Question for Hillary non-supporters.

[DURHAM D]

If Hillary changed her position on the war in Iraq and said:

"I made a mistake. I have changed my mind. We need to withdraw as quickly as possible"

Would you change your mind about her?

[IrateCitizen]

1. I'd be more ambivalent and slightly less hostile...

However, my problems with Hillary go beyond the war on Iraq and into the realm of corporate power in our society, and her relative endorsement of corporate power in the past.

[madfloridian]

2. Actually, it is more about her recent turn to the DLC..standing with them.

She is an integral part of that group now for sure. She is considered a part of the Third Way, and is a DLC advisor.

She took a stand then that involves more than just the way.

I don't advocate either way, that hurt her when she stood with them that day. She called for peace between the wings of the party, but it showed where she stood.

[wtbymark]

3. wouldn't matter

she's corperate friendly, she will continue economic policies that will hurt the average american.

We need a candidate who will re-impose taxes on the wealthy, reinstitute regulations on industry to protect workers rights and the environment. And who has bold visions to revamp the healthcare system without giving 'givaways' to the insurance companies. Corperations need to be held in check, in fact they owe us.period.

So, who's going to step up to the plate (not Hillary)

[jrthin]

4. Probably not.

I still remember myself and many others protesting in front of her NY office and asking to meet with her so that we could offer our solid reasons as to why she should vote against the illegal war. Nada. Keep in mind, I supported Hillary with my time and money for her Senate run, but I have been deeply dissappointed with her.

[TheFarseer]

5. just more posturing for votes

forget that phony, she'll never win anyway.

[Mist]

6. No. There are a number of reasons I'm not crazy about her. n/t

[HughBeaumont]

7. My problems have more to do with her . . .

. . . pro-corporate/pro-offshore outsourcing stance. Yes, it's a problem to me that she also voted for the IWR, but the Repub free-trader stance pisses me off.

[_ed_]

8. No

In a simply strategic sense, I don't think that Hillary Clinton is electable in a nation-wide election. I don't want the right-wing to win again.

Personally, I wouldn't feel good about casting a vote for her (although I would, just to counter a Republican candidate). I categorize her as a true politician. I don't think she really cares about anything except her career. Also, I don't think she is a liberal - she's to the right of her very moderate husband, Bill Clinton.

I think the Democrats need to run an empassioned, believable, electable person for President. Russ Feingold comes to mind.

[longship]

9. Yes.

But with qualifications.

I still think she loses any pairing and any opposition in 2008. The problem is that the Repugs revile her to such an extent that they will knock down the turnstiles to vote against her. Yes, I know that almost any Dem candidate could do that. But for the better part of 15 years, the Repugs have targetted the Clintons. She enters any contest as damaged goods with all that that entails.

I have a very big problem with her support for a faction of the party which thinks that being more like Republicans is to our advantage. The only leadership (other than in name) that they exhibit is leading the party from one loss after another for the better part of a quarter century.

Now, if she also rejected the DLC and decided to become a real Democrat, I would definitely reconsider my attitude towards her.

But the only issue that makes any sense at all for the next two years is Iraq. The extent to which Hillary is not on board with respect to Iraq is the extent to which I must absolutely oppose her.

[DURHAM D]

10. Longshot - thanks for your reasoned response. I posted this

question because I am having problems sorting out my personal views on Hillary.

I do think the first major democratic presidential candidate who supported (voted for)the war and states that they were wrong will jump to the head of the line.

[longship]

15. Or somebody who was on board with peace from the beginning.

n/t

[NYCGirl]

11. No. She's still part of a political dynasty (the Clintons and the Bushs)

who need to be retired for a while.

[DURHAM D]

13. You do know that Clinton dynasty thing is rightwing talking points

stuff don't you. One working/middle class husband and wife = 4 generations of Bush crime family ?

[NYCGirl]

16. Just because the Bush family are involved doesn't make it true that

Bill & Hillary are related? Four generations of Bush crime family? Only two generations were presidents. The whole thing is too banana republic for me.

[anitar1]

12. No. she is just more of the same. We need new blood. n/t

[Pithy Cherub]

14. Hillary's transformation would need to be

more consistent than that. Changing her views means changing the company she keeps with the DLC. She can't straddle the fence and say she remains aligned with an organization wedded to a viewpoint she now no longer holds. That's a plain failure of political leadership.

The first step is admitting that the IWR vote was wrong. Getting her there may move me to drearily ambivalent, but not a supporter. I really like her intellect and her passion for being a senator, but not nearly enough to set aside my principles regarding this travesty of an Iraq War. Those who voted for it bear responsibility and need to show more than just "I am sorry", this went a tremendous way towards bankrupting America morally and politically. That supersedes any attempt to ever vote for her if she continues to cling to the bloody wreckage of that vote.

[Eloriel]

17. No, not even close.

You didn't include, for example, "apologizing for the IWR vote" to start with, which would be required for me but still doesn't go nearly far enough.

Among other things, she'd also have to completely disavow the DLC and work for their total dismantling. FAT CHANCE.

Ergo: No to Hillary now, No to Hillary forever.

[sendero]

18. Well...

... it would be totally in keeping with her "character" to do just that. Because as much as everyone liked to blame Bill for swaying like a weed in the wind, Hillary is much worse.

Fact is, if I thought Hillary could win the presidency I'd line up behind her in a second. I just happen to believe that she cannot and will not win, and that's why I oppose her nomination.

[Mairead]

19. No. She'd still be a DINO, just a nominally anti-war one. (nt)

[LittleClarkie]

20. I still have to give her the same hard look I gave Kerry

I suspect what I know about her is Republican induced. I'd need to check out stuff like the Daily Howler, her bios and such. It's not the IWR vote. I wouldn't like Kerry if that was all it took.

I get a mechanical, political vibe from her, like Bill but without the political skill.

But I would have to investigate and find if that was fair.

Before I checked out Kerry, I referred to him as "Mr. Styrofoam Personality." So Hillary will deserve the same treatment, but probably not until and if she's actually our nominee.

[renaissanceguy]

21. It would make me look harder at her.

Any person who supports this war now is a complete idiot, and any politician who supports it is an idiot without backbone or emotions.

[mrgorth]

22. No

Her pro-corporate and pro-AIPAC stances do it to me.

[GreenArrow]

23. trouble is, it wasn't a mistake

She knew and knows what she did and is doing to support the crime that is the Iraq War.

Of course, if things were going well in Iraq, there would be no controversy, but the decisions to go there and stay there would be just as willfully toxic.

The trouble with Hilary, is that she is fundamentally a corporatist and an authoritarian.

[election_2004]

24. Nope

For me, how someone voted on the Iraq War isn't a litmus test for the 2008 presidency.

But if Hillary suddenly changed her position on it, it would simply appear as though she was changing her position to pander to progressive voters in anticipation of the 2008 primaries.

In my view, it isn't about the IWR; it's about how Hillary Clinton as the Democratic presidential nominee would hurt other Democrats running in competitive races (U.S. Senate, U.S. House) in bellweather states.

I will never support such a masochistic "strategy."

[Larkspur]

25. It's a start, but I don't see her doing that because she's in AIPAC's

back pocket.

She needs to also say that she will be "Evenhanded" when dealing with the Palestinians and Israelis and she needs to stop supporting outsourcing of high tech and manufacturing jobs to India and China.

[Stinky The Clown]

26. That would make zero difference to me

I like Sen. Clinton. I really do. I know some around here don't. But I am not one of them. That said, if this is about her possible run for the white house, this change will not make one whit of difference. The fact is, unfairly, she's a lightning rod for haters on the other side. *SHE* will become her own liability.