If Hillary was a man, do you think she would have the same level of support?

[calteacherguy]

Poll question: If Hillary was a man, do you think she would have the same level of support?

Again, nothing personal against Hillary, I just think it's a thought-provoking question.

[Name removed]

1. Deleted message

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

[calteacherguy]

4. You misunderstand me, I'm looking at this from a sociological perspective.

I am not contesting your view that Hillary is "a great candidate."

[Clintonista2]

6. Your post implies that Hillary's gender is what her campaign is based on

Isn't there a "Hillary's cleavage" topic you could be posting in right now?

[calteacherguy]

7. Not at all. Again, you are making unsubstantiated allegations.

Pondering how much support Hillary has because she is a woman is valid. I think to deny that some of her support does not come from those who wish to see the first woman elected President is to deny reality. There is nothing wrong with someone supporting her at least partly because she is a woman; it's a valid political position.

It's similar to asking how much support for RFK came from the fact he was related to JFK. And, that does not demean the greatness of RFK in any way.

[Egnever]

14. No it doesnt

:eyes:

[DURHAM D]

2. If Obama was a woman would she have more support? eom

[calteacherguy]

5. Interesting question.

Probably not as a black woman, but as a white woman? I don't know.

[Egnever]

12. Absolutely!

A competant black female runing for office ! Wow I drool at the prospect.
In fact I had high hopes for Carol mosely.

[lvx35]

3. If his wife had been the 42nd president, probably the same. nt

[jgraz]

8. So far, nobody's been able to adequately explain why she deserves any level of support

Aside from the fact that she's ahead in the polls and has wheelbarrows full of corporate cash, that is...

What is it that Hillary supporters actually expect her to do for this country? And please, name something besides supreme court nominees -- i.e., something that every other candidate wouldn't also do.

[MonkeyFunk]

19. If she wins

I expect she'll be a smart, competent, able President. And wouldn't that be nice for a change?

[jgraz]

31. I'll take a smart, competent, able president who's not in the pocket of big business, thanks

Like I said, which of the Democrats wouldn't be smart, able and competent? You'll have to do a bit better than that.

[MonkeyFunk]

41. I think she'd be smarter, abler, and more competent

than most.

You asked, I answered. You don't like the answer, but it's disingenuous to pretend that you keep asking and nobody answers.

nobody answers to your satisfaction - but that's your issue, not mine.

[jgraz]

43. Sigh, your ability to selectively parse continues to amaze

What is it that Hillary supporters actually expect her to do for this country? And please, name something besides supreme court nominees -- i.e., something that every other candidate wouldn't also do.

I know it wasn't a bulleted list of simple requirements, but is my prose really that difficult to suss out? If you think she's smarter, abler and more competent than the others, then fine. That's a perfectly valid answer. I don't agree, but it's a valid answer.

The problem with your first answer (aside from not answering my question) is that it reinforces the arguments I hear from many Clinton supporters. They talk about how much better she'd be than our current pResident or how she'd be so much better than any of the current brood of Rethugs. It's almost as if her primary opponents don't exist.

My response to your specific reason is that I think we've had smart, able and competent leadership for the past 6 1/2 years. It's been coming from Dick Cheney. The fact that he's following an agenda of pure evil doesn't make him any less smart or competent.

I'm looking for more in my candidate. Call it heart, soul or conscience, it's something that I see very little of from Hillary. It's not just about getting the trains to run on time -- it's about having solid set of core progressive beliefs and a willingness to fight for them. That's a leader.

[MonkeyFunk]

45. I'm not trying to convince you to support Clinton

that's an impossible task.

I told you why I think she'd be a good President. You don't agree - that's fair, but it's unfair to put the burden on me to convince you.

The fact that you don't agree with my reasons doesn't mean my reasons aren't real and valid.

[jgraz]

46. Fair enough...

but I still think any advocate for a candidate does have a burden to, well, advocate for their candidate.

[MonkeyFunk]

47. and Clinton supporters do so...

you just don't agree with their assessments. That's not the same as saying they don't provide any reasons. They just don't provide reasons you like.

I imagine you would be similarly unable to convince THEM to support your candidate.

[jgraz]

48. I'll try that once I decide who my candidate is

[MonkeyFunk]

50. and believe it or not

I haven't settled on clinton yet, although I'm leaning more towards her each day.

Defending her is just a reflex after 15 years of right-wing attacks on her.

[jgraz]

51. Well, get ready for the left-wing attacks

And yes, there is a difference ;)

[MonkeyFunk]

52. surprisingly little difference

in my estimation.

[jgraz]

53. aw, now we're gonna start to fight again

And I've gotta get to work. Later...

[wyldwolf]

24. that maybe because no one owes you an explanation.

[jgraz]

30. That's brilliant -- I'll just vote for her on looks, then

:eyes:

[jgraz]

42. Just had to make one more comment on the abject ridiculousness of wyldwolf's response

I'm almost beyond words with this one. "No one owes you an explanation"...has there ever been a more succinct encapsulation of the Hillary supporters' attitude? Don't ask questions you silly little Democrat, just vote for the inevitable nominee.

Anyone wondering why Hillary evokes such venom from the left need only read that one response. The arrogance of this self-appointed heir-apparent and her minions is simply breathtaking.

[Forkboy]

55. Arrogance is the one word that always comes to mind.

While some of her supporters here are very cool,the most vocal ones have an arrogance and hubris that rivals that of Bush and his supporters.And it's just as endearing with them as it with Bush.

[Poll_Blind]

27. I noticed that too... (nt)

PB

[countmyvote4real]

9. HRC's policies are wrong and not open for debate yet.

That's by design.

[tuvor]

10. Probably not, because a gay Bill Clinton would probably not have been elected in 1992.

I don't think you can extract the background of a President Bill Clinton legacy from this question. Former president Clinton would either have been gay or a heterosexual woman if Hillary were a man.

If that were the case, Bill's presidency would never have happened in 1992.

OTOH, I've had a couple and I'm ready for bed, so what the hell do I know?

[incapsulated]

13. lol, no you make perfect sense, actually

She is a former first lady turned Senator, she wouldn't have been elected Senator of NY if she wasn't known as the first lady... you really can't separate Hillary from her gender.

So I didn't answer the poll. :P

[Egnever]

11. One of the few reasons I would vote for her.

Is exactly because she is a woman. I want a woman president in my life time. I think its long past time we overcome that obstacle. I would also like to see Obama as pres partly because he is black. Does that make me a bad person cause I want to see these bariers shattered?

[incapsulated]

15. No but these things are difficult to gage

Because although being a woman may be a plus for Hillary with some people, with others it's a negative because they don't' believe a woman can be elected.

You see the same thing in the black community with Obama. For every black person who wants to support him because of his race, there is another who believes he can't be elected because of it and they mean it.

[Egnever]

16. Interesting perspective

You are likely correct. I happen to believe we are going to have to work really hard to lose this presidential election. Barring of course our congress critters completely blowing it which for some reason they seem hell bent on doing. So while normally I might see either gender or race as an obstacle I think we have a golden opportunity to nominate what we really want this time.

Don't you think people are hungry for change this time around ? And if so wouldn't electing a black man or a woman be seen as a big change for a lot of people?

[incapsulated]

17. Well, at this point

The odds are we are going to have a groundbreaking nominee.

With this sort of thing, there is no telling if the country is ready unless you have the courage to try. Until then it's all speculation. People do want CHANGE and it opens the door when people feel that way, ready for something very different.

I think the primaries are getting people, in general, used to the idea of a black or female president, at least. They become familiar and specific rather than generic question marks. People will start to see them as individuals the longer they are in the public eye and that is what will get them elected in the end.

Honestly, I would call a win for either of them over anyone the republicans throw out there. I've never seen such a lame lineup, heh. Well ok, we had some real bad ones, ourselves back in the day but not know.

:)

[calteacherguy]

18. Good point. nt

[Dawgs]

32. Even if the woman or black man you're voting for isn't the best choice for America?

[LostInAnomie]

20. I've never met a supporter of her offline that gender wasn't the main reason for their support.

I personally think that is an extremely shallow reason to support anyone. Sadly, I think that is the reason for the bulk of her support. It's not like she has outlined any profound policies, or her personal charisma is drawing flocks of people to her. There isn't honestly any reason to support her as far as I have seen.

If she were a man she would be similar to Biden, a unremarkable "centrist" that always sides with Wall Street.

I just hope people can get past the gender issue by the primaries and vote for someone that isn't the Repuke dream candidate.

[jgraz]

33. What you said

Most people won't admit it, but a large part of those poll numbers on Hillary and Barack are because of their "unique" features.

"It's not like she has outlined any profound policies, or her personal charisma is drawing flocks of people to her."

I'm so going to steal that line. :evilgrin:

[aquart]

21. A man who is currently married to a previous president?

One day, my friend. One day.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

22. Only if Bill Clinton had been a woman.

Clinton's support is largely based on being married to an ex-president.

That is currently an option only available to women, but it isn't technically limited to them in perpetuity.

[tigereye]

58. I think her visibility has a lot to do with her having been married to Bill

people noticed her skills while they were in the White House. I don't think her support is due to that connection. It doesn't hurt, but I think she can stand on her own.

[wyldwolf]

23. If Obama was white, do you think she would have the same level of support?

No, people would call him a DLC tool.

[Perry Logan]

25. She would have much more support. Conservatives hate women.

[sampsonblk]

26. Speaking for myself, its great that she's a woman

We are long overdue for a woman president. No one can doubt her qualifications. In my view, she is the one we were waiting for. Her qualifications aren't even an issue. This is a great opportunity to smash the barrier right here and now.

[MaineDem]

28. What a sexist question! n/t

[leez34]

35. -

I just don't see how there's anything wrong with asking the question. Do you honestly believe that there's no one giving her extra points because she's a woman rather than based on her policies? There are people in this thread who have made claims that fly in the face of that accusation. Therefore, it is appropriate to ask. In fact, it would have been fine even if the answer was a resounding "yes" - Hillary Clinton the man would be supported all the same. What's wrong with asking questions about the motivation behind support for a candidate?

I would also love to see a female president, or a black president, or hopefully both in my lifetime. That does not mean I would vote for Elizabeth Dole or Alan Keyes. It flies in the face of liberal ideals to vote for someone based, even in part, on what they look like. Vote based on policy.

[MaineDem]

38. Welcome to DU

But I disagree with you.

:hi:

[watercolors]

29. how about this is a stupid question?

nt

[Freddie Stubbs]

34. Would Obama have the same level of support if he were White?

Would Edwards have the same level of support if he weren't a Southerner?

Would Kucinich have the same level of support if here didn't have movie star good looks?

[leez34]

36. -

I think those are valid questions too. I like Edwards, and I think he wouldn't have the same level of support if he weren't a Southerner.

[ripple]

37. Actually, the question should be

"If Hillary were not married to Bill, would she have the same level of support?"

I think even her supporters would agree that the answer is "no".

[Meldread]

39. No, she would have less support. However, that isn't because she'd be a man.

No, she would have less support. However, that isn't because she'd be a man. It would be because she could have never married Bill Clinton because it would have been illegal. Something Bill Clinton and Hillary helped make sure would happen through passing DOMA.

Without her marriage to Bill Clinton she would have struggled to get elected in New York. It might have been possible, but her lack of actual experience would have undermined her and likely would have made her a significant underdog. In effect, to steal Denis's metaphor, she would have been "Seabiscuit".

Without her first lady credentials she would not have the name recognition she has and therefore would not be in the position she is now, and likely no one would even know her name.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

40. No, she'd have way more support.

Just like people don't like Joe Lieberman because he's Jewish.


:rofl:

[booley]

44. Speaking for myself

Her gender has nothing to do with my lack of support for her.

Maybe I am projecting, but I think many others also don't see her gender as a negative overriding all of her other negatives.

[bamacrat]

49. She would be John Edwards. n/t

[AnotherGreenWorld]

54. She'd probably have about as much support as Biden

[AtomicKitten]

56. I think her gender is a liability.

And I respect her for kicking the sh*t out of the glass ceiling.

[illinoisprogressive]

57. alot of her support comes from being a woman.

[IndianaGreen]

59. If Hillary were running as Hillary Rodham, she would be a lower tier candidate

I have to tip my hat to that "girl" (her words, not mine!). She has done a yeoman's work in turning that sad and pathetic marriage to that philanderer of a husband of hers into an asset, and she has milked the Clinton name for all its worth, and then some.

I loved her chutzpah when she told the debate audience that she would have all the parties at the table to reform health care, meaning that the same health care insurers that have been at the table all along, will continue to stick it to working men and women.

Hillary is a beaut! She may lack Bill's charm, but she can outdo him in mendacity.

[fujiyama]

60. Less support

but even that is largely impossible to say for sure. The simple fact is I doubt she would be the front runner if she were not Bill Clinton's wife. She has done nothing to actually distinguish herself. She doesn't strike me as a charismatic speaker like her husband. She has decent Senate experience, but still less than Dodd or Biden.

Say she wasn't the first lady and still did beat that used car salesman Rick Lazio in '00. She still would be considered just another senator running for president.

[smalll]

61. Sure, if she were a man, she'd have a lot less support - and if Obama were white, he would too -

Just ask Elizabeth Edwards! People just LOVE to give money to women and black men!