The real reason the Republicans fear Hillary Clinton

[NewHampster]

She is a woman.

Yes. This race is about that unspoken, not PC thing called gender but more importantly it is about the un-polled masses, the invisible ones, the ones who never get a campaign phone call, the ones who have never voted before and may not even know the candidate's names.

The right fears the Mary Magdalene's of our day. They know that the day after a woman is nominated for President, millions upon millions of Marys will register to vote for the first time in their lives.

On a recent trip to Las Vegas I wore my Hillary button everywhere I went. A few local women came up to me and said they had registered to vote for the first time; just so they can vote for Hillary in the Nevada primary. Left out of society women, hookers and strippers. The hotel union members, bartenders and the women at my local convenience store who have told me the same story. Hard working women, single mothers struggling to provide for their children. They see in Hillary their chance to finally break through.

They see this not as Hillary's race, they see it as their race. They see it as their chance for the equal rights some still deny them. They see it as a fight for their children and the hope of a better world under a mother's guidance.

The days and months after Hillary is nominated will see the greatest voter registration the country has ever known. Latino women, white women, black women, Asian women and independent women will stand up with their sisters and be counted. Women who oppose Hillary in the caucus and primary's will joyously work to register these women and elect the first woman President. Many Republican men will be living in divided households, meekly explaining why they don't want a woman President.

But the real reason the Republicans fear Hillary. All those newly registered voters will be Democrats and Hillary may very well bring us the super majority that can carry us to 2016 and beyond.

Hillary Rodham Clinton is the greatest threat the GOP has ever faced. She is a Woman.

[saracat]

1. Didn't check with the many women who registered to vote so they could vote AGAINST her , did ya?

I cannot tell you how many women I know who are going to vote against her if she is the nominee. Sorry but those are the facts too.I agree there are some women who are registering to vote for her but believe me twice as many women, including many already registered will NOT vote for her and the GOP women are going to make a special effort to vote against her, and those folks vote.

[The Magistrate]

2. The Reactions Of 'G.O.P. Women', Ma'am, Will Certainly Surprise You

Should Sen. Clinton become the nominee, the campaign will take on such a sub-text of misogyny coming from Republican men that a great many wives in particular will cast votes based on having heard hubby say 'Screw that fucking bitch!' once too often....

[Alamom]

13. You are correct. I have already heard conservative women say they will not

follow the leader/husband this time or anymore. They will vote with women-for women.

They will vote for Hillary.


I've seen more interest in this election than I've seen in many years. I could not have described any within the last few cycles as exiting to watch people. It's very exciting to see so many women come out of the shawdows and say I'm voting........

[Tellurian]

40. I heard the same things last week, Alamom..

A grumbling husband accompanied by a wife standing behind him nodding with a twinkle of delight in her eye...
saying: "Not this time around, dear! We'll take care of worrying about who to elect for President!"

[JeanGrey]

90. Really? Would you believe I don't have ONE FRIEND

who will vote for her republican OR dem?

[wyldwolf]

97. that's ok. I have plenty of friends who will more than make up for it.

[JeanGrey]

108. I'm not sure that is such a good thing.

My vote is going for Biden. I will not vote for Hillary, period.

[MethuenProgressive]

5. Link to your statistics, sara?

[ccpup]

8. never

hatred and misinformation aren't often open to linking.

[saracat]

67. What hatred? The only hatred I see is from a cretain group!

How can I link to what many people are merely stating? I know everything that doesn't support inevitability must be untrue in some eyes.Whatever.Merry Christmas anyway!

[niceypoo]

78. Translation: No statistics forthcoming

[saracat]

80. Why bother? It wasn't that kind of a post and when I post links they are ignored

if they are not what you like. I have posted states before on educated versus non educated women and it was blown off as too "old". Go figure.Merry Christmas anyway!

[CyberPieHole]

84. Link? Or is it just anecdotal evidence pulled out of your...

hat?:evilgrin:

I know 1,000,000 women who registered to vote for the very first time in their life and they are going to vote for Clinton. Nyah~nyah~nyah.

[ronnykmarshall]

48. Oh come now!

Links? That's just crazy talk!

[wyldwolf]

96. will they all fit in your car?

[dugggy]

104. Women will break 65 : 35 for Hillary

but men will go the opposite, 55: 45 against Hillaty.

[MethuenProgressive]

3. "Hillary Rodham Clinton is the greatest threat the GOP has ever faced. She is a Woman."

The Huckabee and Romney Talibanish cults hate women.

[Armstead]

4. I'd rather see a Real Woman cause the GOP to fear

By Real Woman, I mean a woman candidate who really represents the economic interests of women as well as men. Also one who has come up on her own, rather than trailing in on her husband's coatails.

There's many women who would fit that bill. But since none of them are running in this year's primaries, I hope enough women look beyond the blind factor of gender identity and look at who would really represent their interests.

[NewHampster]

6. But if she is the nominee

Will you support her?

[Armstead]

11. Holding my nose to keep the GOP out, yes

But I hope there is a candidate that I can support for positive reasons.

[NewHampster]

16. Thank you fellow Democrat

And Happy Holidays!

:toast:

[Armstead]

21. Cheers!

[maxanne]

85. not a chance

but it has nothing to do with her gender.

It's really dishonest of you to keep trying to insist that those who dislike HRC do so because of her gender, New Hampster.

[ccpup]

9. you obviously know nothing about Hillary

or what she's been accomplishing since 1978. If you're truly interested, take a cursory look at her achievements (even before Bill was Governor) and then defend your assertion that she's riding her husband's coat tails.

[Armstead]

15. I have and I stand by my point

Sure, she is a woman of accomplishment.

But nothing of the caliber that would ascend her beyond the ranks of thousands or millions of other women of accomplishment, except for the visibility offered by her role as former First Lady.

On her own, she is not presidential material. She is even trying to use her husband's coatails directly in her current campaign.

There are many other women in Congress and elsewhere who deserve to be contenders on their own merits.

[indimuse]

36. Hillary

was highly instrumental in helping Bill with his success especially in the beginning... Mutual advantages. geeez... A lifetime of dedication she has given...she is VIABLE! GET OVER IT!

[Armstead]

47. She might be viable but...

there are many others who are more viable but haven't been able to capitalize on the instant access of nepotism.

[sallyseven]

79. Name them. She put herself out there

She got her organization together. The only repuke women I see are those dumb a commentators on TV. Any woman who doesn't vote for Hillary is a wimp. Two hundred years of Male dominance and what do we have? War, Graft, Corruption and indigestion. Lets try something new.

[Nedsdag]

82. Excuse me?

Women are as equally corrupt as men are. Indira Gandhi had Sihkhs killed in India and that purge was responsible for her assassination.

In the business world, Hewlett Packard CEO Patricia Dunn spied on her own employees.

So don't say women are pure because they're not.

[annie1]

88. Really? millions of women graduated from Yale law school....

and fought for schools in ARK to finally have mandatory state testing for teachers and children, and fought for the rights of immigrants, and got healthcare expanded in their state, were the first female law partner in their law firm, was the board chairman of the childrens legal defense fund and ran for the senator of ny at the urging of pat moynihan?! omg! where are they all?!

[cali]

10. I honestly don't think people recognize what a sexist phrase that

one about coattails is. Not to mention the derision inherent in your refutation of her as a "real woman". Sure, she's helped by her husband and so was her Senate campaign, but she's also worked her tail off to get where she is, and it's not just because she's Bill's wife, that she is where she is.

[ccpup]

14. she was much more successful

than Bill before he became Governor and was the breadwinner for the family while he still struggled to get elected and get his political footing.

Yes, it is sexist when someone says that, but, because it's Hillary, well, somehow it's okay. :shrug:

[Armstead]

20. She was successful practicing corporate law

So why is John Edwards' success as an anti-corporate lawyer discounted?

Why is Obama's success as a public-law and community organizer discounted?

[cali]

23. Since when is JE's experience as a plaintiff's lawyer discounted?

I see it mentioned all the time. Same with Obama's experience. And her experience as a corporate lawyer is not what people are talking about when they talk about her experience.

[Armstead]

28. The poster above cited her law career....

And the whole mantra about Hillary being the most "experienced" is based on discounting what Edwards and Obama achieved.

[ccpup]

27. I never brought up Edwards or Obama

I was simply pointing out how, irregardless of said husband's "coat tails", she had a successful career on her own.

[Armstead]

31. I'm not arguing that she did

The coatails kicked in when she was instantly elevated to the status of likely presidential nominee the day Bill Clinton left office (and before that).

She carpetbagged to New York, ran against a bad GOP candidate and won as her first public office. Not many people of either gender would be instantly placed into presidential contention on that basis.

I'm not saying Hillary is a failure or a screw up. Simply that her only claim to be President is based on her husband.....

I should amend that. Perhaps if she had not been married to Bill Clinton she would have made it to this level on her own anyway. But that's pure speculation.

[cali]

35. yep. you are clueless about your own sexism. n/t

[Armstead]

46. Most people who know me in real would disagree with you

And I'd say it is reverse sexism to not acknowledge the reality that Hillary would most likely not be where she is today without her husband and the advantages of nepotism.


But it's Christmas Eve and not the day to dissect such things.

[cali]

49. I don't think you recognize that you're doing it and I think you mean well

but you are using sexist language and it's hard to ignore.

Peace.

[Jai4WKC08]

51. Whoa now...

Are you saying that Obama and Edwards were pitted against difficult opponents for their first (and only) Senate terms? Let's face it, neither one had a rough time getting elected, and neither has been tested in a re-election bid. Edwards was apparently afraid to run for re-election.

At least Hillary has been re-elected once, so her constituents obvious approve of her job performance. From what I recall, she won by a very large margin the second time, including in districts that are traditionally very red.

Let's also remember that Edwards started out as a corporate lawyer. He never did a single thing for his community, didn't even take pro-bono cases, before he ran for Senate. Hillary, on the other hand, started her law career working to impeach Nixon, and then for children's rights. She had accomplished quite a lot before she ever became first lady of Arkansas.

[RaleighNCDUer]

61. "...she won by a very large margin the second time, including in districts that are traditionally

very red."

Wouldn't that indicate that she did nothing to particularly upset the Republicans?

Just guessing.

[Jai4WKC08]

64. Perhaps, but that's not the point

I was mostly replying to someone who contends she hasn't accomplished anything on her own. That's just not true, and it's really quite a sexist thing to say.

Say you don't like what Hillary Clinton has done, but don't try to tell me she hasn't done anything.

[Armstead]

95. I never said she never accomplished anything on her own

I am simply saying that she has not done anything great to qualify her to run for president more than many other women who have. The main reason she is so high-profile is because of her marriage.

[RaleighNCDUer]

38. Strawman.

Of course she was more successful than Bill; she was a working lawyer and he was in state politics -- and we all know how well THAT pays.

Try again.

[Armstead]

19. I'd say the same about GW Bush

In Bush's case it is parental nepotism rather than martial nepotism. Nepotism has nothing to do with gender.

The only reason she is a presidential contender is because of who she married. That's coatails.

Sure she is capable. But most of her "accomplishments" are the result of being in the right place, as the spouse of a Governor and then President.

As a legislator, she's been sorta okay...But certainly not in the same league as Biden or Dodd.

[ccpup]

30. same as **?

um, she didn't run every business she touched into the ground and didn't get work because her husband begged someone to hire her.

Nice try, but disappointingly sloppy analogy.

[Armstead]

32. Bush was a governor

And in purely image terms (not reality) he was able to be portrayed as a successful governor.

[GOPBasher]

7. Repubs don't fear Hillary -- they can't wait for her to be our nominee.

It is unbelievable frustrating for me to see this. We are going to do it again, huh? We ALWAYS nominate the candidate with the least chance of winning. Here we go again. Look at these polls, where Hillary consistently does worse against the Repubs than either Obama or Edwards.

http://www.pollingreport.com/wh08gen.htm

[Divine Discontent]

18. I got a thread shut down for merely asking

if anyone thought there were GOP paid Hillary operatives that would do anything to get her as our nominee - NOWHERE in the thread did I say they were at DU, because honestly, we're small potatoes compared to actual radio, TV and news outlets that reach millions. But yet, even asking that question gets my thread locked. Yet, it is unbelievably frustrating for me too, to see so much disgust of her as a candidate and yet, we may be faced with her as a our DEMOCRATIC nominee. And if we're speaking of women voters, the last woman I spoke to said she'd vote for Giuliani over Hillary! We're SCREWED if she gets our nom - screwed! And your point that the polls show this to be true cannot be ignored but yet so many claim that doesn't mean crap. Wake up the few percent on DU that still support her. Every thread I see where they say pick your candidate on here she does extremely poorly. Obama, Kucinich and Edwards always do 15% or more, she's an also ran with Dodd on them. At least I understand how you feel - but we're FAR from alone on this!

[GOPBasher]

24. Thank you.

I was saying all these same things in 2004 with Kerry. Look where we are now. They may have stolen it in Ohio, but if he had another nominee -- perhaps Edwards or Clark -- it wouldn't have been close enough to steal.

[Divine Discontent]

29. you JUST named my 2 faves from 04!

there's a strong majority of people like us on here - we cannot let the vocal 10 or so bash us away. Every online poll here shows we're the strong majority. We're going to LOSE badly if Hillary gets our nominiation. I have a family of DEMOCRATS, bar one, and all the Democrats in my family dislike her and as I said before, without me saying anything first about my own disgust of her as a candidate, and - my closest friends, and people I talk to on the street, in markets, at work, etc, don't like her in a strong majority - so I think we're being coaxed into believing she has a chance. I hope Iowans set this straight. The only downfall to this is the fact that Obama and Edwards splitting the majority of voters. We'll see...

[cali]

26. What a crock of shit. You posted blatantly ugly, lying flamebait

and it got locked. And with one exception, every person who posted on your thread saw what you were doing.

[mtnsnake]

37. Oh gimme an effin break. Here is why you got your thread shut down:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3884269#3884352

[Yael]

59. Exactly.

[Elspeth]

12. The hooker vote--I love it!

Seriously, if women in the sex industry all registered to vote and vote for Hillary, it would help.

[NewHampster]

17. They are the Invisible masses

[Elspeth]

69. I'll bet they are.

More power to'em.

[mtnsnake]

22. You nailed it, NH. Not only do they fear women, but a smart woman is their worst fucking nightmare.

I don't know of any Republican acquaintances of mine who aren't scared to death that this could change the lives of women for the better, whether they're worried about women at home or women in the workplace giving them more competition in the future that they dread.

:thumbsup:

[NewHampster]

25. They really really fear

pissing off their wives and not getting any until after the November election.

[mtnsnake]

33. LOL

Too funny just thinking about that.

If Hillary wins....

The next time some Republican tells his wife to run down to the store to buy him a six-pack, she's liable to tell him to shove his beer where the sun don't shine. lol

[Rock_Garden]

34. 90% of Hillary's supporters have never participated in an internet political forum.

That's not something they do. You will never hear from them here, but they will make themselves heard at the polls.

[mtnsnake]

42. Ain't that the truth, RG

It's surprising how few people around here realize that. It's no small wonder that the sentiments of DU do not reflect what the majority of mainstream American Democrats reflects. If they did, Hillary wouldn't be in the commanding position that she is in all the national polls.

[JAbuchan08]

74. We also wouldn't be in Iraq, and Bush wouldn't be the president

funny how the majority, and indeed the majority of Democrats, can be wrong so often, but they can't seem to recognize the mistakes that lead to these foolish decisions.
It's funny that DUers, who (I assume) disdain the conventional "widsom" which lead to Iraq and the reelection of Bush. Will endorse the tyranny of the majority simply because it supports one of our own.

[TeamJordan23]

39. Recent Zogby poll shows that she loses to all the top GOP candidates. nm

[mtnsnake]

43. All your polls always have her losing just about everything

but nice try...

[NewHampster]

52. Did Zogby poll the hookers and strippers

[Sancho]

41. if the leaders of the world were women...there would be less wars...

it's a fact as sure as global warming....

:dem:

[mtnsnake]

44. I agree. nt

[JAbuchan08]

75. We make war to preserve our "way of life"

and that includes our "Dolce and Gabbana," our "Manolo Blahniks" and "DKNY"

If women are such good and peaceful creatures through-and-through than why do they marry warmongers? Face it a lot of women are attracted to power and, not only do (some) of them support it, but they encourage it.

Look at the socialites of Houston standing by their war-contractor husbands. Look at Imelda Marcos, look at Margret Thatcher.

[Sancho]

98. I'm sure that there are women who would fight wars...

but women are more likely to communicate, more likely to value preservation of life, and don't all dress alike! I'm so tired of debates with black suits and red ties that I could throw up!

[JAbuchan08]

100. Of course there are women who would fight wars!

Look at Hillary. She voted for the IWR and Kyle Lieberman - supported Joe Leiberman against the Democratic party nominee in connecticut and would do the same thing over if she could do it again - yet people on DU (especially) buy into the idea that "because she is a woman" she'd be a more peaceful person than any other candidate - despite having one of the worst records on war and peace.

Testosterone may increase aggression, but frankly I think the "peacefulness" of womankind is exaggerated. Women are precieved as more peaceful because they have less access to the instruments of warfare, they may even be genetically less aggressive than men, but it would be a serious mistake to presume that someone is morally superior (that is what it ultimately boils down to) because they are a woman.

I actually saw a post here which suggested that missles are phallus shaped because men are warmongers. No. It is because that shape is aerodynamically efficient, but that is the kind of thinking that justifies voting for a female war-hawk as the "peace candidate."

On edit: as to the "dressing alike" comment. That is a pretty shallow argument against voting for someone. Our society has defined professional dress for men in certain terms and the male candidates are forced to dress a certain way in order to come across as "serious" and "professional." You can hardly blame the candidates for that. Would you vote for a man who wore a sweater and courdoroys to a debate? Probably not.

[Sancho]

101. dressing alike was just meant as humor...

I still think that women presidents would be less likely to start a war. We may find out in the next decade or two...

[JAbuchan08]

103. Well if you had a choice between, say, Dennis Kucinich and Hillary Clinton

who would you presume would be the more peaceful candidate?

The thing is you actually have that choice.

If it was between Pat Schroeder and DK - I'd probably vote Schroeder with gender as a tiebreaker (although I would have to see their respective platforms).

How far, though, should we take this logic? Should we only vote for women for office over men? Would the logical conclusion be to never allow another man to come into public office? Excuse my devil's argument, but isn't that the natural extension of this argument?

[Caseman]

45. You're sexist...

...if you think everyone who opposes Hillary is sexist themselves.

[NewHampster]

53. Tell me where I said that?

[Caseman]

81. Said it?

You post one of these threads every week or so.

[JohnnyLib2]

50. The history books will say "ground-breaking" political figure.

We have the opportunity to maximize on that, for many reasons, or to discount her capabilities and put someone else in the White House. I don't foresee another PERSON filling this particular role in the next one or two elections.

[NewHampster]

55. You are right. This is one of those moments in history

This election and it's effects will be a chapter of it's own.

[ChipperbackDemocrat]

57. What I'd like to see Hillary do to a certain right wing jackass

http://www.conceptualguerilla.com/files/audio/dailydeception12-21-07.mp3

Hey Rush, you ain't got the BALLS to mess with Hillary Clinton.

[Carrieyazel]

54. You meant to type "want" instead of "fear", right.

Hillary is who they want. If not her, then Obama.

[NewHampster]

56. I meant fear and you know it but maybe you can't read

[Yael]

58. *YAWN*

[NewHampster]

60. I could use a cup of coffee too

Thanks for the insightful comment and have a great holiday.

[kad7777]

62. When I read a post like yours

I get truly frightened.

First, the Republicans are not afraid of Hillary. They're doing everything in their power to make her the nominee. That in itself will energize their base like there was no tomorrow. The Clintons (especially Hillary) are hated beyond belief by the Republicans. They will come out in groves to vote against her. This is what they are counting on.

Second, and most importantly (and this is why your post frightens me), we really must look beyond "one issue" voting. This next election is not about electing the first woman because she's a woman, or electing the first African American, or voting solely because of gay rights, or abortion, or ANY "one issue", or "one reason". This Presidential election is so critical to the future of our country, it is beyond words. We must elect someone who is qualified. Qualified at every level. Our young men and women are spilling their blood and losing their lives abroad. There is Armageddon in the Middle east, turmoil in Pakistan (a nuclear power), tensions in Iran, Syria, Israel, China and now Russia. We have lost credibility and strength with our allies, and are sinking in a quagmire. Our nation desperately needs a President who can mend it. Rebuild our nation to greatness. An America we can all be proud of once again. Our next President must have:

1) Intelligence
2) Experience in ALL phases of government
3) Strength
4) Respect from world leaders
5) Diplomacy
6) Command of issues
7) Solutions to problems that face our nation
8) Honesty
9) Integrity
10) Respect and trust from his peers
11) Respect and trust from the people who follow him
12) an EXPERT in foreign policy

There is only one candidate running (on both sides of the aisle) who fits this criteria. And that candidate is Senator Joseph Biden.

Please people, don't be a "just because" voter. Do your homework. Compare the candidates and then decide what's best for our country, and for people around the world.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OtGCaqOdIJ4

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IUC8LeZ1hM4

[NewHampster]

63. Sorry to frighten you with the truth

and I've been doing my homework for many years.

I also do my homework. On the ground and phones of NH.

Happy Holidays

[hayu_lol]

65. Geez Kad...1 through 12 is all about Hillary...

and she never stole someone else's speech either.

Hillary never:

drowned her kid in a bathtub. Repugs seem to do that.

never chased hookers while dressed in a diaper.

never tapped her way across the country in public bathrooms.

Frankly, I'd say the Repugs would be quite cautious about attacking Hillary. She just might...answer them in kind.

[NewHampster]

66. Nice and Happy winter solstice

:toast:

[mrreowwr_kittty]

68. I hope you are right. Here's the reason I worry about a Clinton nom:

I fear it will be 2004 redux. A pro-war Republican vs. a pro-war Democrat. Clinton will be painted as a flip-flopper, just as Kerry was. "She was FOR it before she was AGAINST it!"

Honestly, I'm the biggest feminist in the world, but this has nothing to do with gender. If Sen. Clinton had voted against the IWR, or at least disavowed her vote, I may very well be in her corner. As it is, she has no excuse, given the fact that the same PNAC nutballs approached Bill Clinton back in 1998 to invade Iraq and he said no. She went on to say yes, for purely political reasons, and she can't distance herself from it now. Then she votes for Kyl-Lieberman. How's that going to play? "Does she think Iran is a threat, or not?"

I totally want a woman President. And if Hillary Clinton is to be that woman, I am fine with that. I am simply concerned with issues that have NOTHING WHATSOEVER TO DO WITH HER GENDER!

[NewHampster]

71. The rethugs will always try to make it about anything but issues

Of course they'll do the flip floppy thing, unless Romney or Ghoulianni is the nominee.

They'll also call her a feminazi, accuse her of bad makeup and choice of husbands.

Do you think they will do no less to the men? Hillary's big advantages other than her brains are that she knows how to fight and she is a woman.

And be true to yourself, ask people who have never heard of DU (99.9 % of democrats) if the war will be the big issue it is here with activists?

Where Hillary will mainly be different than Kerry or Gore is that she will not let the rethugs dictate the debate. She will come out of the gate early and put Health Care, the Economy, our position in the world, separation of church and state, veteran's benefits and other key issues that we may not know yet. She will force the debate on them, she will make them answer for Bush.

[oasis]

70. Hillary is the best candidate. Period.

:scared:That's what the movers and shakers in the GOP know, and fear most.

[NewHampster]

72. Amen

[4dsc]

73. up to 25% of GOP women WILL vote for Hillary

For all those that doubt Hillary will pull more than her fair share of GOP women, a GOP strategist recently stated on Fox news that up to 25% of the GOP would vote for Hillary..

[I was just saying...]

76. A post of EXCELLENT QUALITY

It is rare to see a post break through with such clarity and an unapologetic truthfulness.

Many PC liberals want Obama simply to make a statement. Certainly not on the
issues of experience, because my man doesn't have any. A state-senator (vs. U.S. Senator) has
no right to be this close, save for the media-induced hype, the anti-Hilarites (aka subconscious
misogynists), and the shallow 'hope' (aka coolness) factor that is holding Obama up thus far.

Then along comes an idea so clear, bold, and correct that I feel 'delivered' this Christmas morn.

Its Hilary's time. And because its Her time, its OUR time.

[NewHampster]

83. thank you for that

I just hope more folks fully read my post which is also on the way to a couple of dozen papers in an edited form.

[annie1]

77. And more than just GOP members fear her for being a woman......

independents, "progressives", democrats, people here. The over the top hate for hillary, the continued and constant bashes that are so filled with hate, there's more at play here than her voting record. The way people write about her, the reaction from people is so strong and so personal. A lot of that is because she is a woman. And people aren't going to shake it til they face their fear. I hope she wins and people can finally get the f over it.

[maxanne]

86. that's one way

of trivializing those of us who don't support Senator Clinton. It's the equivalent of putting your fingers in your ears and singing, "la-la-la" at the top of your lungs.

I pay her the ultimate compliment of treating her as an equal by not supporting her - in exactly the same way I would refuse
to support a lousy male candidate. Women my age fought hard to be treated as equals.

I'm treating Senator Clinton as an equal by rejecting her.

[annie1]

87. no, i can see many reasons for not supporting her, but so many...

people take it a lot further than that, and you don't hear those same people saying the same of others with similar records. there are many who just plain don't support her, and there are many many people who can barely name why they dislike her so intensely. to republicans she represents a tax and spend liberal. but so should most of the democrats, you hear the same amount of seething hatred towards them? c'mon. and this has been since way early on, before she ran for president.

[Didereaux]

89. Im an staunch Biden supporter, but there is some truth in what say. n/t

[NewHampster]

91. I too think Joe is great but I think the wman vote trumps

everything. The rethugs fear her because her candidacy will galvanize the un-engaged women of the world.

[Perry Logan]

92. Bu-bu-but the anti-Hillary people have told me over and over again that the Republicans WANT Hillary

[NewHampster]

99. Because the rethugs have drilled it into their subconcious

[JAbuchan08]

102. I don't really give a crap what Republicans want....

*I* don't want Hillary, and one of the major reasons is she is much TOO cooperative with the Republican party platform. Sure she votes left (or what passes for "left") on a lot of issues, but those are the sort of half measures and small agenda items that allow her to pass for "progressive" when she is unwilling to take a principled stand on one of the big issues of the day.

Of course the Republicans don't like her, she's a DEMOCRAT! but the fact that she's a Democrat that Republicans don't like is not reason enough for me to vote for her.

In other words, the same qualities that make her a bad nominee for the Democrats are what make her a good nominee for the Republicans - they are two sides of the same coin, but just because I refuse to vote for Hillary (in the primaries - we'll see about the GE) on this basis does not mean I am basing my vote on the opinions of Republicans. What is bad for Democrats is good for Republicans and vice-versa! I am refusing to vote for hillary not because I precieve her as good for Republicans, but because I precieve her as bad for Democrats - though (again) it is two sides of the same coin.

[William769]

93. It's to late to r this, so I will just give it a K!

[NewHampster]

94. thanks

[gulliver]

105. Think what a boost it will be for America's daughters.

I have a fourteen-year-old daughter who doesn't think much about politics (surprising), but her eyes light up when you say "first woman president ever."

I was at a Christmas party talking to a Republican woman, Exec VP of Sales. At one moment, she was speaking with another Republican across the table. I leaned over and said "First woman president ever. Think how great that would be." She didn't say anything, but she didn't have to. Her non-verbal response was enough. She paused. Normally she would have come back with some rejoinder. Not this time. (She has a daughter too.)

[NewHampster]

106. My daughter will be so proud and forward looking

[NewHampster]

107. Kick for women

:kick: