An honest question about Hilary and The 08 nod

[Stinky The Clown]

First off, I am not a Hilary08 person by any stretch of the imagination. There are many reasons for that, including family dynasty aversion. Her current flavor of politics is far too centrist for me. But I do like and admire her and am more than happy she's in the Senate.

But there are many here who tend to bash her. I've been one of them from time to time.

And after doing that bashing, I stopped to ask myself why. Was it her politics or a fear of a woman president? I've long hoped for a woman president. Geraldine Ferraro gave me hope. Hell ....... Bella Abzug gave me hope!

But I needed to give this a good think. Did I not want to see Hilary run for prez because of politically sound (to me) reasons ..... or because she was a woman. And even if my political reasons were sound, were my conclusions tainted by an unrecognized prejudice?

I have honestly thought this through. I don't want to see her run in 08 for what I beleive are good, sound and - most of all - mysogonistically untainted reasons and reasoning.

So I'm checking in .... she's the strongest woman potential presidential candidate we've ever seen in this country. And in a different political climate, she could absolutely get elected. And would probably be a great president. I'm sure there are many here who can agree these statements.

So, if you're not of a mind to suuport her ...... are you sure your own motives are pure?

I'm comfortable that mine are .... and I will not be supporting her in the primary season.

[Guaranteed]

1. I'm quite sure that the reason I don't like her is because her

positions are weak. I don't take anything from her because she's a woman.

Similarly, though, I don't give anything to her because she's a woman.

I don't even think about it.

[Texas_Kat]

2. Yes, I'm absolutely sure.

This 50 something female is of the generation that had to fight to be recognized as more than secretarial material. I have no prejudice against Hillary as a female candidate.

But I don't I think she'd make the best President. She's a terrific Senator for New York and she's doing a fine job there. It suits her.

There are many reasons for preferring a different candidate than Ms. Clinton to represent the Democratic party in 08. I don't plan on supporting her in the primary season either.

[Why Syzygy]

3. Electability

We need to win. She can't do it.

If she could, I would back her 150%.

We need some balls. End of story.

[Born Free]

4. bull....

It has nothing to do with that, remember that is how they sold John Kerry over Howard Dean and you saw what happened. Hilliary is NOT the best candidate democrats have to offer, she has a well known name, that's it. I do agree democrats need a fighter, just as they needed a fighter in the last 2 elections, but in it's place got nice guys that don't want to disturb anyone.

[Why Syzygy]

5. m'kay but

"they" never sold Kerry over Dean to ME or numerous other people I know.

So you're saying get the "not the best candidate" to run? Again?

humph .

[lojasmo]

6. I'm confident my motives are pure.

I wouldn't mind if she were president....she's just going to have to do it without my vote.

[CWebster]

7. Yes

I am a woman and to support her solely because she is a female would be like African-Americans cheering on Clarence Thomas.

Doubly, because she is a woman, I do not feel she is worthy of the honor to represent us. The way she compromises women's issues and nods approvingly of sending poor kids off to kill and be killed over blatant lies while she frets about violence and sex in the pop culture does not commands my respect--as a woman.

[Donna Zen]

9. Compromises women's issues

Odd that you should say that....I've been thinking about her saying that the war has improved women's lives in Afghanistan and Iraq. At the time, I thought "huh"?

Hillary's ace has always been women and children, but talk is cheap. How can you support women if you send their kids to kill women and kids. And if I knew that bush was lying, Hillary knew.

How can you support health care and education, if you vote to spend the money on a war?

And how can you be considered a fighter, when you keep caving on important issues? Fighting for yourself is different than fighting for others.

And why is it considered "bashing" to dislike Hillary's politics? I don't dislike Hillary, she's smart and she's a crafty politician, but I see Olympia Snowe as a smart and crafty politician too. I won't vote for either one of them.

[CWebster]

10. And buried in the back of the paper the other day

The new Iraqi constitution rolls back womens rights.

I don't imagine she will address it.

[Donna Zen]

14. Will she address it?

BTW, it is good to be on the same page with you CWebster.

Anyway, I've noticed that her approach to issues is mostly a wait and see (poll data) approach. The other day I saw that she signed on to a veterans issue, but only after others had been yammering for months. Of course she get headlines, which for those of us who care, is both good and yet infuriating. Perhaps the women and children of Iraq and Afghanistan will receive the same treatment.

If she sees that the her vote for war is hurting her chances, I wonder how she'll spin a new stance? She really has hired some of the best in the business.

[GreenArrow]

23. "Hillary's ace has always been women and children"

Perception is more important than reality.

[Totally Committed]

8. I am an ardent Feminist....

my heart is pure on this. Hillary is wrong for this time and this election cycle... Aside from the fact that her politics have drifted so far right of center that they make me nauseous, but here's why I will not support her: SHE WILL NOT WIN. Period.

Right or wrong, Red-State America is not ready to elect a woman Commander in Chief in a time of war and a time of "terror". And, it doesn't matter that she's proved a huge hawk. Right or wrong, Values-Voting America is not sure a woman should work outside the home, let alone run the country, AND they still have not forgiven the Clintons for godknowswhat they had to forive them for. She is unnecessarily polarizing. Right or wrong, I want to win this time, so I cannot support her.

If the DNC chooses to "annoint" her, and because of that, the voters obediently vote for her during the primaries, she runs without my vote. I can no longer support this level of lunacy that has guaranteed us a loser this many tries in a row.

(And, if we were hell-bent on running a woman for POTUS, the amazing Barbara Boxer would be more my style. So would Stephanie Tubbs-Jones. Hillary probably, at this point, wouldn't even make my personal top-ten.)

[DanCa]

11. I bare her no ill will but i hope she wont run

1) I dont see her cracking the south
2) I dont see her reaching independents and conservatives
3) She has a long paper trail as a senator and the gop will love to go after this like they did with senator kerry.

With that being said if she's the nominee I would vote for her but I hope she doesn't run.

[election_2004]

12. The reason I'm NOT supporting her....

Hillary's baggage will lead to heavy downticket losses for Democrats in red states and rural states, when it comes to U.S. Senate seats, U.S. House seats, gubernatorial races, and statewide/local races.

Democrats all the way down the ticket would be baited into using Hillary Clinton as the barometer against which they measure themselves.

Hillary's supporters argue: "She doesn't need to win the South...she only needs all the blue states plus Ohio or Florida to win the General Election..."

That may be true...but to sacrifice potential Democratic victories simply for the "thrill" of putting Hillary Clinton in the White House is NOT in line with the "50-state strategy" that so many Democrats claim they are now espousing.

Wanna lose Mary Landrieu's, Tim Johnson's, and Mark Pryor's U.S. Senate seats? Run Hillary.

Wanna lose the opportunity to win Norm Coleman's, Gordon Smith's, Pete Domenici's, Wayne Allard's, or Saxby Chambliss's U.S. Senate seats? Run Hillary.

Wanna lose Carl Levin's U.S. Senate seat? Run Hillary.

Wanna give extra baggage to Christine Gregoire in Washington state? Run Hillary.

Wanna lose a gaggle of Democratic-held seats in the U.S. House of Representatives? Run Hillary.

Wanna lose a bunch of red states that could otherwise be carried by an upstanding candidate whom voters perceive as a moderate? Run Hillary.

Wanna implement a successful 50-state strategy? Run someone else.

My own personal favorite is Senator Blanche Lincoln.

http://www.lincoln2008.com

Lincoln/Warner 2008!!!
(or Lincoln/Feingold 2008)

[CWebster]

13. A good Mid-Western populist-style Democrat

Is not a bad idea.

[election_2004]

17. many people immediately look to Feingold....

...and I love having Russ as my U.S. Senator.

But I just can't see the "twice-divorced Jewish" candidate playing well at the top of the ticket in the eyes of Middle America.

Now I do think Russ Feingold would be a smart pick for a vice-presidential running mate for Blanche Lincoln. He would provide some of the foreign policy expertise that Lincoln lacks.

As much as I think a Lincoln/Warner ticket would be a real juggernaut in 2008, a Lincoln/Feingold ticket could make an extra leap toward energizing progressive voters.

Both Lincoln and Feingold have a populist flare to their politics, and they would make an effective team.

[CWebster]

31. You are in middle America, aren't you?

and he consistantly wins there.

As opposed to a Northeastern carpetbaggin' elitist, what's to lose?

[Mr.Green93]

15. Say what you want

she is in like Flynn.

[Sooner75]

16. better NOT be

From my perspective deep behind the lines in Reddest Red State territory, Hillary becoming the nominee would be cause for dispair. Therefore, I refuse to believe that she's a lock in '08.

As I've said before, she energizes THEIR base better than ours and she's got no legs in the South, Midwest and West. No way does she get 270 electoral votes. NO WAY!

In 2008, the focus must be on getting those 270 electoral votes....without losing what distinguishes us from the Republicans.

In a more pleasant parallel universe, perhaps we could have a Barbara Boxer from Missouri who'd take the fight to the GOP with strong appeal in the Mississippi Valley states. Unfortunately, we just don't live there.

[welshTerrier2]

18. you be the judge ...

i made two posts today that were highly critical of Mrs. Clinton ...

it would be fantastic to have a progressive woman run for President ... but i think Hillary's views on many key issues are a disgrace ... i will never vote for her ...

here's the case against her so far:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=1961981&mesg_id=1961981
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=1960725&mesg_id=1960725

[election_2004]

19. Honestly....

I don't know if a progressive (female *OR* male) will realistically win the White House back for the Democrats.

My choice for 2008 is still Blanche Lincoln, because although she's centrist (and yes, DLC), she's honest and authentic when bring up the issues in front of voters.

http://www.lincoln2008.com

I'm beginning to think that a Lincoln/Feingold ticket may be the right formula to bring together "mushy moderates" and left-leaning progressives in a General Election.

[AntiCoup2K4]

20. I would vote for Barbara Boxer without question....

...though being a Senator, I don't think she should run. My opposition to Hillary has nothing to do with gender and everything to do with right wing pandering.

[EndElectoral]

21. Well said...

Boxer is not afraid to go out on the limb....Hilary is trying to play to all factions and hence she'll win none.

[Nikki Stone 1]

25. I'd go for Boxer in a heartbeat.

She maintains a consistent progressive stance.

[aspberger]

22. a woman is needed

The rovian mean-spiritedness will backfire on a woman. Hillary is needed even though she is impossible to categorize or put into a simple binary definition. She has had diverse life experiences and has been through the hellfire of the repuke dragons. I cannot think of any other American more qualified to lead us all at this time of world evil.

[election_2004]

24. What has she DONE.....

Name three accomplishments that make Hillary more "qualified" than any of the other possible Democratic presidential candidates.

[aspberger]

26. She has

been associated with her husband's multiple gubernatorial victories. She was there with Bill in his 2 Presidential victories. She bounced back from the political savagery unleashed at her when tried to come up with a national health insurance plan. She survived Whitewater investigation. She stood by her husband during the impeachment trial and was tough enough to handle the public airing of a private matter. And in Kennedyesque fashion, she won a NY Senate seat. The lady is one tough, seasoned, extremely intelligent lady who has paid the butcher's bill and who's time has come.

[election_2004]

27. So you're saying she should get the prez nomination....

Because she's a victim?

You're going to have to do way better than that. A helluva lot better.

Hillary didn't serve as Governor of Arkansas. Bill did.

Should every candidate's spouse be considered for a high political office just because they were "supportive" or their husband or wife on the campaign trail?

And winning a NY Senate seat as a Democrat...wow, big feat. Why not nominate Chuck Schumer? *note sarcasm*

[aspberger]

28. She was right on with health care in the early 90's

She was ahead of her time then, but her time is coming.

[fujiyama]

29. Name some

accomplishments or attempted accomplishments in the senate regarding healthcare?

Note, I'm not saying she had to have accomplished something concrete (though it certainly helps). That's almost impossible considering Dems have been in the minority for a large part of the last five years.

I just don't understand her appeal. Is it that she was married to the last Dem president? She doesn't have Bill's charisma. She seems to have no concrete values and is willing to pander to whatever group - basically a dull, very calculative politician.

I'd say it's too early to look at 2008 anyways and I'm not interested in having any one part of the party shove a candidate down our throat at this point.

[election_2004]

30. In the early-90's...

Hillary was First Lady in '93, NOT a legislator.

What has she done, since 2001, during her time as a U.S. Senator representing the blue state of New York, that causes her to stand head and shoulders above any other Democrat who could be considered an '08 presidential candidate?

[CWebster]

32. LOL--what you are saying is she stood by her man

as the case for her bid. Laugh out loud.