Clinton isn’t my leftist dream for a President, but she is solidly left of America’s center, and we would be fortunate to see her inaugurated in January of 2009. Hillary Clinton now has my full support.

[Adelante]

1. Fifth paragraph from the bottom

You need to correct an embarrassing typo :hi:

[sniffa]

3. was it a mistake?

Romney makes that mistake all the time. i don't think it's a mistake when he does it.

[cali]

6. Of course it was a mistake. The OP used the word Obama

over 20x and got it wrong once. It's a thoughtful piece that says nothing negative about Obama- but da sniffa finds a non-existant ugly odor that isn't there.

Good job by dat sniffa!

I salute his ability to smear!

:patriot: :thumbsup:

[sniffa]

7. it's so wonderful to see you donut

you're the bestest.

happy xmas eve.

:patriot: :thumbsup:

[cali]

8. thank you, my little crumpet. Merry Christmas to you too!

I'm so flattered that you imitate my use of "endearments".

:thumbsup:

[sniffa]

10. imitation is the sincerest form of mockery, guacamole

i hope Santa doesn't miss your house tonight.

:thumbsup:

[cali]

11. Imitation shows a lack of originality, kumquat

but that's OK- I like one trick ponies. They're so cute.

Hope you don't find any lumps of coal in your stocking!

[sniffa]

15. not really ugli fruit

if you find lumps in your stocking, it might not be coal.

:thumbsup:

[Clintonista2]

71. ugh, please don't try to match wits with Cali, Sniffa

You end up embarassing yourself.

[Mythsaje]

120. ROFL

You're kidding, right?

[Tom Rinaldo]

13. Yes it was a mistake

I am notorious for my typos. I am glad to have it corrected.

[Tom Rinaldo]

14. Thanks WesDem! n/t

[Adelante]

16. You're welcome, sweetie

Now if you'd only let me tell you how to vote :evilgrin:

[Tom Rinaldo]

21. If your candidate wins...

...I'll let you tell me how to best advocate for and defend him!

[NoPasaran]

2. A great post and a great analysis

Recommended!

[mdmc]

4. she`will win!

sucks to be us

[Saturday]

5. *Applause* n/t

[BootinUp]

9. Nice post Tom.

I have the same take on the race as you.

[hayu_lol]

87. Same take for me as well, well done Tom...

Interesting...Clark was my hope as well. Darndest thing about Clark though...no one else wanted or would discuss him when it was the time to do so. Happened in the last presidential election and again this time--before the pre-primary race began.

Greens turned up their noses. Indies predominently turned up their noses. America lost a great opportunity.

When you hold our current crop of candidates up to the light, you quickly find that Hillary has the all around edge. She has the added advantage of already having been through the firestorm of Repugnant negativity. She beat them at their own game.

Once she becomes the nominee, the sparks will fly if attacked.

[robbedvoter]

12. Well reasoned as always - even if my vote will not go to her

Actually, not being from the holly 2 primary states, my vote matters to nobody else besides myself - but for my own self respect it will not go to a war candidate.
I do however expect Hillary to become the democratic candidate. So, I am bookmarking this post - to help me vote in the general election - if the horror of the alternative is not enough.
I am not so sure I agree with your objections to Obama but you certainly nailed it on Edwards.
I disagree on Kucinich (who gets my primary vote - if not Gravel) and on Biden - which is the most repulsive on this side of the aisle.

[indimuse]

17. Beautiful.

:yourock:

[TwilightZone]

18. Great post, as always.

The next person that whines about how Hillary supporters never explain why they support her is getting a link to your post.

I'm currently an undecided, but I simply don't understand the animosity and constant hyperbolic blather about Hillary on DU. You'd think that she was the anti-christ around here. Your post provides solid reasons for why she should be strongly considered.

[JohnnyLib2]

19. Aye

and thank you. :thumbsup:

Recommended.

[sellitman]

20. We disagree but..

a well thought out post indeed. I find it hard not to be able to Rip the other candidates in my summations. Your post was very positive.

I also just cannot vote for someone who refuses to admit she made a mistake on the War. I cannot get past it.

[BootinUp]

22. Tom is the Ambassador of the Left

in my humble opinion.

As for the war vote. It is a complex problem in real politics, and the only sensible way to approach it is from that angle. Democrats are not war mongerers. Democrats would not have invaded. Democrats attempted a political move designed to weaken the case for war instead of a head on battle in October that many surmised was a losing strategy. In the end their choice was also a losing strategy, that doesn't necessarily make it a mistake, it may have been the best strategy at the time.

[Tom Rinaldo]

24. Or it may well have been a mistake, lol. I vote for the latter Jim...

...but that just goes with my "portfolio" afterall. I went through my soul searching over this when Kerry was our nominee. I wanted some choices this time that I did not get. I can deal with it.

[BootinUp]

25. I honestly

believe we were in there in March either way.

[sellitman]

35. Hind sight is 20/20

That is why I support JE today.

[Tom Rinaldo]

23. Thank you, and I see integrity in your position also

I had to cover all the candidates because admittedly I came to my decision to support Clinton while using a process of elimination, and to share my reasoning I had to at least minimally address why I eliminated some other choices.

But I would gladly work on behalf of any of the Democrats running against any of the Republicans come 2008. Each is gifted in their way, and all offer hope for a better America than the one we find ourselves in today. I understand why your process of elimination eliminated Hillary Clinton for the primaries. I expect that the overwhelming majority of us here at DU will come together to fight on behalf of whoever the Democrats nominate for President once the primaries are over.

[sellitman]

59. I will.

Those here who won't ..........get on my ignore list.

I don't consider them worthy of my time.


btw...I usually don't recommend threads that don't favor my candidate. I voted yours because of its class and style.

[Mark D.]

102. Not Just That

"I question John Edward’s past judgment"

As a fellow Edwards supporter (by way of Kucinich who I see as now unable to get momentum to win, and Edwards is the next best choice. Of the top 3 most electable, he is closest in his views now to Kucinich, vs. Hillary and Obama). I have to point out this line and see if you'd noticed the issues I have with that line also.

Firstly, past judgement. Mistakes he made. Well, every one that supported the war, supported the patriot act, whatever. Every one of them Hillary made. Hillary, also barely over one term as Senator. Only she went beyond his support of the other side's evil. She recently supported the Liberman bullshit-bill to bash Iran and pave the way towards aggression towards them. Edwards was vocally against it. He wants to bring combat troops home in a year. FINALLY, Hillary says she does too. Hmm. Where did she get that idea?

Don't get me wrong. Hillary will be who I vote for if it's just her vs. a GOP candidate, with no independent running who has a shot (ie. an Edwards/Kucinich ticket, etc.). Because as maligned as she is, she is still better than anyone in the GOP. Just barely better, way too close, but still, a slightly less 'lesser of two evils' in my opinion.

[Tom Rinaldo]

145. Regarding "past judgement"

Both Senators on our 2004 ticket voted for the IWR. All our Senate candidates now running who were in the Senate at the time voted for the IWR. But Edwards was a key Democratic Co-Sponsor of the IWR. His strong arguments in favor of it were featured on the White House Web Site. Not only did Edwards support the IWR, but he went on to literally support the timing of the actual invasion of Iraq. Not only that, he still defended the invasion of Iraq as the right thing to do AFTER he conceded that no WMD's would be found in Iraq. Those "past judgments" differ from those made by other Democratic IWR supporters. I fully understand and appreciate that Edwards has changed his prior views and apologized for once having had them. His current views are very different, and Edwards can be defended in good faith on that basis. But his initial judgment regarding Iraq was extremely problematic.

[chaz4jazz]

157. Just today, Hillary said she would not...

Have voted to give Bush the authorization if she knew them what she knew now. She said there is no reason to apologize for having been duped . Three cheers for those who voted not to authorize but they were in a very very tiny minority. We will never know how Barack would have voted had he been in the Senate when the call was made because he was still in the Illinois legistature. John Edwards voted to authorize, as did John Kerry and a long list of progressives.

I happen to agree with Clinton - why apologize or say you are sorry if you were mislead. You apologize if the mistake in voting for authorization was made while KNOWING that there were no WMDs.

[Evergreen Emerald]

26. beautifully written

and well reasoned. Thanks T.R.

[IA_Seth]

27. Thank you, Tom, for this post.

It says a lot of what I've been thinking.

[desi]

28. A classy endorsement and summary.

Obviously well thought out articulate. If you had written this for any one of our other candidates I'm sure that we Hillary supporters would have enthusiastically supported your choice. A breath of fresh air Tom Rinaldo, KUDOS. :toast:

[SheWhoMustBeObeyed]

29. Thank you for a thoughtful post

I too was disappointed by Gen. Clark's decision not to run, and I have been forehead-smackingly disappointed by the performance of Gov. Richardson, who I found very interesting before he actually began campaigning. I agree with your assessment of Sen. Biden. I detest his support of the credit card industry but I like his assessment of global issues and I admire his ability to think on his feet.

As for Senators Clinton and Obama, their mutual squabbling has affected my opinion of them both. I held Obama in very high regard when I voted for him in 2004, but that began to erode when I never received any response to emails to his office. Sen. Durbin and my rep, Jan Schakowsky, always reply. All I ever got from Obama's people were incessant requests for money. I am totally indifferent to the whole IWR vote flap. It was always nothing more than a damned-if-you-do-or-you-don't vote for Dems, so no one who wasn't in the 109th Congress gets a gold star for opposing it.

I don't have a solid opinion on John Edwards yet, but my gut doesn't like him because he's not a fighter. He's not. It's been pointed out to me that he is a successful trial lawyer, so certainly he knows how to win. But I don't see whatever he does in a courtroom being translated to national politics. Elizabeth, now she's a fighter. But she's not running.

At this point I think Al Gore would be the best candidate precisely because he doesn't want to run. That may show more wisdom than all the others put together.

[The Magistrate]

30. Well Done As Always, Mr. Rinaldo!

You comments are always a pleasure to come upon, Sir!

Best wishes of the Season to you and your's!

[Tom Rinaldo]

33. Thank you Sir, and every one of the sentiments you expressed is mutual. n/t

[Armstead]

31. Great Post though I disagree strongly

You state your position brilliantly. I admire that.

But i disagree with your conclusions. Personally, I think a Hillary nomination and possible election would be a disaster for many reasons.

I believe John Edwards and Obama are the best two chances (among the top tier candidates) to actually move the country in the right direction.

An election for Hillary would be -- at best -- treading water and -- at worst -- a giant step backward. I believe that for two very basic reasons.

1)She is too aligned with a very stale status quo that is locked into neo-liberal, Wall St. Corporate Elite interests. She is the tip of an iceburg that got us into this mess. And that includes so-called DLC Democrats, as well as Republicans.....If we tread water, we might avert a GW Bush-style disaster more than a Republican administratiion would. But it still leaves all of the festering issues ignored or dismissed....Politically it will further erode the differences between the Democratic and Republican Parties. It will politically cement the grip of the so-called "centrists" (a misleading term) and further marginilize the liberal and progressive segments of the party.

2)Personally, she is abrasive and alienating to too many people, and she will bring back all of the weird baggage of the Bill Clinton years. If she were only abrasive to the 1/3 of the country who are diehard rightwingers, that would not be so much of a problem. But she also is alienating to many moderates. And she is alienating to liberal/progressive people -- like myself -- who find her to be a phony who only pays lip-service to real progressive values and ideals. She and Bill are "main chancers" who will be as conservative or liberal as they decide is in their best interests at any given time. It also brings back too many memories of their weird marriage and Slick Willie frustration.


In more positive terms, if we have to have a candidate who is not really a fighting liberal, then I see Obama as a better choice than Clinton. He may or may not initiate strong policy shifts in a better direction. But in either case, he is a fresh start. And he at least would be more open to influences of progressives and liberals.


I decided (after some soul searching) that John Edwards is my guy this time around. I think you sell John Edwards short. Except for the IWR (which you addressed) Edwards has actually been reasonably consistent in his message from 2004 to now. He may be more fiery now -- which I believe is a positive at this point in history -- but he was basically selling the same message in 2004 as a primary candidate.

I also believe Edwards has the smarts and guts to follow through on things. Sure, if elected, he too will compromise. That's part of the job of President. But I believe he will start from a much more constructive baseline starting point, in terms of levelling the playing field between the Majority of the People in the ongoing battle with Big Corporate Interests and Wall St.

[Tom Rinaldo]

32. A fair reply which shows we can respectfully differ

I posted this today not so much to set off another round of debate, but because DU has been my primary online political community for over 4 years, so I felt I owed it to people here to explain the postion I have taken. You do the same in your post and I compliment you for that.

[MGKrebs]

34. Wow. Well said.

Even if I didn't mostly agree with you, it is a compelling and perceptive analysis.
I'm bookmarking this one. Thanks.

[ronnykmarshall]

36. Thanks Tom!

A wonderful and well written endorsement.

[Tom Rinaldo]

37. Happy Holidays everyone.

I now move into a special travel packed holiday schedule so I will less frequently be around her over the coming week.

We are all passionate about making a more just, environmentally sustainable and safer world. That is why we are here gathered. I try never to lose sight of that, even in the heat of disagreements. I truly believe that having any of the Democratic candidates elected President in November 2008 would usher in a new and more positive era for America and the world - and I look forward to fighting ALONG SIDE all of you to make exactly that come true.

[Tellurian]

38. Thanks Tom, for the clear concise overview articulating your support for Hillary

The contrasts you've outlined between our top tier candidates are both fair and accurate. I appreciate and agree with your summation. I would only add one more element to the demographics you noted here: (if you consider it an oversight? If not; why not?):-)

"Hillary Clinton has strong support from women, she has strong support from Unions, she has strong support from racial minorities, and she has strong support from Gays and Lesbians. Each of those populations is a progressive pillar of today’s Democratic Party."

My addition to your demographic would be "Baby Boomers" the pre-Social Security crowd. I believe, there is a huge, unseen, undeniable demographic of support for Hillary there, which would amount to a substantial voting block supporting her as the Dem nominee.

Just my 2 cents worth Tom. Otherwise, your candid observations of which I am in total agreement with, comprise a stellar narrative describing the possibilities designating a historical outcome of the election of the first woman president if Sen Clinton wins the Democratic nomination. Besides the prospects of a history making election if Hillary Clinton is elected President, IS the confidence you feel, as the candidate best qualified, in her ability to re-mediate the dim future looming on the horizon before us.

HAPPY HOLIDAYS! to ALL and You and Yours, Tom!

[Alamom]

39. Thank you. I enjoyed reading your OP very much. rec.nm

[TacticalPeek]

40. You left out the part about RW heads exploding.

And pundits apoplecting.

:patriot:

[papau]

41. Very well reasoned and written - like religion there is a lot of faith flavors in politics and I

don't have to come to a conclusion until after Obama has won Iowa, NH, and SC. I am not yet certain as to whom to put my faith in. But I may well push my vote against the headwind as I have done that many times in the past - I just don't have to decide for another month.

[mtnsnake]

42. Wow, coming from you, Tom, that means a lot

considering you're one of the most respected and down to earth posters on this board. What a fine, eloquently written and meaningful post!

:toast: :thumbsup:

[vssmith]

43. That's two sure votes for Hillary--You and Rupert

[ronnykmarshall]

48. I love RUPERT!

I just ordered his Judy Garland tribute CD!! I can't wait to get it.

So happy he's backing Hillary. That's one smart queen!

[Armstead]

49. gee I thought you were going to say Rupert Everett

[ronnykmarshall]

51. Him too!

WOOF!

[Tom Rinaldo]

90. Self Delete. (Sorry, this post got placed n the wrong place.) n/t

[emilyg]

88. 3 - count me in

[Tom Rinaldo]

92. I was wondering how long it would take for some one to post snark.

I've been on a plane so I don't know if you were actially the first - yours is just the first example I found when I just opened this threqad, but if so let me congratulate you for your efforts to return discussion here to the standard to which we have all so become accustomed.

[NewHampster]

44. Welcome aboard my friend n/t

[MethuenProgressive]

45. "Joe Biden, Bill Richardson, and Chris Dodd are ready to be President now" - Bill Clinton

:thumbsup:

[GOPBasher]

46. Have you seen polls?

The polls consistently show that Hillary does far worse against Republicans than either Edwards or Obama. I don't get how we always nominate the candidate that gives us the least chance of winning. We're about to do it again.

Look at the polls. Compare how each candidate polls against Republicans.
http://www.pollingreport.com/wh08gen.htm

[durrrty libby]

54. Don't Worry about the polls. Once she gets the nom it will be a

whole new ball game. She will win. chill

[phillyliberal]

61. gop basher

GOP Basher- Im right with you pal- nice point.

[mojowork_n]

110. Exactly. The candidate with the most negatives -- and NO personality

That laugh. Those ankles. The warmth, charisma and likability of Nurse Ratched.

No way.

I'm sorry, but you got my ire up dissing my two favorites, Obama and Edwards, as 'lightweight' and "bi-polar". Both of them are so much more articulate and *genuine*.

The reason so many people are so suspicious of HRC is that, unlike just about every other candidate on the Democratic side, she doesn't come across as someone you'd want to spend time with on a cross-country bus ride.

This is the complete text of a January 18, 2001 posting on "Counterpunch":

"A Friend of CounterPunch was recently traveling in a limo from Baltimore to a town in West Virginia and fell into conversation with the driver, who related some of his ferryings to and fro of various bigwigs. One of these was Hillary Clinton. "An ornery woman," the driver commented. "And what a mouth on her!"

The driver went on to describe an occasion on which he was driving the First Lady and a couple of her (female)friends through a poor area of Washington DC. They passed a beggar, and as they did so the First Lady expressed her disgust for the mendicant, adding "He wouldn't be a bum if he had a piece of ass." The driver was able to shed no light on how or why she had arrived at this conclusion, stunned as he was by the coarse nature of her observations. Then they passed two young black women with babies. "There go two welfare cases. They make me sick. They're too lazy to work", said Senator Clinton, champion of mothers and children everywhere."

It's hearsay, taken out of context, but I believe those words were actually spoken, and accurately quoted.

[ElboRuum]

112. People keep telling me...

...that George W Bush is a man they'd like to have a beer with. I want a leader. Not a drinking buddy.

[chaz4jazz]

158. First you make it clear that you hate this woman

Then you make up this "hearsay" story. Why should we believe anything you would say about her when you wear your anti-Clinton position on your sleeve so clearly.

The First Lady, any First Lady, would never speak the way you are portraying her in a car driven by a "outsider" and with female friends. I could never believe that Hillary Clinton would look at two black women with babies and call them "welfare cases." You sir are an GOP hit enabler of the First Degree. You make up this shit and it will be picked up by some RW nutcases and used as fact - quoted from a Democratic blog. You disgust me.

[mojowork_n]

159. Nothing's made up.

It was overheard and published on a website that has a well-deserved reputation for integrity, intellectual rigor and thoughtful candor.

I was shocked and surprised, at the time, but I wouldn't have posted it if I didn't believe it was reported accurately.

Here's the link:

[Tom Rinaldo]

161. Let's just say that we don't exactly agree on how you describe that website. n/t

[mojowork_n]

167. Because...on the basis of...given past, specific postings...?

Thanks for the reply, as casually dismissive as it was.

I should preface this by saying that although I read them, I don't usually agree with the commentary defending the 'One State' (Muslim) Palestinian solution that have been posted on Counterpunch, and I haven't been overwhelmed by the postings on climate change, that the data's too limited and the majority of conclusions are too sweeping. I still respect the general selection of topical subject material, and the contributions of "out-of-the-box" Counterpunch essayists, addressing the major problems of the day.

Where my perception and yours may differ most is that I generally agree with the "things are way more f'ed up than most people realize" tenor and tone of many postings. When you've got a former Reagan administration Treasury secretary, Craig Paul Roberts, and 'way out' progressives like Ralph Nader and Noam Chomsky in general agreement, on those major problems, posting on the same website, I tend to want to pay attention.

And if that means giving a second, or third, look at the actual record of the Clinton administration (NAFTA, welfare "reform", sell outs to corporate interests best exemplified by the Telecommunications Act of 1996), I'm not about to give HRC the benefit of the doubt, because she has some perceived capacity to provide an automatic "win" for the Democratic Party.

Actually, that in itself makes me really, really nervous. It's frightening in that it just could be one more attempt to give us "politics by last name", one of the solutions offered to the American electorate in 2000. The only real reason that The Chimp had a snowball's chance in hell of being elected was that His Daddy had been Commander in Chief. I'm deeply skeptical of a candidate who's biggest qualification for office is a perceived connection to "more of the same."

[Cameron27]

47. Beautifully thought out Tom,

you've captured my thoughts exactly and written them down better than I ever could.

K&R!

[DFW]

50. Nice writing, Tom

Much water has been flowing under the proverbial bridge since "Political Idol"
a few short weeks ago, eh?

I remain agonizingly undecided, and may or may not follow your example, depending
on what I hear in the coming weeks. I don't expect to see any of the "principles"
at Renaissance Weekend this year, as they will probably be spending every waking
minute between Christmas and the caucuses crisscrossing Iowa. In 3 days, I'll know more.

I must say (or, rather, at this point, echo) that I am thrilled to see a well-reasoned
post in favor of a candidate (ANY candidate) that does not waste the reader's time
tearing down others for lack of positive things to say about their own preferences.
And...NO useless polls that will be forgotten by this time tomorrow anyway, whether
or not their source is reliable.

Again, nicely done, and where DO you find the time to do this, anyway???

[Tom Rinaldo]

93. Thanks. In this cqse I found the time in the middle of the night, lol n/t

[DFW]

127. That sounds all too familiar!! n/t

[Auntie Bush]

152. That's when I find the time to read your eloquent posts too.

It's like you read my mind. We think alike but unfortunately (for me) we don't write alike. I'd give anything to express myself as you do. But, since you say what I think... I don't have to bother and you save me lots of time because I'm a two fingered typist and can't type worth a hoot. You get to correct all the typos. lol :loveya:Tom!

Soooo glad you are for Hillary and who knows...maybe she'll ask Clark to run with her and our dream can come true. If she feels someone else would give her a better advantage...I can't believe she wouldn't appoint him to a cabinet post. I throughly believe our country will be in good hands with Bill and Clark behind her. The whole world would love that too. Having the most popular man in the world back in the white house whispering sweet strategy in her ear will be a welcome relief to many...especially me!

Merry Christmas and may all our flights be safe and on time.
Thanks for this post. AB

[BenDavid]

52. Tom, very insightful and thoughtful message. I concur.

[feminazi]

53. Very nice, Tom

I, too, am left of center and more so than most others. I would have loved it if Wes Clark or Al Gore had become candidates.

I began the primary season supporting John Edwards. I agree with his message of two Americas. I gradually came around to supporting Hillary after listening to her in the debates and examining her positions. Believe me...I was very surprised by my conversion.

In the end, I'll vote for any of our candidates over any of the Republicans.

[Name removed]

55. Deleted message

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

[mtnsnake]

56. I'm sure plenty of rightwing nutjobs will agree with you

:thumbsdown:

[Name removed]

58. Deleted message

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

[cali]

60. If you were a tenth as eloquent as Tom, a tenth as able to display

critical thinking skill, someone might take you seriously.

[papau]

62. :-) on GOP side Bush or Nixon was on ticket in 52,56,60,68,72, 80,84,88,92,2000,2004

11 elections out of 14. In 54 years 11 elections with a Bush or a Nixon.

And the GOP won 9 of the 14, winning 7 of the 9 with a Bush or a Nixon on the ticket.

I don't see 2 Clinton Presidencies ( 3 elections) as a problem.

Your dynasties beef appears to be more with the GOP.

[Tactical Progressive]

72. You've managed to pack a couple of the most ridiculous arguments into one post

Probably you were well practiced from all your Christmas gift packaging.

Let's see, she is 'divisive'. It's hard to convey just how truly disingenuous this argument is. First off, whoever Dems nominate, the right will learn to hate them within a matter of weeks across the board. John Edwards probably alot moreso; Obama perhaps slightly less so. Second, are you ready to fold your tent up in a little tizzy like this because your candidate is divisive? Yuh, I didn't think so. I'm guessing that you're more than ready to fight for whoever you're supporting when they end up facing that 'divisive', hateful swarm of wingers everywhere. But when it comes to someone you don't like, well, then it's a big issue. We'll fight for Hillary.

Third, I'm glad Hillary is divisive. The last thing I want is someone the Publicans like. Not after everything that has happened over the last sixteen years. I want divisiveness shoved down their throats.

So far you've managed to be disingenuous, partisan and weak on just the 'divisive' claim.


Dynasty? What an absurdest you are. Hillary should take the blame because GW is such an asshole? You bundle her into their little father and son package? What contrived garbage. If you don't like that a wife or a relative of an existing President gets a leg up on the Presidency, then fine, but don't pack that in with the Bushes. As to that specific reformulation of your argument, frankly, if it takes that kind of stepping stone to help get the first woman into the Presidency, then it's a trivial consideration in breaking that barrier.

And speaking of that, we come to the true ridiculousness of the 'dynasty' complaint. Bill and Hillary spending sixteen years in the Presidency is, in some hyperventilating way a 'dynasty' that needs to be prevented? What about two-hundred and twenty-years of uninterrupted all-male political rule? How's that for a 'dynasty' that needs to be broken? Not as much as stopping Hillary because Bill was already President? Do you even have a clue how insane you sound?

And one more point on this contrived argument, not as big as the last point by any stretch, but relevant: rabid Publicans stole about half of Bill Clinton's Presidency - I'd say about 3 years - with their anger and their resentment and their entitlement to the Presidency, through two years of impeachment, countless investigations and things like blocking Clinton initiatives, not for the betterment of the country, but just so Bill wouldn't have success. It was Newt I believe who admitted that. As far as I'm concerned Hillary has earned the right to finish the first Clinton Presidency. Even if she serves eight years it will be more like three terms between them.

The contrived 'dynasty' argument is for silly people with no sense of perspective. Congratulations.


The rest of your rant is a hodgepodge of you-don't-like-Hillary spatter. You know what you should do, seriously? You should learn to like her. Make the effort. You're bound to come out better than you went in with these frivolous excuses for honest political thought.

[mtnsnake]

78. Beautifully said, TP!

Your post should be a thread in itself. Well done, as usual, my friend! :thumbsup:

[SunDrop23]

57. That's a nice post.

I'm sticking with John until he is out of it, but I will vote for whoever gets the nom. I like Hillary and Barack, so I really hate having to choose between the two.

You did a great job stating your support for Hillary without flying off the handle like a lot of support posts do.

[oasis]

65. sorry delete I meant to respond to the OP .delete.

[BlueJac]

63. So!

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

64. You've obviously given a lot of thought to your decision,

and you've expressed your thinking clearly and well. Even so, I'm not convinced; I will not support Hillary in the primaries and if she's the nominee I'll vote for her only because the Republican would be worse.

I haven't decided on a favorite candidate yet. What I have decided is that Hillary is exactly the kind of politics-as-usual, triangulating, double-speaking, finger-in-the-wind corporatist politician we don't need any more of. Yes, she's smart and well-informed, but so are the other candidates. Experience? She's a one-term senator who used to be a First Lady; big whoop. Many of the others have far deeper and broader experience than hers, especially Biden and Dodd. Even Obama has held elective office longer than she has. And anyhow, even if you count being First Lady as sort of political experience, will it guarantee good results? Dick Cheney had tons of experience, and look at what a disaster he's been. In contrast Eisenhower, who turned out to be a pretty fair president, had no political experience at all.

And Hillary is divisive. The Right hates her intensely and irrationally, and the Left hasn't much use for her either because she can't seem to stay away from big corporate money. I have no faith that she would do much to improve the lot of the ordinary working person. For example, her health plan sucks eggs: It does nothing to get the big private insurance companies' greedy hands out of our wallets, and we can see why: Hillary gets more donations from the private health care industry than any other candidate.

But I guess what nailed it for me was a conversation I recently overheard at a coffee shop one afternoon -- a couple of women were talking about politics, and one of them said she had been watching Hillary doing some interview and realized that she "doesn't even have a normal tone of voice any more." Hillary comes across as phony: she is scripted, poll-driven, focus-group-influenced and consultant-controlled. She seems to lack authenticity and sincerity. I don't know what she really believes in, only what cynical consultants like Mark Penn tell her she ought to be saying.

I don't like that about her at all. Whoever gets my vote will get it because he's persuaded me that he genuinely believes what he's saying and that he'll fight and not back down. I don't get that from Hillary, not a bit.

[GreenTea]

66. Hillary with far too much negatives, easy pickins with baggage and she a disgusting moderate!

Little does this FDR liberal despise more than moderates....They'll sell out the progressive liberal ideology & agenda in a heartbeat....where ever the direction republican corporate money is flowing!!

Hillary Clinton and Bush share the same foreign policy....she'll pretend otherwise. However, Hillary/DLC is obliged to the big money, war profiteers, just pay attention how she's voted and what she really says (and not the 30 second sound & news clips)....It's without question why republicans want her to be the Dem nominee for president, it's why republicans donate to her campaign, it's what republicans/Fox news call her the best democratic candidate, it's why the republican media produce polls every day telling pushing how Hillary is so far ahead, it's why republican love to talk about how much money her campaign has.....Hillary certainly is no Bill Clinton (whom I voted for twice) and where would this moderate woman be today, without Bill....running for president...get real. And Ms Clinton, a self admitted "moderate" - how can any liberal vote their conscience and give their vote to a moderate? Translation she's middle of the road, will support some Democratic issues and wants & republican issues and wants.

As for myself and many democrats it become a question of strong progressive democratic ideology and conviction, no moderate fits into that frame work in our book, and not another moderate will ever again get my vote....Kerry being the last one.

For television corporate big 5 channel news watchers like yourself...No doubt you've seen every poll, all of them showing John Edwards wins easily & big against any republican nominee (republicans know this well and are not just sitting on their asses, they are pushing the candidates on the five corporate, all big republican donating news channels). - Of course the republican are as happy as can be that they haven't allowed Edwards to surface keeping him in the background....Republicans are ecstatic that the their corporate media is convincing fools that their real choice is only between an African-American or a woman, man republicans at the NRC are just hoping this all continues.... Republicans of course want a woman to be their opponent, they absolutely see it as their best chance to keep the race close and keep the presidency, certainly an Edwards or Biden or Dodd would kick republican ass and republican know it and keep the eye and camera always on Hillary & Obama in focus...keep their feud going like some soap opera...Republicans haven't hidden their glee old Hillary is their choice they know and anyone with brains know Hillary is a divider....every republican will vote against her with passion, many Dems will vote third party or not at all if she's the candidate (and I know many democrats who won't vote for a moderate like Hillary) the moderates 'swing voters" certainly won't be voting for her in droves after the republican attack machines goes into full speed...these are moderates, wishy-washy, which ever way the win blows voters....the best Hillary could hope for is a close race....when it should be and will be a complete blow out for experience Dem candidates....Notice even Bill Clinton wouldn't mention Edwards name, that's also his along with the republicans biggest fear to Hillary....Edwards who beat old republican favorite Jesse Helms to become US Senator, Edwards the Dem Candidate for Vice-President, Edwards the fighter, a fighter for the people his whole career fighting the same corporations that make up the republican party's power & money and they absolutely despise Edwards!....As for ex-republican Hillary, now labeling herself as a moderate Democrat....What has she ever done but go with & vote with the flow....whether it's the republicans with a popular bill or the Democrats, like a good little moderate does. "Hilary unifies the (republican) party. It motivates the base," explains Grover Norquist. Although Clinton has no lock on the Democratic nomination, Republicans are on an obsessive quest to pick a Hillary slayer for 2008".http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2007/08/01/hillary_obsession/

"According to the biased-conservative-news-media, Clinton is where Big Business wants her: in the middle of the road between the Republican right wing of Congress, and the moderate Democrats in Congress." Exactly where Hillary is!!!

In other words, The Wall Street Journal and America's right wing have successfully changed our definitions of balance and moderation. Traditional "Eisenhower Republicanism" (Clinton) is now considered moderation, and is almost nonexistent in the Republican party. Traditional "Truman Liberalism" is now considered extremist and is increasingly rare in the Democratic party.

This means that big corporations, the wealthy and the powerful have convinced the American voter that:

*Workers' wages are low, not because they lack power, but because they are uneducated and poorly trained

*Unmanaged free trade will eventually benefit all Americans

*The growing wealth and income gap in our society is good because it is fair (the wealthy work harder and have more talent) and it will eventually benefit everyone

*The more money our richest citizens take out of our corporations and our society, the better off everyone will be

*High taxes on our richest citizens are unfair and hurt the economy

*Money, greed and raw political power have nothing to do with what voters believe about the above

8And, in general, no one should try to change any of the above because that would be "big government," and, besides, these "temporary abberations" are the natural, inevitable forces of a healthy economy.

Republicans have been very effective in palming off these economic absurdities. Even many former liberals have changed sides, having joined the ranks of the affluent, and having forgotten what kinds of governmental policies got them there.

http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/08/07/3058/

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/15825410/the_real_liberal

[LaPera]

76. Great post . These media mapniulated robots here don't even have a clue.

[ronnykmarshall]

80. Oh how nice.

:eyes:

[cali]

114. bwahahaha

tom can at least right in whole paragraphs- thoughtfully, and with panache. You, on the other hand, sound like an ignorant koolaid drinking fool.

[Mythsaje]

122. Cali, you're a one-tune negative tone.

You're no better.

[cali]

125. that is not true. You see what you want to see. But the truth is

I write plenty of positive posts, and I would never go into a thoughtful thread like this one and piss all over it. You can't see the difference, but that certainly doesn't mean it's not there.

[Mythsaje]

138. We've had this discussion before...

From what I see, you act like you're the only person who can actually see anything...the single sighted person in the land of the blind.

[ElboRuum]

113. You know...

As a moderate, your post may have had value to me. But since you have issues with my kind, I think I'll just toss your little screed in the bit bucket.

[BootinUp]

136. whats a bit bucket?

is that like for a horses bit? lol.

[ElboRuum]

163. It's where...

...I throw all of the electrical impulses from teh internets of little use to me.

[oasis]

67. Congratulations TR, your post is easily one of 2007's "Thoughtful Top Ten".

:toast: :bounce::party::bounce::toast:

[FrenchieCat]

68. Great rational deliberate Reasoning.......

and a most thoughful post! :thumbsup:

You are one of the several here whose opinion I respect immensely!

I could think of much worse results for Democrats than a Hillary Nomination.

Thank you for giving much food for thought!

Have a Great Holiday, Tom...... :hi:

[Tom Rinaldo]

94. Happy Holidays to you too Frenchie, the feeling is mutual

You always give your honest opinions and are prepared to stand behind them prepared with thoughtful arguments. You don't hold back anything, but you always tell the truth as you see it. We need as much of that as we can get around here.

[Lucinda]

69. Congratulations on making your choice.

And beautifully said. :thumbsup:

[cadaverdog]

70. Never have so many words been spent to so little effect.

I fear that Hillary is the lightning rod that will bring Republicans to the polls in numbers sufficient to re-elect a Republican president. This is not simply an opinion, but rather it is based on current polling data.

This race will be decided by independent voters, and Hillary is not their choice for President.

Hillary is part of the big Democratic machine. She is beholdin' to many, many special interest groups who are contributing to her campaign, including the health and insurance industries. Like Rahm Emmanuel? You'll love Hillary.

Hillary has a poor record on very important issues of late, including the Iraq "war," Presidential powers re: FISA, etc.

See Hillary's recent comment on voting for the "War" because Condi Rice said it was OK. http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=2519659&mesg_id=2519659

Do we really need to swap one dynasty for another? A careful re-examination of the Bill Clinton years shows a dismantling of the Middle Class. Yeah, that "sucking sound" really is American jobs leaving the Country.

Nuff said.

[ronnykmarshall]

81. Maybe not an effect to you.

You've made up your mind. People that come and shit on a well written and a post from the heart have no effect either.

Just another pile on the manure stack.

[cadaverdog]

142. What a lame "reply"

Hopefully you are not representative of the Hillary base. A brain-dead Democrat is no more attractive than a similar Republican. I spent some time listing a number of reasons that I think make Hillary less than the ideal candidate. Instead of actually "replying" to my post, you simply chose to attack me personally in a crude and immature fashion.
This is how you support your candidate?

[BootinUp]

144. Your reasons are very subjective and read

more like character assassination than an honest candidate comparison.

[ronnykmarshall]

155. How how sweet.

Love you too. Mean it.

Gobama!

[David Zephyr]

73. Well written and I respect your choice, Tom.

I am not a Hillary basher and she may well be our nominee. You are one of her supporters that do her great good and I wish more would follow your model.

DZ

[FlyingSquirrel]

74. It's a very nice post, somewhat convincing, but...

I still think whether she would be a good president or not is immaterial, if her candidacy galvanizes the Republican party and results in their guy winning. She loses against most of their candidates and I don't see that changing. It's too risky. That leaves Obama and Edwards; either of which would make a good president. I see no reason to talk about experience when GWB took office as the most incompetent person ever to run a state or anything else he ever ran. Put Edwards and Obama together on a ticket (either one being at the top of it) and you've got a winner. Put either of them on a ticket with a good running mate and you've also got a winner. Put Hillary Clinton on a ticket with anyone and you have what might be termed... (listen up, Bill...) a roll of the dice.

[Laurab]

85. I agree - very nice post, and nice to see from a Hillary supporter.

I couldn't disagree more with the OP, but it's nice to see a thinking, rational person state their case for choosing Hillary.

I too am afraid her nomination would be the best gift we could give the republicans, as far as GOTV. There was an article in my local paper last night about a Hillary win, saying she starts out nationwide with 47% negatives, and also stating what I already thought about how repukes feel about her in the "red states" - it's not deserved, but it's fact. I compare it to the way we feel about *.

The other candidates don't start out with those high negatives, and most repukes I know don't like ANY of their candidates, and may sit out the election - the one exception being if Hillary wins the nomination. THAT will get-out-the-vote for repugs like nothing else.

That is my main reason for not supporting Hillary. We NEED a dem that can win. I'm sure she would do an adequate job as President if she were to defy the odds, but worry that even then, everything she tried to do would be a fight - the country would probably remain as divided as it is now.

I am comfortable with Obama or Edwards - with a good running mate, maybe someone from a red or swing state, the election is ours for the taking. I wish Biden would pull ahead, because I think he, too would be an excellent President. Personally, I don't think Hillary is going to win the primary, but if she does, it's going to take everything we have to get her elected, and even then, it might not be enough.

[Tom Rinaldo]

97. I think she would be surprisingly strong

I think all the ridicule and hate thrown non stop at Hillary Clinton is starting to stir a backlash against it. There are a hell of a lot of women voters in this nation. And the way our culture works most who are over say 35 have had to at least contemplate gender based ageism in America, and more universal fears about and limits placed on the power accorded women in our society.

To listen to the type of trash Rush is peddling women should start wearing Burkas at age 40, maybe 50 at the max, unless they get a special permit from the "civic beauty police" to go uncovered in public up to age 60 (to allow for exceptions like the occasional Sophia Loren).

Much has been speculated in the past about closet racism shifting actual votes a couple of percentage points away from a minority candidate, compared to what people might tell a pollster before hand. Many years ago Mayor Tom Bradley of LA was thought to narrowly lose the California Governor's race over that. More recently people speculated back and forth about Harold Ford. I think closet racism is a rapidly waning force when it comes to distorting polls, but I predict we will discover something new if Hillary Clinton wins the Democratic Nomination for President: Closet feminism.

I expect many more Republican women will vote for Hillary Clinton than will openly admit those intentions to a pollster. And it will be the efforts of men like Rush Limbaugh that will help drive them to it.

The Republican base has melted down to a hard core who may be mobilized to fight Hillary, but they are a spent force. I have to board a plane so I must stop here for now.

[nevergiveup]

75. Nice post

Personally I remain convinced that it is Obama's time but you make a good case for Hillary and you remain positive which is refreshing.

[avrdream]

77. Very well worded and fair in your analysis.

I remember when the Republicans couldn't even find a viable candidate to run against HRC in New York. Anyone remotely decent seemed to run away from running against her. I do think there is a real fear amongst the GOP about Hillary being the Democratic nominee and it comes down to that experience you speak of.

Thanks Tom.

[dharmamarx]

79. A note on race and sex

I'll tentatively accept your point that "experience" in some form matters (although Clinton has a lot of "experience" that I dislike), and there are other ways to acquire "experience" (who your advisors are, etc.). But your points about the candidates race and sex (that they would "shatter glass ceilings") is mistaken and a good example of what is wrong with multiculturalism in general. The way one "shatters the glass ceiling" that oppresses these groups is by eliminating the cause of that oppression: economic inequality. One does not "shatter glass ceilings" by electing token representatives of oppressed groups. Multiculturalism is often accused of hiding real inequalities by creating surface equalities: we have a woman president so we can ignore economic inequality between men and women; we have an African American president so that we can ignore the percentage of African American men in jail. (This is Condoleezza Rice in a nutshell.) This problem certainly doesn't count against Clinton or Obama, but it is entirely the wrong reason to support them.

[eridani]

82. Let's have a nice round of applause from the military-industrial complex

She's their girl too. What do they expect to get from their investment?

[undeterred]

83. Exactly.

She has nothing to offer me. And this post made that perfectly clear.

[rodeodance]

84. thanks for the post. wonderful to read.

[natrat]

86. hillarys sucks

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

103. Now THAT kind of comment adds exactly nothing to this discussion.

The OP was respectful and well thought out, even if some of us, including me, might not agree. You'd better be prepared to back up your opinion with some level of analysis. "Sucks" is not thought, it's not analysis -- it's just childish and dumb. At least show the OP a little respect.

[ronnykmarshall]

109. Oh how insightful.

Did you thinks that "hillarys sucks" one up all by yourself?

[bluewisdom]

89. now that's what i'm talking about!

:party:

[johncoby2]

91. wow. Long, but pretty good. We got great candidates!

Hillary or Obama or Edwards would be fine by me, but I am a Hillary fan.

If she doesn't get the nod, I will support who ever does.

I live in Texas and will probably not be in play for the primary, but I'm voting Hillary anyway!

[Rowdyboy]

95. Congratulations and well done....though I prefer a different candidate (Edwards)

I've always respected your opinions because they are so well reasoned and analytical. You certainly spoke for me in 2004 in your many defenses of Wes Clark and I'm sure that soon (probably right after February 5th) we'll be on the same team again.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

96. Good luck to ya.

:I

[ClarkUSA]

98. Obama was running for the Senate when he made his 2002 speech opposing IWR

This is according to Senator Dick Durbin, on this video: http://iowa.barackobama.com/page/content/iowagettoknow

You're making it sound as if he had little to lose. He made his opposition known at a time when around 80% of
the population favored going to war while he was running for office. He exhibited political courage not calculation
and his judgment as to what would happen afterwards has proved eerily correct. The choice is between a candidate
with very good judgment and less "experience" or a candidate with very bad judgment and more "experience." The
choice is clear to me. Of course, there are many many other reasons I do not support Hillary but her politically
expedient vote for IWR is the foremost one and one I cannot rationalize away.

To end on a higher note...

Have a Merry One :hi:

[pettypace]

99. Obama

Question is will Obama ever get the opportunity to get to 1600 Penn if he loses this primary?

[DFW]

140. For me to answer that question in the negative

There would have to be a lot LESS to him than I think there is.

[jenmito]

100. I totally agree with what you said about Edwards, but it's not true that

Obama's record is no more Liberal than Clinton’s. His record IS more liberal than Clinton's as shown here:
"Barack Obama of Illinois had the most liberal voting record in 2006. He was more liberal than 86 percent of the Senate. Chris Dodd of Connecticut was close behind - achieving a mark of 84 percent more liberal. Joe Biden of Delaware rated 77.5 percent. Hillary Clinton of New York had the lowest overall liberal score in 2006, clocking in 70.2 percent."


http://blog.washingtonpost.com/thefix/2007/03/mirror_mirror_on_the_wall_whos.html

[BootinUp]

141. The truth is

that they are both on the liberal side, comparisons vary depending on what year of Senate service you look at and what method of scoring is used.

http://nationaljournal.com/voteratings/pdf/06democrats.pdf

[jenmito]

146. Obama's liberal average is 86% and Hillary's is only 70.2%. Thanks for the back-up!

;)

[BootinUp]

147. I trust you saw the lifetime numbers

78.8 to 84.3.

And there are other organizations that rate Hillary more liberal than Obama as well.

[jenmito]

149. Oh, that's right...Obama's lifetime average is more liberal than Hillary's by about 6%...

Thanks again. :)

[BootinUp]

150. She has a "liberal" voting record

thats my point. thank you.

[Time for change]

101. With respect to Edwards' "sudden morph to progressive political persona"

I don't think that's fair to him.

Four years ago a major emphasis of his presidential campaign was fighting poverty. That is a very progressive position, and one that few candidates of either party are willing to embrace, largely because the poor don't vote as much as other people, and they certainly don't contribute much money.

[Tom Rinaldo]

139. To be clearer

My stress in the phrase you question was on "persona". As in public political persona. I am not questioning his commitment to the issues Edwards is raising now, nor did I claim that he was previously unconcerned about them. What has morphed (in my opinion) is how Edwards has taken on much more of an anti-establishment tone for 2008 compared to 2004, and it is the dramatic shift in tone that creates a perceived sharp contrast which changes his political persona. The greater shift in actual positions took place between most of his Senate days to after Edwards began running for President. And my comments mostly concerned how the Republican Party will attempt to exploit the Senate Record Edwards has compared to how he presents his current candidacy.

[muryan]

104. very well defended and explained

ive expressed similar sentiments about my vote for HRC but its usually drowned out by the same crowd.

[Roland99]

105. So, Hillary's rather short time in the Senate kissing Corporate and AIPAC ass is worth it?

Enjoy your GOP-lite candidate.

[tandot]

106. Well, our favorite was Bill Richardson, but it seems like he is "uninspiring" to lots of people

including us. Presidential election seem more and more like beauty pageants.

Thanks for your thoughtful post.

Clinton isn't our first choice, but we'll vote for her if she gets the nomination.

[Olney Blue]

107. Thank you for your intelligent, thoughtful post.

:thumbsup:

[Richard Steele]

108. Thank you so much for posting this, Tom. Although you have not swayed my opinion...

...your thoughtful and well-written post is a welcome change
from the utter garbage which too many here attempt to pass off
as "supporting Hillary".

I really DON'T believe that all of them genuinely support her.
Frankly, I suspect that some are ANTI-Hillary trolls attempting
to create the impression that her fans are hateful, pigheaded loons.

But I do believe you, and I thank you again for taking the time to write this.
I recommended this post.

Richard Steele

[lostnotforgotten]

111. Good For You - I Will Never Vote For A Bush War Enabler!

eom

[Jai4WKC08]

153. I guess you won't be voting for a Democrat this time n/t

[Political Heretic]

115. The difference between your declaration of candidate support and mine:

Is that yours spends more time trashing all the other candidates instead of talking about your own. That's unfortunate, I think.

I'm glad you've found your candidate. I think Hillary is a brilliant woman, and excellent politician and completely capable of being President of the United States. Good luck and we'll meet up and shake hands at the convention. :)

[silverojo]

116. I resent that "bipolar" crack in your post

A person who (as you're falsely claiming) has 2 different opinions is NOT "bipolar", and it's a real insult to people who are. Bipolar disorder is a MOOD disorder, which has NOTHING to do with changing intellectual opinions, as you're implying.

There's nothing wrong with posting your own opinion, but leave the insults out of it. Millions of people are suffering from bipolar disorder, and it's utterly disgusting of you to use their suffering as some sort of smart-ass insult.

[cali]

121. perhaps you didn't know that

bipolar doesn't only refer to or mean bipolar disorder.

[cilla4progress]

117. Thank you.

Your well-reasoned, well-articulated post will most likely form the basis for my ultimate choice. Thanks so much for that.

[recovering democrat]

118. Thanks and some additional comments

I am overjoyed to see this kind of well thought out posting about Senator Clinton. Your reasoned arguments are valuable and thoughtful for this site. I agree,in part, but have some separate reasons for my support. Most of it was reinforced by reading the comments about your post.

I watched Al Gore do the statesmanlike thing and concede, and then watched John Kerry do the same thing four years later. The Democrats have driven me nuts with their "do the right things" while Republicans have lied, cheated, and yes, stolen elections. I look at where Senator Clinton has been, who she is, and what she has been through, and with complete confidence I am convinced she will not be on the losing end of a stolen election. And that is what matters to me in preserving this nation.

Then, there is "swift-boating". People, the Republicans haven't started on Senator Obama yet, or any other Democrat. The started on Senator Clinton years ago and have not let up. I think about the forcing of apologizies from the Clinton campaign about negative comments about him. Do you honestly believe those comments will not explode in his face when leveled by the Republican candidate for President and that person's swift-boat buddies? The right-wing crazies do NOT apologize for being "insensitive". They thrive on it. Has it occurred to any of us that the Republicans may be licking their chops waiting to take on Obama - where exactly are the people represented by the poll results that shows him picking up Republican support. Are they progressive Republicans, or wolves waiting for the kill?

Worried about her "negatives"? Nope. Look at the insanity of the entire Republican slate still running. Look at the awesome choices of the Demnocrats. When I break it down to Clinton and name any other Democratic candidate I see one candidate who has taken the best they have to throw at her, and is still standing, and still leading. The rest of the field are just more examples of the goodness of the Democrats. "An ornery woman"???? YES!!!!!!!!

[eden]

119. whatever

Maybe I'm just being a grouch right now but lately, I really don't think it matters who wins. Our country is a mess. Our government is a bad joke. And the majority of us-passive ignorant fools.
Hence, we get people like you-who will vote for a person who wont apologize for supporting this war.
And furthermore, has the nerve to run for president. Whatever. I'm just disappointed that her and Obama have to be the first black person and woman with a really good shot at winning. I expected
those candidates to be GREAT.

[HughBeaumont]

123. Nice post. Don't really . . . agree with a single word of it . . . but at least it's well written.

[Beacool]

124. Lovely endorsement and may it come true!!!!

Merry Christmas!!!!

[Diane R]

126. Oh please. Not Hillary. The woman simply cannot tell the truth.

[slay]

128. I understand your statement - but Edwards (if not Kucinich) will be mine

Kucinich rocks - so does Gravel. But it seems the fix is in and Edwards will probably be our best hope. And sorry to say, don't go kidding yourself, there are men out there who just will not vote for a woman president period. You'ld think we would have advanced more, but I do not believe we have. I konw many, many, many people who would not only vote Edwards over Hillary, but would even vote Ron Paul over Hillary. Just so ya know. :shrug:

[RadioactiveCarrot]

129. While I disagree,

A well thought-out and honest article is refreshing in matters of politics.
And on a side note, if she happens to win, picking a progressive VP may make the bitter pill easier to swallow for many.
It seems too often that the progressives in the party are told to shut up, fall in line and vote for candidates who don't really represent us. Something like that may help perhaps?
Nice article anyway, definitely a change of pace from current political discourse.
Merry Christmas to ya.

[DFW]

130. You brought up an interesting point

So valid, in fact, that I deleted my reply here, and started a separate thread! LOL

[km1550]

131. Spare Us Please!!!

Hillary is an insincere snake-oil saleswoman. She spouts nothing but meaningless talking points. Her votes have done nothing I would expect from a good Democrat.

Hillary is Bush-lite; a corporate drone.

The world needs and demands someone who truly has the best interest of Americans.

Pease -- DON'T VOTE FOR HILLARY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

:puke:

[BenMarbleMD]

132. Hillary = 100% guaranteed LOSER

Not only is the Hillbeast a guaranteed 100% loser in the general election (yeah I know the dems ALWAYS shoot themselves in the foot) but she is a FOLLOWER not a leader. She takes a poll and follows the results making that her new position. She is the single person in this race most unfit to serve. But go ahead keep on living in the past and see what it gets ya.

[cali]

134. ah yes, freeperisms. Perhaps you should return

to rimjob's zoo.

[BootinUp]

137. You mean she cares

about what her constituents want? Gee that'll be a welcome change.

[CyberPieHole]

148. Thank you for your concern, BenMarbleVD...

your post has gone into my "round file".

[Maryland Liberal]

133. Sounds like you were holding your nose ....

when writing this article.

[Tom Rinaldo]

143. Not at all.

But I did document the process I went through of working through my disappointment about not having some other choices for President this year. I realize that "holding your nose" to vote is accepted political slang for accepting much less than what you really want. By that framework i have held my nose with the overwhelming majority of votes that I have cast in my life. My support for Clinton is real, it is greater than what i feel for any of our other candidates - and by historic standards I think all of our candidates have the potential to be "good Presidents".

[bread_and_roses]

135. Support a candidate who won't ban cluster bombs and land mines?

I honestly don't know how anyone who calls him/herself a "progressive" can support this candidate. Everytime I read about her score on women's issues, environmental issues, labor issues, all I can think of is the support and votes she's given to the very war-industrial corporatist machine that is fueling the global environmental catastrophe and slaughter of children.

http://www.fpif.org/fpiftxt/4803

Hillary Clinton on International Law
Stephen Zunes | December 11, 2007

,,,Ironically, the current front-runner for the Democratic nomination for president shares much of President Bush’s dangerous attitudes toward international law and human rights.

For example, Senator Hillary Clinton has opposed restrictions on U.S. arms transfers and police training to governments that engage in gross and systematic human rights abuses. Indeed, she has supported unconditional U.S. arms transfers and police training to such repressive and autocratic governments as Egypt, Morocco, Saudi Arabia, Oman, Pakistan, Equatorial Guinea, Azerbaijan, Cameroon, Kazakhstan, and Chad, just to name a few. She has also refused to join many of her Democratic colleagues in signing a letter endorsing a treaty that would limit arms transfers to countries that engage in a consistent pattern of gross and systematic human rights violations.

Civilian Casualties
Not only is she willing to support military assistance to repressive regimes, she has little concern about controlling weapons that primarily target innocent civilians. Senator Clinton has refused to support the international treaty to ban land mines, which are responsible for killing and maiming thousands of civilians worldwide, a disproportionate percentage of whom have been children.

She was also among a minority of Democratic Senators to side with the Republican majority last year in voting down a Democratic-sponsored resolution restricting U.S. exports of cluster bombs to countries that use them against civilian-populated areas. Each of these cluster bomb contains hundreds of bomblets that are scattered over an area the size of up to four football fields and, with a failure rate of up to 30%, become de facto land mines. As many as 98% of the casualties caused by these weapons are civilians.

...more

Is this really what we want in a President?

[PeaceNikki]

151. Thank you for a well-reasoned and well-written post

:applause:

[Think82]

154. If you vote in an early state I would say vote for Biden.

This is the problem.. People say "Oh, yeah, Biden's probably the best, but I don't think he can win." Well, if all those people voted for him, he WOULD WIN!

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

156. Who says "Oh, yeah, Biden's probably the best, but I don't think he can win?"

:shrug:

[Zensea]

160. This is all too predictable

I never could decide whether to believe that Clark was a front for the DLC back in the last election or not (I'm sure folk remember that talk).
But here it is 4 years later and Clark, who is supposedly liberal, backs Clinton & then one of Clark's main supporters here in the last election backs Clinton.
Why am I not surprised?
Despite all the apparent thought out reasoning for such a decision, it smells an awful lot to me like rationalization in order to justify a decision that had been made long ago (although probably not consciously).

[Tom Rinaldo]

162. Yes, your post was all too predicatable

I am only surprised it took someone so long to use my OP to make this spin. There are few posters on DU who take more time to explain what it is they think and why than I do - and it's been that way for a long time. That's not always a plus, many of my posts would more likely to be read if they were shorter, but I don't exactly hold secrets around here. You or anyone else can go to my blog linked at the base of this post to see when and why I decided to support Wes Clark. And you just read a pretty long post that describes why I now support Hillary Clinton. It is so kind of you to credit me with "apparent" thought out reasoning.

[Zensea]

164. I did go to your blog ...

before I made my post.
It's not spin on my part, but my genuine feeling regarding it.
Probably the reason it took so long for someone to make the point is because as near as I can tell most of the responses have been cliched -- either from gung ho Clinton supporters or detractors who engage in Pavlovian responses. Well, my response is not.

I'm also quite familiar with your writing over a long period of time since I remember when you used to post at PFC and I used to be quite familiar with the reasons you supported Wes Clark, although these days I don't remember them in detail. I certainly don't remember them as being because of you personally having some hidden agenda vis a vis the DLC. My raising that possibility about Clark (or more accurately raising the point that it was said about Clark) was not intended as a comment on your motivations.
I probably should have avoided using the word apparent the way I did since I think that you sincerely have thought your reasoning out. It wasn't supposed to be a knock on your conscious thought process, although I can see how it might come across that way. When I say it is predictable, I was thinking of it somewhat in the terms that Tolstoy talks about in his philosophical treatise at the end of War and Peace where he discusses how each individual who marched with Napoleon to their death in Russia acted through free will but seen from a distance it appears to be fate.
All your finely thought out reasoning ends up backing someone who is essentially a status quo politician which in my terms seems to be a bit of a surrender.
Thus my comment about it being predictable.

[Tom Rinaldo]

165. OK, Thanks for clarifying. I accept your comments are sincere also.

In politics there are many examples of people who are on friendly personal terms running against each other for the same office. Chris Dodd and Joe Biden are friends for example. John Kerry and Wes Clark were previously friendly when Clark entered in 2004, it happens in primaries all the time. It isn't different than my own life where at points in the past both I and one or more friends have competed for the same job. I am convinced Clark would have run against Clinton if he felt there was a clearer opening fo him to do so and win. That is what people I know who know him better than I say. That is what Clark says. Personally I think the sudden rise of Obama last winter was something that Clark did not forsee. With Clinton pulling in her chips (including some Clark probably would have had had she decided not to run) Clark counted on harnessing much of the remaining political support that wasn't already locked into Edwards. between Obama rising, and many people holding out for Gore, he didn't find the opening that he needed to run himself. Clark held out a long time before giving up on a run and endorseing Clinton in September. There is no reason why he needed to delay endorsing Clinton until September if he wanted to back her all along. Spring would have made more sense.

[Sparkly]

166. I appreciate your post, Tom.

It's odd that it seems sort of daring to write about Clinton without the usual "common wisdom" platitudes. But it is refreshing!

(I'm feeling kind of out of this one -- not really supporting anybody.)