MotherJones.com Review of Hillary: The Movie (preview of what to expect in the GE?)

[Yael]

I hadn't heard about this before it was posted here today. It is making the news feeds because promotion of it has been deemed "political advertizing". The owners are apparently suing the FEC to be reclassified as "commercial speech".

Snippets:

Hillary Clinton has what pollsters call high negatives, which essentially means that lots of people really don’t like her and never will. But her supporters have long argued that she is a formidable candidate despite these negatives because those numbers aren't likely to go any higher. As the theory goes, Americans are already well acquainted with the Clintons' dirty laundry—Whitewater, Monica, etc.—and as a result, any more mud slung at Hillary isn’t likely to stick. Unlike the less-seasoned presidential contenders, she's been through the mill, and is still standing. But if last night’s Washington premier of Hillary: The Movie is any indication, this particular case for Clinton the candidate is wishful thinking.

But the movie’s producers smartly skip over most of the ancient history from the Clinton administration and stick to fresher material, much of which will be unfamiliar to the average viewer (or voter). The fundraising scandals alone provide a mountain of fodder.

Despite all its significant flaws and misrepresentations, Hillary is a useful reminder that Clinton carries a lot of baggage. It should give voters pause if only because the film lays waste to any notion that the vast right-wing conspiracy slithered under a rock. The Clinton-haters are alive and well, and in fighting form.

Democratic primary voters ought to watch it, just to make sure that they fully understand that a vote for Hillary is also a vote to bring back the people behind this film. It’s clear that the American public won’t be able to have one without the other.

http://www.motherjones.com/washington_dispatch/2008/01/hillary-the-movie-citizens-united.html

[ursi]

1. Yep, I am one stupid voter who longs for the controversy of a Clinton administration

I didn't get enough of it the first 8 years.

[peacebird]

2. I hope that Edwards can take the nomination... I truly do not see HRC winning in the GE.

I am a liberal progressive and I will not vote for her. My job is being outsourced ("Partnered" is the term the company uses) to India. I am white collar, that used to mean a good life in this country, but no longer. Companies are shifting jobs to the cheapest continent. I worry for my son, he's in college now. Due to graduate in a year. What jobs will remain in America? The jobs we are creating tend to be service sector, low skill, lower wage.... We aren't creating many career path jobs where growth (of knowledge and income) are the norm any more.

Corporations have lost the Henry Ford mentality - where it is good business sense to pay your workers enough to buy your product.

[Yael]

3. This thing is on Amazon.com, not just indi distribution.

:scared:

[earthlover]

4. Hillary's old memes do NOT strenghten her!

"But her supporters have long argued that she is a formidable candidate despite these negatives because those numbers aren't likely to go any higher. As the theory goes, Americans are already well acquainted with the Clintons' dirty laundry—Whitewater, Monica, etc.—and as a result, any more mud slung at Hillary isn’t likely to stick".

I have always wondered how people could actually believe this crap! It is NOT the mark a good candidate that she has the highest negatives, that she has been the target of more negative hit pieces than anyone else. Far from making her invincible, these old memes will just make the new ones more believable....

[Bullet1987]

5. She's already splitting the Democratic Party...

If she gets nomination, there's NO WAY she gets over 51% of the vote. And that is too close to be considered OK when there's a candidate that can win in a landslide.

[Yael]

7. She doesn't need the popular vote -- just the electoral

Our system is so strange.

[Yael]

6. I read it that the MJ.com reviewer was making the same point that you did?