Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

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

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
Aviation Pro Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-09-07 10:14 PM
Original message
OK, I will go out on a limb about H. Clinton
Edited on Tue Oct-09-07 10:29 PM by Aviation Pro
I will support H. Clinton if she is nominated because:

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

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

As the Human Torch would say, Flame On.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
OHdem10 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-09-07 10:16 PM
Response to Original message
1. very good
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BootinUp Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-09-07 10:16 PM
Response to Original message
2. I give it 2 thumbs up and no flames. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
incapsulated Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-09-07 10:17 PM
Response to Original message
3. Only on DU would you need to put on a flamesuit
Because you would support the democratic nominee and could think of positive things to say about one of the candidates.

:crazy:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
liberalmuse Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-09-07 10:21 PM
Response to Original message
4. Yay!
Good reasons, all. How refreshing!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DefenseLawyer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-09-07 10:22 PM
Response to Original message
5. I think most reasonable people will
support her if she is nominated. I also think if she is nominated it will be a train wreck.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Aviation Pro Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-09-07 10:26 PM
Response to Reply #5
9. The reason why I disagree with your assessment.....
...is I remain convinced that the American people are not stupid. I think that a good majority of Americans see through the nonsense and bollocks (to borrow an excellent word from the Brits) that's served to us.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Toots Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-10-07 07:45 AM
Response to Reply #9
61. Yep that is why we have Joe Lieberman serving as a US Senator
:shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SlowDownFast Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-09-07 10:29 PM
Response to Reply #5
10. "train wreck"
How so?

I have my own musings about that, just wondering about yours...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DefenseLawyer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-09-07 10:38 PM
Response to Reply #10
11. Several reasons
None of which originate with me. One is that she is a woman. I don't think we live in as enlightened a time as we tend to believe. I think there are plenty of people, particularly the over 70 crowd which votes in large numbers, that will not vote for a woman, any woman, for president. I don't think that will show up in many polls, as most people are reluctant to admit such biases in polls. Second is that she has negatives in the 40's and is so hated by the right that she is probably the only candidate that can mobilize the right wing to vote in this election. Third is her stance or lack thereof on Iraq. She will not be able to tap into the anti-war sentiment of many younger and independent voters whose biggest issue is the war. Casey Jones you'd better watch your speed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SlowDownFast Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-09-07 11:01 PM
Response to Reply #11
26. Agreed.
On all points.

It's gonna be crazy...

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pnwmom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-09-07 11:16 PM
Response to Reply #11
35. The over 70 voting crowd is largely women,
and many of them -- including my mother who's living in Bush country -- will be THRILLED to finally be able to cast a vote for a woman for President.

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

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

So I think you're overestimating the challenge for HRC, and underestimating her potential strength.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
emilyg Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-09-07 11:37 PM
Response to Reply #35
46. Agree.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Clark2008 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-10-07 01:21 PM
Response to Reply #35
75. Umm... I know a lot of older women who wouldn't vote for a woman
It's the way in which they were raised.

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

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

But, us 30-something women still think she's a bit daft for not kicking out her cheating hubby. She had the means not to need his income. She had the education to find a job. She didn't have to stay with him - love or not.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
frazzled Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-09-07 11:17 PM
Response to Reply #11
36. Her biggest strength is with the senior citizens ...
According to all the polls and recent analysis... and that would seem to conform with my, admittedly small, personal experience of the over-70 crowd. My own mother and father, 82 and 91, respectively, have been very enthusiastic about a Hillary campaign from the beginning. And my dad was pretty much a "Reagan Democrat" for a number of years (Bush I cured him of that).

I think she has more problems with the boomer generation (my own) than with young people: she may not be their first choice, but they will definitely get behind her, insofar as they vote at all.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Froward69 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-09-07 10:53 PM
Response to Reply #5
22. I Agree.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DaveJ Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-09-07 11:26 PM
Response to Reply #5
40. A bigger train wreck than than what, Giuliani?
Edited on Tue Oct-09-07 11:28 PM by djohnson
Fred Thompson's train has already derailed so a liberal New Yorker from a mob family is about all the neofascist conservatives have left.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DefenseLawyer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-09-07 11:36 PM
Response to Reply #40
44. That doesn't seem like much of a strategy
to hope that the other side has a BIGGER train wreck.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TrogL Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-10-07 03:23 PM
Response to Reply #5
85. 'reasonable people'?
Never met any. Not in this lifetime, anyway.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Triana Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-09-07 10:23 PM
Response to Original message
6. I'll support her if nominated but...
...I'd rather have another candidate for the nominee.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Clark2008 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-10-07 01:22 PM
Response to Reply #6
76. Me, too, but none of them are running.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Rowdyboy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-09-07 10:23 PM
Response to Original message
7. She makes Republicans pee their pants......that makes me laugh
Edited on Tue Oct-09-07 10:25 PM by Rowdyboy
She drives them CRAZY and they respond by lashing out hatefully. I don't think they can contain their rage for an entire campaign and she will draw a sympathetic response from their overkill.

She's not my first choice, but I've only gotten my first choice in a nominee ONCE since 1972 so I'm used to being somewhat disappointed. She's very competent, intelligent and driven and, after 8 years of Bush, those qualities would be nice in the White House.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DefenseLawyer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-09-07 10:25 PM
Response to Reply #7
8. I'd say she makes Republicans want to vote
I kinda think that's a bad thing, but I know nothing about politics.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Rowdyboy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-09-07 10:48 PM
Response to Reply #8
19. Regardless of which candidate we nominate, Republicans will work themselves
into a frenzy trying to convince the public that person is Satan incarnate. While their hatred might be a touch more severe in her case, by election day 2008 you couldn't tell the difference. Their overreaction, caused by that incoherent hatred, can work to our advantage in the general election with their vitriol backfiring big-time.

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

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

Just my opinion.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DefenseLawyer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-09-07 10:54 PM
Response to Reply #19
23. I wonder
how many supporters of Dukakis or McGovern didn't give a damn what Republicans thought about their choice. That's the kind of hubris that has lost us a lot of elections.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Rowdyboy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-09-07 11:27 PM
Response to Reply #23
41. When you vote in a Democratic primary you get one chance to voice your opinion
This year I'll vote for John Edwards when my state votes because he's my preference, not because of how my decision might effect Republicans. My philosophy has always been to vote my heart in Democratic primaries, usually for the more liberal candidate-if thats hubris then I'm guilty. Then, in the general election, I vote for the Democratic nominee. That's my conception of how the system works.

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

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

"Electability" is only one issue among many for me. I don't expect Republicans to show any class or breeding by respecting our nominee and they've NEVER disappointed me.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DefenseLawyer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-09-07 11:59 PM
Response to Reply #41
53. The goal should always be to win the general election
Edited on Tue Oct-09-07 11:59 PM by DefenseLawyer
How can "electability" be a secondary criteria? Democrats tend to turn elections into some esoteric exercise; we forget that the point of the exercise is to actually elect someone.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Rowdyboy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-10-07 10:50 AM
Response to Reply #53
66. I think we each set our own criteria on selecting a nominee...What matters to you
may not be significant to me. In your responses to others, you argue that Americans aren't ready to elect a woman, especially one whose negatives are in the 40% range. In my humble opinion, thats absurd. Are there American voters so stupid and hateful they won't vote for a woman? Certainly. We call them "Republicans". Those people aren't voting for any Democrat anyway. Many people won't vote for Barack Obama because he's black (they're also known as "Republicans" or more commonly "bigots"). Should we refuse to nominate Obama because bigots will turn out in droves to oppose him? Must we base our nominee on how happy Republicans are with our choice?

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

People select candidates using their own personal criteria. Far be it from me to try to tell you how to vote, or why you should select the candidate I prefer. Thats why I stay out of the stupid bashing contests, or "primary wars" on DU. Trashing ANY of our Democratic candidates is totally counterproductive and a waste of time-they're all far superior to any of the Republicans. Thats why I'm so rarely here these days. Once the nominee is chosen, the ridiculous hostilities will die down, the trolls will go home, and DU will again unite behind our party's choice. I look forward to February, regardless of the outcome.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DefenseLawyer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-10-07 12:58 PM
Response to Reply #66
72. We should nominate someone that can win, yes.
Losing means the other side wins. When the other side wins, we lose. How is this hard to understand? Standing on principle is meaningless if you lose. I'm not being hostile, and I am not telling you who to vote for, but, sorry, the purpose of putting forth candidates for election is to have them win the election.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Rowdyboy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-10-07 03:21 PM
Response to Reply #72
84. We agree the point of elections is to win. I think Clinton, Obama, Edwards....
Richardson, Biden or Dodd will defeat any Republican who runs against them, therefore I feel free to vote my conscience in the primary. Apparently, you disagree. I think we should build up all our primary candidates rather than tearing them down. Again, apparently you disagree.

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

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

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DefenseLawyer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-10-07 04:01 PM
Response to Reply #84
89. I am certainly not trying to patronize you
I was puzzled by your previous statement that "electability" wasn't something you looked for in a primary candidate. No more no less.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Rowdyboy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-10-07 05:33 PM
Response to Reply #89
93. "Electability is only one issue among many" was my statement....
Its important, but not the only factor I take into account, especially when multiple candidates are electable.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CTyankee Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-10-07 01:48 PM
Response to Reply #23
78. Do you put Dukakis and McGovern in the same column with HC?
If so, I don't see it. If anything, HC is trying to get away from that liberal stereotype that basically killed Dukakis and McGovern.

I'm watching to see which Dem. candidate is polling nationally as a winner over whichever Republican. That doesn't mean anything is certain but it is as close as I can get to certain. I never bothered with the polls when Dukakis and McGovern were starting their runs...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
durrrty libby Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-09-07 10:38 PM
Response to Original message
12. Great post...Thank you
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
yodermon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-09-07 10:40 PM
Response to Original message
13. In other words, Shrub set the bar really, really low.
and hell, at least she's not shrub.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jgraz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-09-07 10:44 PM
Response to Reply #13
17. Yep. She's also not a drunk and I bet she never blew up frogs as a girl

Sadly, she wouldn't be better enough to counteract the damage from *.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pingzing58 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-09-07 10:41 PM
Response to Original message
14. J.F.K. and W. J. Clinton are greeted warmly in Latin American because they were not imperialists.
Both were perceived as promoting the economic and social growth of Sovereign Countries and the poor throughout Latin America. The "screw you" attitude of Reagan and G.W. Bush makes them villains in the eyes of the L.Amer. people. If Hillary and Pelosi continue down the road they have chosen to lead our nation then indeed the NeoCons will have achieved their ideal of re-establishing a Reaganesque empirealistic above the law and secretive government.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
saracat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-09-07 11:03 PM
Response to Reply #14
28. Clinton and JFK have nothing in common but D's after their name.I resent
the comparison.But I agree with the second part of your equation.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pingzing58 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-09-07 11:44 PM
Response to Reply #28
50. I understand your position. I was not comparing JFK to anyone other than how L.Amer. perceive them.
Two totally different men and time with all their factors in history. AS a R.C. I grew up with a picture of JFK and Pope Paul VI on our home altar. My point is about perception, actions (deeds done), and communication in the socio-polico international milieu. No offense intended.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Frank Cannon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-09-07 10:42 PM
Response to Original message
15. Hell, I'll vote for Carrot Top if he's the Dem nominee
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Aviation Pro Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-09-07 10:49 PM
Response to Reply #15
20. What's Carrot Top's head doing on Joe Piscapo's body?
....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jgraz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-09-07 11:00 PM
Response to Reply #15
25. Serious question: what if the Dems nominated Lieberman?
Would you still vote for him?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Frank Cannon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-09-07 11:32 PM
Response to Reply #25
43. I would
But I wouldn't be very happy about it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Warren DeMontague Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-09-07 11:38 PM
Response to Reply #25
47. He is no longer a Democrat.
He forfeit the right to call himself a Democrat when he refused to accept the results of his primary.

Beyond that, the Democratic Party has already made it abundantly clear that we're not interested in him as a Presidential Nominee, last time around.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bvar22 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-10-07 01:06 PM
Response to Reply #47
73. I believe that Joe has quietly "rejoined" the Democratic Party.
There was a thread a few weeks ago that stated that he recently entered "Democrat" on his voter registration.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Warren DeMontague Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-10-07 04:09 PM
Response to Reply #73
90. He can *vote* however he likes.
I think he's going to have some 'splainin' to do if he tries to run as a Democrat for re-election in 5 years, though.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Aviation Pro Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-10-07 07:27 AM
Response to Reply #25
60. Short answer, no....
...long answer, hell no.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Virginia Dare Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-10-07 07:52 AM
Response to Reply #25
62. That's not really a serious question, is it?...n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mondo joe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-10-07 11:06 AM
Response to Reply #25
71. What if the dems nominated Hitler? What if Eleanor Roosevelt could fly?
Lieberman isn't a Dem.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jgraz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-10-07 03:13 PM
Response to Reply #71
83. I believe Joe is now a Dem (again). And you're evading the question

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

(I have my answer, but I'm guessing yours is a bit more difficult for you)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mondo joe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-10-07 03:27 PM
Response to Reply #83
86. My answer is not difficult for me. It's complicated, but not difficult.
Edited on Wed Oct-10-07 03:27 PM by mondo joe
If the Dems nominated Lieberman it would be very surprising to me because I think he'd pretty far out of line with where I think the party is.

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

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

But the real - and yet more complex answer - is that Joe Lieberman isn't the nominee and wouldn't be the nominee. He doesn't have that kind of traction in the party, both because of his politics and his campaigning ability. So for me, asking "what if Lieberman were the nominee" is like asking about an alternative universe in which everything is very different. For me it is like asking "What if Hitler were the nominee" or "What if water ran uphill instead of down".
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jgraz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-10-07 04:21 PM
Response to Reply #86
91. I don't think it's that far-fetched if you consider how close Hillary is to Lieberman politically

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

The difficult question is how to deal with a party who with every action tells you that your politics aren't welcome (even though they're shared by a majority of the country).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Yael Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-10-07 05:46 PM
Response to Reply #15
94. Disturbing doesn't even begin to describe this picture
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Frank Cannon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-10-07 10:31 PM
Response to Reply #94
101. Ha ha ha
I thought it was a Photoshop job when I first saw it. Alas, it's frighteningly real.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Warren DeMontague Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-09-07 10:44 PM
Response to Original message
16. Hell, I don't even need a list that long. I'll support her because she's the DEMOCRAT.
And I think you'd have to be a stone fucking moron to not see that this country was run a helluva lot better between 1993-2001 than it is being run now.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jgraz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-09-07 11:09 PM
Response to Reply #16
31. Pick an 8 year stretch when it WASN'T run better than it is now
We're dealing with a historically bad president, not only the worst in our history but probably one of the worst heads of state in world history. It would be hard to do worse than Bush.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Warren DeMontague Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-09-07 11:37 PM
Response to Reply #31
45. I agree that he's set the bar surprisingly low, even for a Republican.
Nevertheless, I also think Bill Clinton was far and away the best, most competent President of my lifetime.

I wasn't around for Kennedy, so make of that what you will.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mwb970 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-10-07 06:02 AM
Response to Reply #31
58. I think Giuliani would be worse than Bush.
He's much smarter and even more authoritarian. His judgment on policy and personnel is terrible. His personal life is a mess. His values and priorities are cockeyed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jgraz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-10-07 06:13 PM
Response to Reply #58
96. Perhaps...but Rudy isn't nearly as good at hiding his psychoses from the voters
I doubt he'd be able to make it through a national election.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FiveGoodMen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-10-07 07:36 PM
Response to Reply #16
100. Based on votes and public statements, though, I would not expect Hill to run things as well as Bill
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
fedupfisherman Donating Member (318 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-09-07 10:45 PM
Response to Original message
18. She got duped by Bush on Iraq
Enough said

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SlowDownFast Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-09-07 11:05 PM
Response to Reply #18
29. If you believe that
then you musta been duped too.

'Nuff said.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
fedupfisherman Donating Member (318 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-09-07 11:06 PM
Response to Reply #29
30. Whatever
She's stupid and stupid enough to allow Bush to attack Iran

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SlowDownFast Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-09-07 11:44 PM
Response to Reply #30
51. HRC is not stupid.
Edited on Tue Oct-09-07 11:45 PM by utopiansecretagent
And I don't think she necessarily WANTED to go to war, but she voted that way to look hawkish and protect and further her own political aspirations.

Which of course I found - and still find - disgusting...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jgraz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-09-07 11:12 PM
Response to Reply #18
32. I don't believe that for a second
She knew exactly what that vote was for and how many lies were being told to Congress and the American people. She chose to vote for the IWR -- to put us on the path to war -- in order to further her own political ambitions.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
fedupfisherman Donating Member (318 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-09-07 11:13 PM
Response to Reply #32
34. So she wanted Bush to go to war? n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jgraz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-09-07 11:20 PM
Response to Reply #34
38. I honestly don't think she cared.
She was playing her side of the politics, and with that vote she managed to wash her hands of the decision while solidifying her hawkish credentials.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
fedupfisherman Donating Member (318 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-09-07 11:22 PM
Response to Reply #38
39. Ok gotcha.
I just think she is stupid and honestly believed what Bush said about Iraq
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jgraz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-09-07 11:28 PM
Response to Reply #39
42. I've met her, and one thing she isn't is stupid

She's one of the smartest, quickest people I've been around. She's also someone who sends off a vibe of complete amorality.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cali Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-10-07 02:26 AM
Response to Reply #42
55. vibes of complete amorality? Bwahahaha
Now you're a little psychic. How cute.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jgraz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-10-07 09:11 AM
Response to Reply #55
65. You've never been around someone who skeeved you out a little?

I put her creep factor somewhere between Michael Eisner and Larry Ellison.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mondo joe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-10-07 11:03 AM
Response to Reply #42
70. I'm reminded of Bush peering into the "hearts" of others. NT
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Warren DeMontague Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-09-07 11:40 PM
Response to Reply #38
48. I agree with that, but unfortunately she's not the only one who played that game with the IWR vote.
Ideally, I would like to see us nominate a candidate who doesn't have that albatross hanging around his or her neck- Al Gore, for starters. Obama and Kucinich also can make that claim.

But Hillary isn't the only one who played politics with that turd of a vote. Edwards did the same thing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bluebear Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-09-07 10:49 PM
Response to Original message
21. Her top strategist is scum with a capital S and I can't get past that.
Mark Penn was the dealbreaker for me.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EVDebs Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-09-07 10:56 PM
Response to Original message
24. I'm with Edwards unless HRC gets the nod. Then I'll reluctantly vote for her n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Harper_is_Bush Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-09-07 11:03 PM
Response to Original message
27. Why do you feel that is a "limb"? Are you intimidated by the H-haters here? n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jgraz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-09-07 11:13 PM
Response to Reply #27
33. Notice how few of the so-called "H-haters" are flaming the OP
Now contrast that with the flames that fly at any and all posters who deign to criticize Queen Hillary.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jgraz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-09-07 11:18 PM
Response to Original message
37. This is one of the best pro-Hillary posts I've seen on DU

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

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

:thumbsup:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RiverStone Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-09-07 11:41 PM
Response to Original message
49. Without number 7. Hillary would be a second tier candidate
Edited on Tue Oct-09-07 11:41 PM by RiverStone
The irony Aviation Pro, is nobody hardly ever changes their mind around DU anyway. I won't try to convince you that are wrong, cause it would not change a dang thing - your still gonna support Hillary. And I absolutely and enthusiastically will not (at least through the primaries).

No flames here.


peace~ :)



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mind_your_head Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-09-07 11:45 PM
Response to Original message
52. Yes, you're "out on a limb"
Any THINKING PERSON wouldn't vote for her (even though many of us women would LOVE to vote for a woMAN for president.....Hillary is just "so wrong" for that role/honor.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
fairplay Donating Member (28 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-10-07 12:01 AM
Response to Reply #52
54. DLC
Hillary has no core values except those of the repubIcan light DLC! REMEMBER THE DLC?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ronnykmarshall Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-10-07 01:27 PM
Response to Reply #52
77. O I C
Nice way of saying "Only stupid people vote for Hillary".

God, I can't wait for this fucking election to be over.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OneBlueSky Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-10-07 03:28 AM
Response to Original message
56. she's also another authoritarian corporatist . . . the LAST thing this country needs . . . n/t
.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Disturbed Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-10-07 05:35 AM
Response to Reply #56
57. Yes, 95% of Dems will vote for her if she is the Nominee.
Millions will do so reluctantly but the alternative is too horrible to even think about. The main reason should be the next SC Justices. She is appealing to Moderate Repugs & Swing Voters because without them she will lose. She does have a fairly good chance of winning because the Repub Candidate will not get enough Fundie votes to win. If there is a Fundie 3rd Party Candidate, she will most likely win.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Virginia Dare Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-10-07 07:54 AM
Response to Reply #56
64. I tend to think a Rudy or a Mitt or even a Fred is the last thing..
I'm not thrilled about the prospect of another Clinton, but it's an acceptable proposition compared to any of the repubs currently on board.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mondo joe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-10-07 11:02 AM
Response to Reply #56
69. I rather think an anti-civil-libertarian is the LAST thing this country needs.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EstimatedProphet Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-10-07 07:15 AM
Response to Original message
59. I will support Hillary clinton if she is nominated too
Edited on Wed Oct-10-07 07:15 AM by EstimatedProphet
Because she is better than a Republican. I will support any of these Democrats over any of these Republicans.

I just hope that she isn't nominated.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
La Lioness Priyanka Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-10-07 07:52 AM
Response to Original message
63. agreed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HiFructosePronSyrup Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-10-07 10:57 AM
Response to Original message
67. Pff.

"1. She is smart and capable."

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

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

What does that even mean?

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

She sure got manipulated into voting for the war.

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

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

"5. She can parse the gray areas."

You mean she's two-faced.

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

Hurrah, she's functionally literate!

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

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

:eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
question everything Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-10-07 11:00 AM
Response to Original message
68. And, like any Democrat
she will stem the movement of the Supreme Court to the right.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bvar22 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-10-07 01:15 PM
Response to Original message
74. What ever happened to "Issues"?
Another Pro-Hillary thread that lists 7 vague reasons to vote for her, but does NOT mention a single Issue.
The above "good personality" traits are all GREAT reasons to vote for Hillary as "Homecoming Queen", but NOT for President.

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

*Extending the Iraq Occupation

*Support for expanding the WAR to Iran

*Expanding the FOR PROFIT Health Insurance Industry

*Expanding the Military/Increasing the Defense Budget

*Support for more Free Trade

*Support for increasing and expediting H1B Visas


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

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Aviation Pro Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-10-07 01:50 PM
Response to Reply #74
79. Point 7 is a overall umbrella for issues....
...but without the foundation there can be no discussion of issues. The last time, the American people voted for having a beer and being scared as a foundation for a President. This time, I believe the American people want someone who has the basic foundation and not a project.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pingzing58 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-10-07 02:39 PM
Response to Reply #74
82. Hey as Liberal Democrat I'm for three of the issues you oppose.
I'm for amnesty for illegal aliens. They pick our crops, build our homes and keep our yards beautiful. I'm for an increase in military spending. In San Antonio the military bases and hospitals employ and provide excellent benefits to our citizens as well as help defend our country and give health care to the injured and wounded in recovery. And, I'm for free trade. It's building up the economies of Mexico and Latin American countries. With jobs and low cost of living in those countries we won't have an illegal alien problem. So I respectfully disagree with you on some of the issues.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bvar22 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-10-07 04:00 PM
Response to Reply #82
88. Fine!
If you support those issues, then vote on those issues.

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

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

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


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




Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pingzing58 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-10-07 06:17 PM
Response to Reply #88
97. I'm sorry but I've never met an illegal putting in a day's work for a day's pay and sending money
home to feed his/her family who considers himself or herself "slave labor." I live in a farming community. No farmer here is RICH. They borrow money to plant their crops and maintain their machines (tractors, etc.). They pay that money back with interest when the crop sells. If something happens to the crop it's the poor house for them (thankfully there is gov. aid). Tell me how 12 million illegal aliens are going to be deported? How many families separated? I'm sure you'll make money investing in Cargo Waggons - let the 21st century "Trail of Tears" begin. There is an Auschwitz camp built by Lou Dobbs just across the border waiting to receive these illegals.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bvar22 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-10-07 07:14 PM
Response to Reply #97
98. I agree with you on Deportation.
Deportation would penalize the victims.
I DID say we shouldn't penalize the victims.

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

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

The argument that this would put small farmers out of business is bogus.
Equal enforcement and equal protection would offer no one a marketing advantage.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mondo joe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-10-07 03:28 PM
Response to Reply #74
87. Issues matter to me. They include Habeas Corpus, Reproductive Rights,
Same sex marriage rights and more.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bvar22 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-10-07 04:55 PM
Response to Reply #87
92. How does Hillary differ from any of the other Dem candidates
on those issues?
These ARE important issues, but Hillary offers nothing significantly different than any of the others.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mondo joe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-10-07 07:14 PM
Response to Reply #92
99. No, but she does differ from the Repubs. So in a choice between voting for HRC,
not voting or throwing my vote away, I have but one choice: do everything possible to get her in office if she is the nominee.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
truebrit71 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-10-07 01:54 PM
Response to Original message
80. 8) She voted FOR the war 9) She voted FOR the patriot act...
...10) She has the highest negatives of all of our candidates 11) She will get GOP knuckle-draggers to vote against her in DROVES 12) she will cost us the WH in 2008 13) her condescending laugh/cackle drives me NUTS 14) her last name is Clinton and will drive the MSM into paroxysms of rage about Whitewater/Vince Foster/Monica Lewinsky/Travelgate/Socialized Medicine/She's gonna take your guns 24/7 from the time she is nominated until the day she is beaten in the GE.

15) She can't win. Period. She is poison to the Democrats chances of taking the WH next year.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OmmmSweetOmmm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-10-07 02:01 PM
Response to Original message
81. Not flaming, respectively disagreeing. Hillary is being selected for us
Edited on Wed Oct-10-07 02:01 PM by OmmmSweetOmmm
and frankly, I don't even believe any of the polls any more. I will not vote for someone whom I have no trust in. I think she would be a kinder gentler smarter Shrub, but more like Shrub than you wish to realize.

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

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lamp_shade Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-10-07 05:59 PM
Response to Original message
95. She gives me HOPE
She is, has, knows, can and everything else you listed. I could add twenty more items, but there's something about her that just makes me feel hopeful.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu Oct 31st 2024, 06:41 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC