Hillary is one of the only successful Dems at the national level

[billbuckhead]

That's very rare. She was a progressive in the bible belt in the 70's and 80's and 90's. That's very rare.

Candidate X is from a state smaller, less diverse than 100's of urban counties across the nation. Candidate X couldn't win any primaries outside X even with the advantage of being the leading antiwar candidate, having cutting edge internet campaign, a big war chest as well as having a much ballyhooed 8 NRA endorsements.

These are the facts. Not poll's, but facts. I'm sick of all this Hillary bashing. Y'all sound about her as bad the Republicans. Scared of a woman? Let's give her a chance, she deserves it. She was left-center in the red states when it wasn't cool.

[SaveElmer]

1. Right on - nt

[AmericanDream]

2. I'm a woman... why are you making this about gender?

Being scared of a woman... is what repubs do not democrats. I have my issues with hillary and thus she doesn't get my support. We aren't playing the "Go, girl" game here. As for being successful on the national stage... she is a one term senator for crying out loud, before that she was the most polarizing first lady ever.

I like her... as a senator.

[efhmc]

18. As a feminist I saw many "polarizing" things about her as a first lady

that related directly to the fact that she is a strong woman and for no other reason; no nancy raygun or stepford laura "kill a fellow" bush, this person. As a senator, it is hard for me to judge her since she is so new but there is definitely an undercurrent, even among pregressives, against her sinply because she is a woman that would not cause the same reaction if she were a man. Having said that and seen the reaction she gets, I do not think she would be a good candidate for president. But I would love to be proven wrong.

[AmericanDream]

22. I didn't say being polarizing is a weakness... it's not some accomplishmen

You said that she has been successful on the national stage... and I was just counting what she has done over the years. Hillary's not a weak woman but gee, I have my issues with her politics and I judge her just like I do the other candidates in the field. Neither do I think she is the best candidate nor does she have the most impressive set of progressive stances from the potential '08 field. Maybe you're right about some progressives being sexists or whatever towards her... being an individualist, I am not the best judge of that. But as a woman, I hope they are not voting against her simply because she is a woman... because if they espouse those sentiments, they are not progressives to begin with!

[efhmc]

28. I am actually not the one who wrote about her accomplishments on the

national level. And you will find that there are many here who count themselves progressive that are less than that when it comes to women and women's rights. Although it will come in underhanded ways.

[AmericanDream]

34. My bad... I thought you were billbuckhead

[election_2004]

29. Speaking for myself....

My problem with Hillary is not that she's a woman, but that she's an opportunist and has built her political career based mainly on the Clinton namesake (in other words, being a "celebrity" with "rock star" status), rather than basing it on substance or her own personal accomplishments. That's the same type of rationale that Republicans used to justify giving GWB the presidential nomination in 2000. Furthermore, I think it sets a bad precedent for future generations - - regardless of whether it's Hillary, George W., or anyone else.

My first choice for the presidency is actually a woman...

http://www.lincoln2008.com

Even though Blanche Lincoln isn't as progressive as I would prefer on certain issues, and I don't agree with Blanche's stances 100% of the time. I also look very heavily at the character and integrity of the candidate, along with the issues.

[Name removed]

3. Deleted message

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

[SaveElmer]

5. Goodbye!!!

[LittleClarkie]

9. Only 4 posts

I managed at least 40 before I outed myself. Sheesh.

[FrenchieCat]

4. Look....

I really don't want to keep stating the obvious, but I will:

See this bumper sticker that will make Hillary and the Democrats lose?

Bush/Clinton/Bush/Clinton--
28 years of American "Die-nasties" -
give us a break and vote _____________!

(insert name of Hillary's opponent in blank space)

[mitchtv]

11. trashing ANY Dem won't win you any fans for your candidate

sorry you don't like her. I am ambivalent,but I sure don't appreciateyour kind of back handed attacks on a NY state dem.

[FrenchieCat]

15. You can call it trashing.....

I call it reality.

[SaveElmer]

14. What evidence do you have...

That the American people care a bit about these so called dynaties.

Every time they have been given the opportunity to vote down a candidate because they were part of a Presidential family they have not taken it.

Do you have any polling data ?

[FrenchieCat]

17. I say screw polls!

I'm not into them at all. They feed on the PR spread....and become the PR talk. It's round and round with polls....where they end up, we all know!

[SaveElmer]

19. So you don't have any evidence...

Historical or otherwise...just your gut feeling ?

[FrenchieCat]

20. Please

I don't need evidence to have MY opinion on what mainstream rank & file voters will think of a possible legacy of Bush/Clinton/bush/Clinton....Especially with the GOP pointing the way to the mantra no more Bushes or Clintons.

I'm not a fucking politician with some goddam corporate poll up my my bootey.....

I have just plain ol' ordinary common sense.

Heard of that lately?

[SaveElmer]

23. Common sense says...

That if you believe the American people are going to reject a candidate for the reasons you state that you might have some shred of evidence to back you up. If you don't like polls fine, how about any historical evidence at all to back it up?

It's your opinion and that is fine. But, history says that bumpersticker isn't gonna resonate with anybody but you!!!

[FrenchieCat]

25. Well, As an American....I know my right....

And while I will continue to stay away from bashing Hillary, I know that she is a losing proposition....

and I think you are DEAD WRONG bout this statement you made:

history says that bumpersticker isn't gonna resonate

"It's the ecomomy stupid!"
"Where's the beef?"
"I voted for the 87 billion, before I voted against it"
"Happy days are here again"
"I Like Ike"
"The buck stops here"
"There you go again"

[SaveElmer]

27. Dude...you can have any opinion you want

I'm just pointing out you have no evidence to back up your opinion that the American people are gonna suddenly decide they don't like Presidential dynaties. You might be right, but if you are it will be a precedent shattering event.

I'm not saying there aren't issues that resonate, but none of those past slogans has anything to do with Presidential dynasties.

btw: "Where's the Beef" didn't work too well. Mondale took one state...barely.

[FrenchieCat]

31. Ok....glad you could come up with 1 out of 7 that didn't work well

but my question to you....when did we, as Americans, vote into office the same two families for 28 years in a row? Can you cite that passage in history. I have to imagine that whatever evidence you cite will show Americans taking a break in between.

Please show me.

Thanks.

[SaveElmer]

32. They were never given the chance...

However, there have been two instances where the son of a President was elected while his father was still alive and well known.

John Adams and John Quincy Adams, and of course (unfortunately), the Bushes. And, Franklin Roosevelt was elected with the memory of his cousin Theodore still prominent in peoples memory.

No evidence anywhere that a candidate was rejected because of his relationship to another President.

BTW: I could come up with an equal number or more of slogans that didn't work. You tried to pick ones to bolster your point, and even one of those was a failure.

[election_2004]

6. Hmmm....

She was a progressive in the bible belt in the 70's and 80's and 90's. That's very rare.

Um...remind me what elected offices she held in the Bible Belt back in the 70's and 80's and 90's?

Candidate X is from a state smaller, less diverse than 100's of urban counties across the nation. Candidate X couldn't win any primaries outside X even with the advantage of being the leading antiwar candidate, having cutting edge internet campaign, a big war chest as well as having a much ballyhooed 8 NRA endoresements and playing footsie with credit card companies.

Is this supposed to be a not-so-subtle reference to Howard Dean's 2004 candidacy?

These are the facts. Not poll's, but facts. I'm sick of all this Hillary bashing.

What "facts" are you referring to? That she held a non-existent elected office in the 70's and 80's and 90's? That she isn't from the same state as Candidate X? (whoever that's supposed to be)

Y'all sound about her as bad the Republicans.

No, Republicans criticize her because she's a "man-hating Communist *LIBRUL* who wants socialized medicine."

My position is that Hillary would be bad for the country on a national ticket because she would not help the 50-state strategy that the Democrats claim they want to utilize in 2008.

Scared of a woman?

That's pretty low...so if someone doesn't support Hillary Clinton, that makes them sexist? For your information, there are plenty of women who I think would be very deserving and who would excel in the Executive Branch. Hillary is simply not one of them.

Let's give her a chance, she deserves it.

Okay...but only if the DLC and the mainstream media is willing to give every other Democratic candidate who gets into the race a fair and equal chance, as well. Including fair and equal coverage.

She was left-center in the red states when it wasn't cool.

And how many of those red states did she win elections in?

To my knowledge, she has only been elected as a civil servant in blue New York.

[LittleClarkie]

7. And I'm sick of having her shoved down her throat as inevitable

Could we at least vote first? Would that be asking too much?

[KoKo]

8. Sort of sounds a little like "PR" to me. Most of us are very familiar

with Hillary. So, why is it so important to come posting like the election is in a few months and we need to vote for her, here on DU.

:shrug: just asking.

[billbuckhead]

12. Why all this rejection of the idea? I don't like Hillary getting dissed

This Hillary bashing is unjust.

[election_2004]

16. Unjust? You ain't seen nothing yet!

If you can't handle a little criticism of your preferred candidate BEFORE the Democratic primaries even begin, then how do you expect to persuade people to support her *IF* she's the presidential nominee in the General Election?

Unless you're actually just trying to prematurely clear the field of any strong Democratic opponents, so that Hillary will have a monopoly over the race and snatch up the nomination with virtually no opposition from other Democrats.

[wisteria]

10. Hillary is where she is because of her husband !

Maybe she is smart and actually is a good senator,but she is where she is and she is able to raise the money she has because her last name is Clinton. If she was a Jones or a Smith no one would be conducting polls or following her every move or even writing books about her. I expressly remember her for trying to jointly run the country with her husband when he was first elected. I remember her insulting women for standing by their men- and look, that is exactly what she did with Bill and Monica. I also remember her failed health care plan.
Oh, and I'm not scared of a woman. In fact, I am one myself. I would just prefer that the first women elected president be elected on her own qualifications,all on her own without a handy name or an ex president as a husband. Feel free to toot the Hillary horn if you want. I will be playing another tune.

[mr715]

36. No. No. No. WRONG WRONG WRONG

She didnt just win NY. She trounced the competition.

She won NY because she put in effort. Went to EVERY township in NY. Saw a good percentage of the population (18 million) in person. She went everywhere and did not give speeches, did not ask for votes.

She did a listening tour and found out what issues were important for regular NYers.

She brought them up in debate, and won Americans. Remember how much she was hated? Remember that? NY isnt liberal upstate dude and she won that too.

She won because she BECAME a NYer. She won because she speaks well, works hard, and debates like a pro.

She is charismatic, intelligent, and just a little bit sexy.

Hillary Rodham Clinton has got my vote in the primary. Even tho I'd perfer to see her as Attorney General.


M

[Freddie Stubbs]

13. Let the best woman...or man...win

The fact is that it is very early. We have no idea if Hillary, or Kerry, or Edwards, or whoever will run.

[libodem]

21. The "Right",

hate her with unbridled passion. I'm not sure, why? I admire her greatly and think she is wonderful.. I don't see her as President, though. I don't know why? I think maybe, she is needed, behind the scenes. Democrat's have a lot of power, it just needs to be orchestrated , correctly.

[dsc]

24. It is a flat out lie, not a fact but a lie, to say that Dean was endorsed

by the NRA in the Democratic primaries. I call it a lie because you have stated it before, on several occasions, and have been repeatedly corrected with supporting evidence provided. Yet here you are, saying it yet again.

[billbuckhead]

30. Here's one of many Howard Dean quotes bragging about the NRA

"I've been endorsed by the National Rifle Association,'' Howard Dean tells audiences at almost every stop, referring to NRA's support of him when he was Vermont's governor for 11 years.

<http://www.burlingtonfreepress.com/specialnews/dean/103.htm>

[dsc]

33. He wasn't endorsed in that primary

and you have repeatedly implied that he had been. You have also been repeatedly told that and ignored it. You did it again here. Dean wasn't endorsed by the NRA for any federal office at any time, ever. Unlike Sanders who you say is a real Democrat, it should be noted. Dean was repeatedly, though not 8 times (he only ran 7, 5 gov and 2 lt gov races) on the state level. But it should be noted that your eighth time would have had to be the primaries WHERE HE WASN'T ENDORSED BY THE NRA. Which makes your statement the lie I said it was.

[billbuckhead]

40. Are you saying that Dean doesn't brag about his NRA endorsements?

Saying Dean wasn't endorsed in the primary is spinning and not stright talk. Your just trying to reframe the argument. Dean talked in the primaries like he was the NRA candidate. Dean brags to this day about his NRA endorsements. Many people on this site were seeking the NRA endorsement for President for Dean and I never saw an discouragement from the Dean camp.

[killbotfactory]

26. I don't like political "royal families"

And I hate nepotism.

Therefore I'm not to hot on her being a candidate.

[Hippo_Tron]

35. Bush bashing is definatley more productive than Hillary bashing

But I'm still not voting for her in the primary.

[snowbear]

37. Just saw Tweety on Jay Leno...

He swore up and down that Hillary had the Democratic nomination sewn-up.

The entire L.A. audience was dead silent.

Leno then asked him who he thought had the best shot for the Republicans. Tweety said "definitely McCain"

The audience came to life with "hoots, howls, whistling, and clapping"

...Says something, huh..

If she can't draw even one clap from a California audience.. what's the deal??

:tinfoilhat:

[Awsi Dooger]

38. The 2008 election will be decided by white women

Is a white woman our best chance to sway them back in our direction? That's the Hillary dilemma in a nutshell, as I see it.

It will be another polarized year with each side locked in at 45% bare mimimum. Even 3+ years away, that's an incredibly safe assessment. Last year we blew white women by 9 points nationwide and that was game, set, match. It was a mere 1 point deficit in 2000. Security moms were not a myth and rescuing several percentage points from that group has to be our primary focus in 2006 and 2008.

I don't care about assessments of individual states. You must find the proper candidate to win the national popular vote and take your chances everything else falls into place.

My base instinct is Hillary turns off at least as many persuadable women as she wins over. I host debate watching parties and have thrown out her name as a test case. It's amazing how many of the women at my political gatherings have strong anti-Hillary opinions, much moreso than men. I saw a poll last year in which women had a stronger opinion of Martha Stewart's guilt than men. Immediately I equated that to the assessments regarding Hillary from my group. Strong and powerful must bring out resentment, for some reason I don't understand. Hillary's likeability numbers have always been problematic other than the aftermath of the Lewinsky scandal. If we run another candidate with a below 50% favorability rating we will lose and earn it.

[CWebster]

39. Really, BillfromBuckhead?

The reason she gets bashed by Democrats is because she aligns herself with Republicans--and not just any Republicans at that. She and hubby actually sabotage efforts and voices to call this Bush junta into account.

Face it, BillfromBuckhead, the Clintons should be escorted off the stage. They have done enough damage and they shouldn't be allowed to continue to handicap the best efforts of Democrats to launch new leadership, strength and identity from emerging post Clinton.

[billbuckhead]

41. Senator Clinton Assails Bush and G.O.P. at Campaign Fund-Raiser

Senator Clinton Assails Bush and G.O.P. at Campaign Fund-Raiser

By PATRICK D. HEALY
Published: June 6, 2005
Senator Hillary Clinton castigated President Bush and Washington Republicans today as mad with power and bent on marginalizing Democrats during a speech to 1,000 supporters at her first major re-election fund-raiser, which netted about $250,000.

Mrs. Clinton, who is running for a second term in 2006 and is widely described as a possible Democratic nominee for the presidency in 2008, said that her party is hamstrung because Republicans dissemble and smear without shame and the news media has lost its investigatory zeal for exposing misdeeds.

Left unchallenged, especially if Democrats fail to pick up seats in next year's Congressional elections, she said, Republican leaders could ram through extremist conservative judges, wreck Social Security and make unacceptable concessions to China, Saudi Arabia and other nations that are needed to finance the United States budget deficit.

-------------------snip-----------------------
<http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/06/nyregion/06cnd-hillary.html?pagewanted=1&ei=5090&en=b58541f817436370&ex=1275710400&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss>