Hillary's Negative Halo Effect

[wyldwolf]

Negative Halo Effect

Just this morning Chris Matthews compared her to Madame DeFarge, and she's been pelted so frequently with the words "cold" and "frigid" that it's a wonder she hasn't developed snowburn. I refer, of course, to Hillary Clinton, junior Senator from New York. Happily, Lance Mannion brings the refreshing taste of spearmint to the debate about Hillary's persona and presidential prospects, topics that seem to reduce otherwise normal, rational people to lockjaw recalcitrance.

A lot of progressive types in the blogosphere really, really hope that the nominee won't be Hillary. They don't think her stand on issues is progressive enough---surprise!---they don't trust her to stand up to the Right Wingers and their Democratic enablers in Congress---Hello, Joe Lieberman.---and they don't like her connections to old DLC types from her husband's administration.

They don't believe she can be elected, to begin with, and they doubt that if she is elected she can govern, at least not in any way that will make Progressives happy.

What I hear is even more emphatic. "They" not only don't believe Hillary can win, they know she can't win. They say it with such certitude, such finality. People who have no trouble entertaining doubt and ambiguity in every other arena of life draw a saber line in the sandbox when it comes to the dead-sure futility of Hillary ever being elected president.

To which I say, Tosh.

Tosh! I say.

Of course Hillary can be elected. It isn't that complicated. It isn't advanced trig or Last Year at Marienbad.

1) She wins the Democratic nomination.

2) She defeats the Republican nominee.

3) She takes the oath of office.

Can she beat Obama Barack or John Edwards? Of course she can, even without the "aura of inevitability" that was once her crown. Obama is narrowing the chase, but Hillary is still the frontrunner and has huge assets going into the primaries that hardly need detailing.

Can she beat the Republican nominee? Of course she can. She won't be running against the ghost of Abraham Lincoln on spectral horseback or a hologram of Ronald Reagan circa 1982, she'll be running against a Deeply Flawed Republican Male, each one a pandering phony of varying intensity. Only a few months ago, conventional wisdom assumed that if she were up against John McCain, she'd get her pantsuit wrinkled into a disposable ball. Now it's McCain who looks pale and faltering. Think she isn't as tough as Giuliani?--think again!, as Bobby Gorem would say.

The punditry harps on her programmed answers and lack of spice, but Rudy, McCain, and "Oven" Mitt Romney in action aren't exactly Night at the Improv or Lord Buckley in grandiloquent yodel. I saw Hillary do one of those town meeting things on C-SPAN and she had a command, ease, and poise that were quite attractive--all those tours of upstate New York have done her a world of starch-removal good. Like Lance, I'm open to any Democratic candidate, though I lean more towards Edwards than anyone else, but I don't think Hillary's merits and qualities should be minimized.

...I look at Hillary's time as first lady, her six years as my Senator, her biography, and I see a person who has demonstrated a remarkable ability to learn and grow on the job.


I see someone who has shown she can take charge and lead. I see someone who cares about mastering the details of her job. I see someone who knows how to run things and make things run.

I'm not saying that either Obama or Edwards isn't that kind of person. I just don't see enough in their resumes that shows they are as talented or as geared that way as Hillary is.

So cut the babe some slack.

http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/blogs/wolcott/2007/03/lance_mannion_b.html

[peacebird]

1. no.

Sorry - but I pray that she is NOT our nominee.

Loved the Big Dawg, don't like her.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

3. I second that.

No.
Every time I force myself to review her history, her stance of issues and her current policies, I just cannot get myself to support her. can't do it. Won't try again.

Let her triangulate, push poll, and focus group the hell out of this election, but I cannot support her.

[papau]

7. Ok - I'm curious - any specifics? Since her history as a progressive is solid I'm

always bemused by claims that "insert right wing GOP theme" is being touted on DU.

Or is the "Goldwater" girl as a junior in High School that bothers everyone?

I love the way the right says she is too left and progressive for her Black Panther law school minor involvement and her 93 single payer universal health push (which my company spent many dollars fighting and then celebrated over the industry lobbyists getting Bill Clinton to order her to drop the idea (in return for faked industry support for insurance based universal) and telling her that he was going to start up a health task force with her as its head that had only one order - no single payer national health). Indeed being too "left from 73 to 92 would not seem to make her poll driven (another right wing theme).

She is more moderate than many on DU, but is certainly more left - to date - than Obama and the others other than DK. I look forward to Obama's health statement - if he comes out for single payer universal health he rises to the top of my list - but we will see what his positions actually are. His energy pro-coal position was not a way to win my vote - but single payer national health is more important to me.

[sendero]

10. I do not consider myself..

... to be a fringe leftist. I take my stances on what I think will be good for most Americans.

HRC just simply has NONE of the fire or passion that made me love Bill even after all his mistakes. She is simply not inspirational. She is not going to be able to run against the war, because she has made so many comments in support of it, so she's already hamstrung on the main issue of 2008.

Polls show her negatives to be exceedingly high, and she's apparently banking on a huge campaign budget to overcome that. Maybe it will, but I'm skeptical. If she wasn't so utterly lacking in charisma and charm her numbers wouldn't be so horrible. Putting her face on every TV is as likely to lose her votes as gain them.

We have no room to talk about how useless Republicans are if this is the best person we can find to represent our party.

[laugle]

56. Hillary has said that "Bush should end the war before he leaves office,

and if he doesn't, she will, if she is president!"

She has made that clear.

About her keeping troops there, she will keep only whats needed to fight Al-quada and protect the borders.

I trust that she, along with President Clinton will figure out a way out of this mess Bush made!

[sendero]

63. Yes..

... now that the polls show a clear majority of Americans want out, she is on board. Excuse me if that isn't enough.

[laugle]

65. Some people will never be satisfied with anything she does.

And whom do you support for President and why?

[sendero]

71. Clark would be good..

... but he probably couldn't compete in America, like Masterpiece Theater can't compete with American Idol.

Clark is smart, uncompromising, charismatic, has integrity, never utters endless equivocations, isn't owned by interest groups, and is a proven man of accomplishment.

HRC is a mediocre senator who rode her husband's coat tails into office. She has not distinguished herself in any way other than her tired triangulation tactics and her ability to raise cash that will have to be paid back in bad legislation.

It's time to turn the page.

[laugle]

95. I like Clark too...however he isn't running....

I think Hillary's NY constituents would disagree.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

12. but she is not progressive

she is not nuanced, but programmed.


As for Obama, I live in Illinois, and I still don't know many of his positions. The GOP imploded during his election, and left him as the only person standing. Then again, we can count on our GOP to implode every so often. The ultra-reichwingnuts remain fully in force. Just because one candidate wanted to have sex with his wife, we ended up with Alan Keyes, someone who frist, santorum, Lott and others would have a great time with, but for the fact that he is black.

the reason Obama won was because of a confluence of events, many totally unrelated to him, his policies, or his talent. Before his "speech" that made him famous, many in the black community in Chicago would merely say, "WHO?" when asked about him. Being in state government was no major victory for him either.

At least, he has dealt fairly well during his brief honeymoon with the press. That's good for him. Can he survive over the long rigors of a national campaign? I doubt it. As flavor of the month, he has done well. But tastes change. Experience wins out over time.

That is why when 50% of Americans, including 42% OF WOMEN would never vote for Rodham Clinton under any circumstances, it should send a message to the rest of us. It means that she cannot get elected. She cannot triangulate enough to grab that core while maintaining whatever base she has. Clinton's current numbers have to do with name recognition, not with preferential selection of a nominee. In many ways, she is the worst thing that can happen to the nation.

Despite coming close, Rove could not kill of the Democrat Party. Instead, he managed to cut the throat of his own neocon movement by being caught time and time again. America has woken up to his tricks and lies. Now, if we go all DLC and nominate Clinton, we will envigorate and energize the dying neocon movement - exactly the opposite of what we want to do. And we will lose the general election, as well.

[wyldwolf]

37. her voting record says otherwise

[bread_and_roses]

43. Not on Economic issues it doesn't

Over at National Journal her rating on the Economic sort is 63, compared say to John Kerry's 87. She is very near the bottom of the Democratic barrell on economic issues. A great step backward from Kerry. Is that what we need right now? And which other issue - environment, civil liberties, education, shared prosperity, is not negatively impacted by legislation supporting corporate welfare, corporate profits over decent jobs and wages?

Follow the money, always.

[wyldwolf]

44. Yes it does

Over at Drum Major Institute, her Economic rating is 100.

As for Kerry's National Journal economic score, Kerry missed 37 of the 62 votes on which the ranking was based. So the Journal assigned Kerry a score only on economic policy for that year -- "a perfect liberal score," in fact. That was based on 19 Kerry votes, though he still missed 13 others on economic policy.

[bread_and_roses]

54. 34 issues at NJ, 8 at DM

I think I'll go with the bigger picture.

(edit for numeric typo)

[wyldwolf]

55. National Journal - what the RNC used to decalre Kerry the most liberal in Congress

No thanks. I'll go with the Democratic measure.

[ProudDad]

64. I would expect a 100 rating from DMI

Check out the board -- primarily lawyers, CEOs and investment banker.

Yep, that group would LOVE Hillary...


Have you got a link for that "rating"? That might be interesting reading.

Don't get me wrong, as far as Civil Rights and fairness for the working classes under this fucked up capitalist system is welcomed by me. I don't mind being a bedfellow to folks like this when they're helping things along to the next logical step -- a form of Democratic Socialism to replace this rapacious corporate capitalist oligarchy (so well represented by Bill and now Hillary).

[laugle]

57. Whom is your favored candidate and why? nt

[ChairmanAgnostic]

72. nun ovthee above.

Frankly, this two party cistern has too many problems. We need to do what is right for our future, and our present. That will require a whole gnu approach

[job777]

22. I'll double that NO

and if she is the nominee I sure hope she doesn't run on her Senate record. If you look close she hasn't been in the forefront. Being from NY I find her record with us Upstate dismal at best.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

41. leadership? did I sniff a hint of that nasty word just now?

I agree with you completely, and that is my biggest USDA choice, freshly ground, double pattied, slightly seasoned, triple cheese, prime beef with her. Inside or outside of the bun.

[AtomicKitten]

46. *

A legitimate organic corn-fed, free-range, flame-broiled beef.

[laugle]

58. Hey AK,

looks more like "MAD COW" LOL.......

What happened to "purple mouse" I had named him the "Unity" mouse, he wasn't blue or red, just purple.....get it????

[rodeodance]

2. Thanks for the post. I hope it gets read by all.

[papau]

4. Hillary can win both primary and general and be a good President - I agree - but

A Fred Thompson throws a Hollywood "Law and Order" deep voice Howard Baker moderate into the race and would be the toughest of the GOP to beat - but he is beatable as he does not generate any "charisma effect" - rather the stern father is the take away - and that is beatable by Hillary.

It is way too early to be getting locked onto a given candidate - but not too early for throwing a few dollars the way of the choice dejure!

[papau]

6. dupe

[illinoisprogressive]

5. The reason she cannot get elected is because indies and crossovers

will not vote for her. many in her own party will not vote for her. This is not good. If you cannot get a large bulk of your own party, this points to loss.
She is the hold your nose candidate of 08.
Though I don't put alot of stock in the polls this early, in head to head she loses by a wide margin to the possible gop candidates. On comparison, Obama ties or wins over them.
Take this in concideration and you are looking at another Kerry situation.
She just doesn't spark excitement or make people want to support her overall.

[papau]

8. NOW - the women's vote - is very excited - so far - maybe not on

DU so much :-) but nationally.

:-)

[Carolina]

9. totally disagree

Just because NOW and Billie Jean King endorsed her doesn't mean she has women locked up. I will not vote for her, nor my sister, godmother, cousins, niece nor any of the women in my Plates class ...

She is hated in some some parts of this country (all the red states) and that's what some people can't understand. Where I live, her name alone evokes the most incredible vitriol among men and WOMEN who are otherwise reasonable people!

[SaveElmer]

11. I live in a Red state...

Am quite active in the party and I see significant enthusiasm for Hillary here...particularly among women, but also several independent friends, and even one Republican...

It always amuses me that people think the opinions of their personal circle of friends is more accurate then any other measure!

[Alamom]

21. Same here.....it's an incredible tranformation to watch. Every woman

I know and speak with, WILL vote for Hillary. Many have voted conservative for a long time. Many are Dems like me.

It's like they were waiting for a reason to vote for "their" candidate. Many have always voted for the spouse's candidate without any interest in the issues or belief that we can make changes.
It seems they have remembered, we can make a difference. It's wonderful to see women excited about a candidate they support.


I also know men who are supporting Senator Clinton 100%.

[Carolina]

29. the key phrase is 'red state'

your STATE won't go for Hillary. Your state has not gone to the Dems and despite the enthusiasm you may see for HRC among the women in your state party, it won't translate into across the board and across gender enthusiasm.

I'll bet ya your state stays red in the 2008 national election, ESPECIALLY if HRC is the nominee.

[SaveElmer]

31. My state will stay red no matter who the nominee...

That wasn't the point...the point is of all the indicators of a candidates popularity, the least reliable is the anecdotal story from any one individual...just as my story of Hillary lovers in a red state do not mean she will win that state, so too is the story of Hillary haters in a blue state...does not mean she will lose that state...

Its like my parents...they say everyone they meet voted for McGovern...so how come he didn't win...

Anecdotal stories are completely useless as a measure of overall popularity...

[Clark2008]

69. Must be YOUR circle of friends - this red stater sees the same

thing as the person you just replied to - visceral hatred of anything Hillary Clinton by both men and women, certainly by Republicans, but also by Independents and some Dems.

[SaveElmer]

105. My circle is fairly wide actually...

Am quite active in the party and am a precinct captain...

But again, the point is that personal anecdotes are less than useless in determining overall popularity...

[papau]

14. I am just speaking about heavy majorities of women - I agree some women hate her n/t

n/t

[peacebird]

28. My mom, aunt and women friends are all hoping she is NOT the nominee

She is political poison to large swaths of the population. I still believe the only reason she is touted in MSM as the golden girl is because the Repukes WANT her to be their opponent. They believe the fundies will come out in droves just to vote against her. They salivate over the propsect of picking our nominee for us again - just like they did with Kerry. The DLC will work in lockstep with the RNC to destroy all other candidates until only she is left. Just like last time.

Kerry was NOT our best choice for candidate. I still believe Dean was a much better choice.

[Carolina]

32. you and I are in agreement

totally... about Hillary, the DLC, Kerry, etc.

Since when has the MSM been so nice to any Clinton? Yet, right now they're PLAYING nice. They want her as the nominee and they're helping/hoping to anoint her. Then they'll n turn around and slam her in the general contest. We know they'll fawn over any repuke choice no matter how dumb, no matter how much of an empty suit ...

Hillary will be gored and swifted-boated. can't you just hear it: First she was for the war, then she was against it, blah-de-blah. They'll make her look wishy-washy (which to me she is) and then they'll dredge up all the old manufactured demons: cold shrew persona who denigrates stay at home baking moms, Rose Law Firm shenanigans, Whitewater and even any of Bill's post-Monica bimbo eruptions ...

Dems will lose ... again.

[laugle]

59. The only thing that matters is if

she is the nominee, democrats will vote for her, the stakes are just wayyyy to high in 2008!!

[Captain_Nemo]

76. When I hear women won't vote for her

This is so sad to me - when I hear women won't vote for her because think think she is

A. poison
B. polarizing

Now, wasn't Bush polarizing? And, what's with the poison? She won NY state handily - twice!

She is immensely popular.

She is solidly for women's rights. When I read about how women are treated in Afghanistan and Iraq (thanks to our occupation) I KNOW we need a woman like Hillary in the White House.

When I hear people saying "oh she can't win I hope she's not the nominee." Let's think back to the women who were arrested and forced fed while marching for the right to vote. Let's think about the women who who were villified during the women's liberation movement of the 1970s when they fought for equal pay for equal work and sexual harrassment laws.

Let's think about all of the women who live in fear today of estranged boyfriends and husbands and we still haven't addressed domestic violence as a national problem that affects future generations.

Of course Senator Clinton can win.

[LWolf]

45. Just one small problem:

How many women actually allow NOW to dictate their vote? NOW can endorse; this woman won't vote for Hillary under any circumstances.

I wonder if there are any more women out there who don't allow NOW, or any other organization, to decide their vote for them. :D

[laugle]

61. That's really sad.......

just remember in Florida, 2000 when Nader got 4,000.00 votes and helped to install Bush!!

You might want to re-think that, before you vote against your own best interests.

The democratic party needs every vote even if you have to hold your nose......

[LWolf]

86. Yes, and no.

The party needs every vote? Yes.

Anyone who does not vote Democratic helps install a republican? No. The party's job is to earn the vote. They do so, or they don't. If the party chooses to leave progressive votes behind, that's the party's choice, and the party can take responsibility for it.

I don't cast my vote for a party. I cast my vote for the candidate most likely to work to move the issues forward. The issues that drive my life. If the Democratic Party wants my vote, they can field candidates I'll vote for. Pretty simple.

For the record, I am a registered Democrat, and I've never voted for Nader. Whether or not I remain a registered Democrat remains to be seen. It all depends on the direction the party takes, and the voters take the party. If I don't like the direction, I'll no longer be a Democrat. If the party values my vote, the party will represent me well. I believe the party has shown more inclination to value the votes of those who prefer to keep corporatists and ivy-league elitists in power. That's ok; I understand that those votes may be more valuable than mine.

Just don't try to spin the situation as if the Democratic Party "needs" the votes of those they are running away from supporting.

[AnOhioan]

87. Excellent post

You summed up the situation perfectly...."The party's job is to earn the vote. They do so, or they don't. If the party chooses to leave progressive votes behind, that's the party's choice, and the party can take responsibility for it."

My feelings exactly.

And like you I am a registered Dem, have never voted for Nader, and consider myself a progessive.

Hillary does not speak to my interests, never has and most likely never will.

[LWolf]

93. That's an excellent summary

of why all the Hillary propaganda just doesn't, and won't, work. In my opinion, of course!

[laugle]

94. Thanks for the thoughtful reply! Wow, we really have alot in common,

I too am one of those people who is a registered dem voter over 30 years now.

I too, am very unhappy with the dem party. It's funny, after Kerry lost in 2004, I was going to leave the party......I was disgusted....then one night I decided to look up the number of desserters of the Iraq war; I came upon a page that said "Democratic Underground," needless to say, I was impressed, and for the first time decided to join a message forum.

I thought I had no more fight in me, but finding others that were still out there giving their time and dollars made me re-think my position, so here I am more than 2 years later.....

Were we disagree is, that I see the stakes as just too high, and don't see any way around that. I believe we have never been in such danger since I have been voting, I am not an alarmist but a realist, we are in some deep shit!

We cannot afford to vote otherwise this time around. You will never find a candidate who shares all your values or your feelings on the issues, it's just not realistic.

If it were another time.......I would agree with you about not voting for the party.....not this time, another repub in 2008 would destroy what's left of the country we used to know and love......

[Nedsdag]

108. But I'm tired of holding my nose.

My nostrils are STILL feeling the effects of 2004. When are the Democrats going to nominate someone who not only has the right policies but the right appeal to voters?

Haven't they learned from nominating Mondale, Dukakis and Kerry? It'll happen again if Hillary is nominated. Trust me.

[job777]

24. I agree with you

and she carries all of that old baggage.

[ProudDad]

66. Yep, Obama would be an easier sell

among those groups of people who won't vote for Hillary, including republicans like my mother...

[skipos]

13. She sure looks like general election poison right now

I won't say she CAN'T win, but she sure looks weaker than the other Dems despite all her money. Dame Rudy and Weathervane McCain and Hillary all have high name recognition, yet Rudy and McCain beat her in most polls and have WAY better favorable/unfavorable ratings, and MUCH fewer people committed to voting against them. Further, she underperforms Obama in Edwards in most polls. Look at the pattern in these Ras polls (the most accurate pollster in 2006)...

McCain (48%) Clinton (41%) CLINTON LOSES BY 7%
McCain (38%) Edwards (47%) EDWARDS WINS BY 9%
McCain (44%) Obama (44%) TIED

Thompson (44%) Clinton (43%) CLINTON LOSES BY 1%
Thompson (37%) Obama (49%) OBAMA WINS BY 12%

Brownback (41%) Clinton (46%) CLINTON WINS BY 5%
Brownback (34%) Obama (49%) OBAMA WINS BY 15%

Giuliani (49%) Clinton (41%) CLINTON LOSES BY 8%
Giuliani (48%) Edwards (41%) EDWARDS LOSES BY 7%
Giuliani (46%) Obama (40%) OBAMA LOSES BY 6%

Gingrich (43%) Clinton (50%) CLINTON WINS BY 7%
Gingrich (38%) Obama (48%) OBAMA WINS BY 10%

Hagel (40%) Clinton (48%) CLINTON WINS BY 8%
Hagel (34%) Obama (50%) OBAMA WINS BY 16%

Romney (41%) Clinton (50%) CLINTON WINS BY 9%
Romney (29%) Edwards (55%) EDWARDS WINS BY 26%
Romney (36%) Obama (51%) OBAMA WINS BY 15%

[papau]

15. "the most accurate pollster in 2006" in a stolen election - and not solid in the past - it is

way too early to sweat the polls - after Christmas 07 will be on interest - not now.

[skipos]

17. Republicans didn't pick up a single governorship, house seat or senate seat in 2006

Are you saying that Democrats stole the election?

[elizm]

20. Karl Rove got his 'math' wrong....

...THEY tried to steal it but just underestimated the margin they needed. But they will be more accurate in 2008, I'm sure.

[Colobo]

67. Oh, please!

I'm sorry, but conspiracy theories are not what we need. The momentum is on our side now, regardless of Karl Rove.

[papau]

35. :-) - the Ohio vote, Florida vote, etc. etc. - Indeed it is hard to accept the Conn vote but

that one seems like one of the honest elections!

[flpoljunkie]

16. Perhaps I am misreading your post, but you don't sound like you lean more towards Edwards.

I think we nominate her at our peril, when 69% of those over 62 in a recent poll, say they will not vote for Hillary. Add to that, she will motivate Republicans to come out and vote en masse in 2008--against her--no matter who wins the Republican nomination. I would not put my money on Hillary Clinton.

[Straight Shooter]

25. I think you just made the most cogent argument about Hillary.

"she will motivate Republicans to come out and vote en masse in 2008 -- against her"

There's something about Hillary that bothers me, but I honestly haven't examined her closely enough, nor any of the other candidates. If she had one-tenth of the charisma and warmth of Elizabeth Edwards (not John), then Hillary would be a much more appealing candidate. We're still a nation that desires style as well as substance in our politicians, unfortunately.

If she's the nominee, I'll roll my eyes and vote for her. It would be a thousand times better than Ghoul-iani the thug.

[elizm]

18. NO! She CANNOT win...

Sure, she can win the Democratic nomination because she has the money machine behind her. But I think most people realize that NO candidate can win in the general unless they can draw Independents/moderates and at least some cross over votes. Anyone who thinks there are Republicans who will vote for Hillary Clinton is delusional.

[Carolina]

34. Touche

"Anyone who thinks there are Republicans who will vote for Hillary Clinton is delusional."

I would only add: NY ain't the nation, and while some Republicans may have voted for her there (hey, she had minimal opposition), that won't translate on the national level.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

42. bingo.

exactly.

she is poison in many parts of the country, in ways that no change, effort, or pandering on her part (and gawd bless her, she tries as hard as McCain - in fact they are identical in that respect) will change her level of haters and people (like me) who just don't trust her or want her to be president.

[madmunchie]

19. Your LOGIC doesn't cut it

because logic doesn't do it overall. You can make all of the logical arguments that you want about why and how Hillary should/could win. The bottom line is the only way she will win is if there is a miracle of sorts or the polls are fixed.

Hillary is not liked by the Right, heck much of the Left isn't her biggest allie either. Did you see her face when Gore was talking about Global warming in Washington???????? That is the Hillary that many people see every time they look at her. I must confess, I have always been lukewarm on her, but after that shot of her with that venom dripping from her eyes, my opinion of her has gone down. Gore WAS the VP, and he was SCREWED out of the Presidency. Why would she, (as a decent human being)look at him like that while she questioned him. It showed me a side of her that I never had saw in the past.

She, as a woman would have to be the 1st woman to be elected in this country to POTUS, not that I believe a woman couldn't do as good or even a better job than a lot of men, but this woman comes with too much baggage and not enough respect. The left don't respect her hawkish stands and the way that she is always "positioning" to look the best instead of just finding the best solutions and sticking to them and fighting for them. She is a politician, not a leader. No doubt that she is extremely intelligent and knowledgeable, and between Bush and Clinton, of course I would choose Clinton, fortunately though, we have more to choose from.

We have better choices so far and I am praying for 2 of those choices to materialize. Clinton is on the bottom of the list for me and way too many others to make her a viable candidate.

[dsc]

23. Did you see the look? or did you read about the look?

I didn't see it but Sommersby did, and his description is very different than yours.

[madmunchie]

96. No, I saw it and it was chilling....her eyes were dead, her tone flat,

and there was absolutely no expression. Believe me, I was neutral and admirous(?) of Hillary, that scene chilled me to my very bone and affected my opinion on her forever. Mind you, I'd heard all of the BS, and the rumors.....I just never bought into it...now I know, where there is smoke there IS fire. She isn't Bush for God's sake, but she isn't someone that I would ever really trust either.

[Nedsdag]

109. I saw it too!

She was very, very cold to Gore. Gore was gracious.

Hillary on the other hand has a long memory. Anyone who crosses her will feel her chill.

[Vulture]

30. Your perception matches that of a lot of moderates and independents

A lot of moderates and independents have a distaste for Hillary (and I know many in this category) precisely because she has been caught looking very much like the intelligent but cold and calculating sociopath she is often portrayed as. It doesn't matter whether or not it is true, many times when you see her on television she exudes that in her behavior and mannerisms when not posing for the camera. Naturally the Republicans highlight this for their own advantage.

If she was an unknown that might not be a problem, but everyone has seen a lot of her over the years. There are a lot of negative gut feelings out there in the land of moderates and independents based on what appear to be glimpses of her true character. That is an impression very difficult to change, and amounts to a lot of baggage to have. In some ways I like her more than any of the other candidates running, but she'll have to get past the fact that a lot of people who are not diehard Republicans have her pegged as a sociopath. Incidentally, McCain has a similar perception problem (especially among conservatives), though not as bad, and it is why McCain will never be given the nomination on the other side no matter how popular he is. There are certain types of personalities that people simply will refuse to put into power.

[madmunchie]

99. You are right and you are wrong

I am more of an Independent, BUT I always like Hillary and thought that she was getting a bad wrap. Over the years, I have liked her less and less. Over the years, I have seen the calculatedness surface and the absolute political animal that she really is...that does not equate to a good/great leader. I hope that she isn't the Democratic Candidate because if she is that means 1 of 3 things....#1 Republican wins for President #2 Hillary wins WH because the election is fixed #3 This country is in such dire straits that she wins

I am sick of Political leaders....I would just like to see a leader. Political leaders are always planning for the next election and/or there legacy. The country seems to always take a back seat.

[wyldwolf]

38. Well, it isn't MY logic, but I do agree with the the author

You can make all of the logical arguments that you want about why and how Hillary should/could win. The bottom line is the only way she will win is if there is a miracle of sorts or the polls are fixed.

I've predicted, in this thread's OP and at other times, that some on the left will still be in denial if she wins, going so far as to claim vote rigging and such. That falls within the same pattern the fringes are known for. The left and the right simply cannot accept, cannot fathom, anyone feeling differently about something than they do.

Hillary is not liked by the Right, heck much of the Left isn't her biggest allie either.

This is why she is the current frontrunner, correct?

[ProudDad]

68. This sounds more like you than me

"simply cannot accept, cannot fathom, anyone feeling differently about something than they do." Projection, mon ami?

As for frontrunner -- in that rigged game he/she with the most money usually wins... She's got the most money... Duh!

[wyldwolf]

92. more leftist paranoia. If she's the frontrunner, it MUST be rigged!

[madmunchie]

98. Do you actually believe the polls?????? They, to me, are not to be

believed. AND will be shown to be false while we are being led down this path by the powers that be.

Come on, they said that she was the frontrunner before anybody even cared. This has been methodically shoved down our throats for way too long now. I'd like to know how she is the frontrunner, when she wasn't even "officially" in the running??? Starting what - 6 months....a year or so ago, "Hillary is the frontrunner" Spin spun by the master spinmisters. A major sales job, if we hear it enough we will believe it and all fall in line. Kind of like Iraq. We were all played then to. I didn't buy Iraq and I won't buy Hillary....but the majority of the country did now didn't they?

[Tellurian]

62. Do show us the "LOOK"?

"Did you see her face when Gore was talking about Global warming in Washington???????? That is the Hillary that many people see every time they look at her. I must confess, I have always been lukewarm on her, but after that shot of her with that venom dripping from her eyes, my opinion of her has gone down. Gore WAS the VP, and he was SCREWED out of the Presidency. Why would she, (as a decent human being)look at him like that while she questioned him. It showed me a side of her that I never had saw in the past."

I'm dying to see a video of the venom dripping from "her" eyes! That is IF you can produce it!

[madmunchie]

97. It was on Hardball. I watch him often. Look to see if there is any

clip of it. Why are you so contrary?????? Believe me or don't believe me, I don't care. There are plenty of people in the world that choose to not see what is in front of them and there are pleny of people that like to attack, without realizing that they are defending a lie. The lie being that her expression during that talk about Global Warming wasn't chilling....I saw it, if you don't want to believe what I have stated then disprove me. Or forget it.

[catgirl]

119. Hillary earned my disgust when she condemned Kerry's "joke"

That was appalling to me. I believe the look happened, I've seen it often.
She is flat when she talks in her normal voice. When giving a speech or
addressing questions to a crowd, she practically screams. She always seems
angry and entitled. How dare she treat Al Gore that way!! It says a lot though.
This is her style of diplomacy. Not good.

[Learn2Swim]

26. No gratz.

Hillary is not the answer.

[MethuenProgressive]

27. Right now, she's the best choice over Obama/Edwards

I'd like Clark, Gore, or Kerry to join the race, but as it stands now I'll
vote for Hillary in the primary, and support whatever Democrat gets our nomination.

[BeyondGeography]

33. HRC Dem's to country: You're getting Hillary, like her or not!

A not-so-excited nation, having barely forgotten the Clinton wars of the 90's, resignedly awaits.

[wyldwolf]

39. Anti-Clinton Dems to country: We don't want you to make your own choice... WE want to pick for you

... who we think is best for you.

A nation where close to 60% of people in general and close to 90% of Democrats love Bill Clinton, anxiously awaits.

[Clark2008]

70. Hillary isn't Bill, though.

There is that fly in the ointment.

[wyldwolf]

81. if BeyondGeography can link her to Bill, so can I

[Forkboy]

36. "The babe?"

I hope I wont get in trouble but that's going to be her new name for me from now on.

[Bucky]

51. Fine then. From now on I'm calling you "the Forkwad"

"The babe"... honestly.

[Forkboy]

53. I was being sarcastic.

Did you read the bottom of the OP?

Honestly.

[mnhtnbb]

40. I hope Hillary stays in the Senate. Or goes home and bakes cookies.

She is too much of a corporatist for my taste. I don't trust her.

[salin]

47. Of course Hillary can win.

I believe whoever the democratic candidate is - will win. I think that the arrogance of the bush administration - as witnessed from moment one after the midterm elections - will force more GOP in congress to hold their nose and act in unison making the whole party stink- and by extension whoever their nominee is, doesn't have a chance.

This is the first election of my adult lifetime (going back to Reagan years) where "electability" shouldn't be a big issue. Who can govern SHOULD be the issue. I have mixed feelings about Sen Clinton - but if she is the nominee she certainly will be the next president.

I know many disagree with me - but take frickin' "electability" off the table. It is a non issue this time around. It may be the only time around in decades for which this is the case. The question is how large or safe the margins will be of dem majorities in Congress (if held - the senate is still darn close) - and thus how much the new president will be able to accomplish.

Bush had an opporutnity to "lead" this country after 911 - and chose instead to amass power, enrich his cronies, attempt to politicize everything in order to 'make a permanent one-party system of government'. He squandered it. I believe that the next president (in my book a Democrat) will have a similar opportunity to "lead" - because bushco has made things so BAD on so many fronts that more and more folks really want changes made - not just in political speech but in policy priorities. It is based on that which, IMO, the decision of who we, as voters, select as the next dem nominee.

As I said, I have some mixed feelings about Sen Clinton. However, I do believe she could act boldly on some social policy. I think she would have much less of a learning curve at understanding how the executive branch works. I think she has already developed the ability to understand how to work with 'the other branch' (congress) including working within party and across party. If she wanted to go bold - she could. I just don't know how much she also learned the lessons of pandering and playing it safe in terms of the next election and how much that tendency might rein her in per leading with bold public policy. There is where I sit and my dilemna.

All that said - I think those that think 1) "electability" is the most important issue this election - are not paying close attention to overall public sentiment and trends; and by extension 2) those who think that Sen. Clinton can not win, are mistaken - imo.

[MasonJar]

48. Just getting in at the last minute to comment on your comments...

first Fred Thompson is no moderate...secondly who wants another charismatic a--h--e like Bush? (Not that I ever considered him charismatic, but the scuttle butt was that he was the kind you could go for a beer with) I am ready and so is the world for a solid, serious president. Personally I will back any democratic candidate. I would think that anyone in the country would. Haven't y'all and your sisters and aunts and mothers and etc. had enough of lying, cheating Pugs? I would like a woman president, if she is a dem. However, I also like all the men running on our side.

[xkenx]

49. Since we still have the Electoral College, the name of the game is FLIPPING RED STATES

As much as I respect Hillary Clinton, I would suggest that, in 2008, we need a candidate who can actually win the general election. Otherwise we have another Rethug in the White House. Are there ANY Republican names out there that we would feel comfortable with as POTUS? I have two basic questions for HRC supporters: (Unfortunately, Obama and Edwards fall into this category as well, for lack of international experience and/or prejudice)
1. Can you please name two red states she can flip?
2. Why?
(This assumes she can hold all blue states; anyone want to bet on PA, NH, WI?)

To the answer of the names of a couple of red states, I would then ask why couldn't Gore and Kerry, two white male Vietnam vets, win those states? Well they are where white males vote big Republican and their wives follow their men. Hillary is a walking $100M of free advertising for Rethugs to get out their vote, and vote they will--she is despised among them (don't say it's unfair--so what?). And don't say "Things are different; people hate Bush--they'll now vote Dem." Republicans and Republican-leaning Independents will look for a reason to vote Republican. The 2008 Rethug nominee will give it to them. He will run away from Bush. He will say that he will return the Republican Party to its' roots, to true conservatism, to fiscal responsibility, and he will provide national security in the true Republican tradition, not the mismanaged Iraq effort. And the Republican and half the Indie masses will eat that up. So red states don't flip for Hillary. Can you just see HRC and Chuck Hagel in a debate? Hagel (wounded/decorated Vietnem vet) says " I called out Bush early on for his foulup of Iraq and urged exit, while you Mrs. Clinton backed Bush all the way, until 2007 when it was safe to do so, to pacify your base, F-L-I-P-F-L-O-P-P-E-R!" "I, Chuck Hagel will protect America in the true tradition of Ronald Reagan who won the Cold War." (Never mind that a lot of that is bullshit, the masses will buy it.)


Since 2008 is all about flipping a few red states into our column, let's look at someone who can do it. Wes Clark is a progressive wolf in military uniform sheep's clothing. Many Republicans who didn't care for Bush, still couldn't vote for Kerry. Clark was the only Dem. they could consider. Clark has had more EXECUTIVE leadership roles than any Senator by virtue of his military commands where he had responsibility for the lives of hundreds of thousands of servicepeople and their dependents--the whole range of housing, education, training, healthcare, social services, sometimes in a dangerous spot. When Clark was Supreme Allied Commander Europe (Eisenhower's last military position), he had "Head-of-State" status, meaning that he dealt directly with prime ministers/presidents, not underlings. This was his major public office. And Clark was virtually the only voice urging help for Rwanda. And Clark and Madeleine Albright were the ones who convinced Clinton to take action against the ethnic cleansing in the Balkans, where Clark carried out the military action w/o the loss of a single American life. In this he stood up to the Pentagon brass who wanted nothing to do with "saving Albanians." And it was Clark who served for more than 30 years AFTER getting shot up and winning hero medals in Vietnam, when he could have gone for the big bucks in private industry. Try Swift Boating this guy--the smackdown will be heard around the world. Clark is all about duty, honor, country. When Clark's American Dream/American Hero story gets out to middle America, watch how many red states flip. And the beauty of Wes Clark is that HE IS A REAL LIVE D-E-M-O-C-R-A-T, with a progressive agenda equal to anyone. And if Wes Clark debates a Chuck Hagel, he can say, "You voted for IWR to give Bush a blank check to go to war with Iraq. You may have gotten religion belatedly, but I knew what was going on beforehand and testified to Congress before the IWR against such a blank check. In fact I was chastised by neocons for being so cautious. My whole professional life has been about a multi-faceted approach to international relations, with war only, only, only as a last resort. I am the true national security candidate. I will provide true homeland security, not the false one of the wrong war against the wrong people." THIS, FOLKS, IS THE DEMOCRAT WHO CAN TAKE IT TO THE RETHUGS ON THEIR TURF, AND WHUP THEIR ASSES.

[Bucky]

50. Name the 04 Red states she'll flip. Name any one of them.

If the Republicans don't implode and nominate a dud, they'll certainly nail down Ohio and Florida again if we run Sen. Clinton. They'll stand a better than even shot at flipping Michigan, Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania out of the Blue column and into the Red. It's not that Clinton is a bad person. It's just that she's won her Senate seat by running as a "retail" candidate, meeting people face to face. You can't do that running nationally. A presidential candidate has to be telegenic and Mrs Clinton is not.

[wyldwolf]

60. what do you base this on other than your "expert" analysis?

[xkenx]

74. My analysis is in post #49. It was well thought out beforehand.

Which is a lot more thought than most Hillaryistas put in before the wishful thinking that has her winning, "just because." She may have a fundraising machine, but voters vote.

[wyldwolf]

83. ...but it isn't based on anything but your imagination

[xkenx]

85. Your comment helps make my point.

Without exception, Hillaryistas attack the messenger when the messenger explains why Hillary may have such a problem in the GE. But you do not even offer a counter of your version of a VIABLE strategy for HRC to succeed. You mirror Hillary's campaign itself, which seems to be "look at my fundraising, you're with me or you're agin' me, we'll overrun anyone who gets in the way."

[wyldwolf]

88. No, I'm attacking the message AND the messanger since both are equally without evidence

Truthiness and anecdotal observations are not evidence.

[xkenx]

89. That reply reinforces my argument. You attacked the messenger again.

You may disagree with my analysis, fine. But where is yours?

[wyldwolf]

91. If the messenger continues to say, "this is how it is because I say so.."

Consider the messenger attacked.

If you'd said, "here are statistics from organization A that re-enforce what organization B says, and based on polling data from __________ and __________ from this year and other years..." THEN you would have an argument.

But saying what you believe is true simply because you SAY it is true opens you up for attack.

[xkenx]

100. You still can't produce an logical argument/strategy for Hillary flipping red states.

You are reduced to attacking me and my arguments. Attacking the messenger won't create votes. You keep making my points. Why on earth should anyone figure Hillary can win when even her ardent supporters can only sputter and essentially say "It is ordained, " as if some being is granting Hillary the Presidency?

[wyldwolf]

102. I haven't tried. You, on the other, haven't produced any logical argument that she can't

Logic is based on measurable fact.

[xkenx]

103. Why won't you produce an argument? Afraid of the scrutiny?

You must truly believe Hillary is preordained by the being, with the voters are just guaranteed to march into the polling places, zombie-like, and pull the lever for Hillary, even some Republicans and a majority of Indies in red states. Must be wonderful to have a supreme being doing that for Hillary. But short of that, a strategy might be in order. Surely, a dedicated Hillary supporter can come up with SOMETHING to suggest a strategy for flipping red states? Isn't DU a valid forum for all kinds of Dem. viewpoints? Do you not want to swing over undecideds to support Hillary? Oh sorry, it's preordained by the being.

[wyldwolf]

104. If I went to Pizza Hut and got a terrible pizza, I wouldn't try to make a better one

Face it, your opinion of Hillary is nothing but truthiness.

[xkenx]

110. Are you proud to be such an articulate Hillary supporter?

Sorry I thought there was a discussion possible; I see that it's not. I'm exiting from this waste of time. Clearly you cannot produce a strategy, or you would have.

[wyldwolf]

111. Your analysis is a large deep dish truthiness pizza. I'm not obligated to try and make a better one

[xkenx]

113. Let's pretend I never commented about potential difficulty in HRC's ability to flip red states.

Take me and my so-called nonsense out of the equation.

Let's pretend an uncommitted DUer came on here. He/she asks a vocal Hillary supporter (you) to convince him/her to support Hillary. "Wyldwolf, I like Hillary; I'd like to support her; you seem to know a lot about her; what would be her strategy to flip red states, since to win the Electoral College, we must hold all blue states and flip a couple red ones."

[wyldwolf]

114. There would be no issue if you'd use some real data for your analysis...

...instead of your "feelings" that are influenced by your dislike for the candidate.

[xkenx]

115. So you're saying you'd not respond to a potential HRC supporter who asked the above question?

Remember, I am not in the picture. Assume the question comes independently from a person who may be receptive to Hillary.

[wyldwolf]

116. Within the confines of a conversation, I don't often veer off in other directions

..as you're trying to get me to do.

As a consumer (you wrote something, I read it) I am under no obligation to temper my criticisms of your words by offering an alternative.

If I complained about how bad a pizza was, I would laugh in the face of any pizza restuarant manager who demanded of me, "Can you make one better?"

[xkenx]

117. YOU are the OP! YOU talked about Hillary's being electable. THAT IS the conversation.

Answering a legitimate question about your own conversation in your own OP is not veering off. Can someone here who may have a real interest in hearing about Hillary's ability to flip red states ask wyldwolf, a notable Hillary supporter, to explain the strategy for her potential success in some red states?

[wyldwolf]

118. On the contrary, I made the OP, but they are not my words. Why not read it?

[xkenx]

120. As I re-read the OP, I see that most of the words are indeed your comments.

In fact your comments are in direct response to negatives from progressives. You go to great lengths to explain. So why not to others who are just waiting for your reasoned explanation for how Hillary flips red states to go out on their own and spread the word? Your pizza analogy is awful. Try this analogy: You are someone sitting in a college poly-sci class. You've made a comment that Hillary is electable. The professor says, "But some folks are saying in detail why she can't flip red states. Wyldwolf what do you say to that?" You say "They're wrong." Professor says "How would you advise Hillary or help her supporters strategize to flip red states?" You say "Since I don't agree with them, I don't have to counter them, or you." Professor: "Sit down, Wyldwolf."

[Forkboy]

121. LMAO!

:rofl:

[wyldwolf]

122. Wrong again. NONE of them are. Which makes your attempt at cleverness kind of sad

But here is an analogy for you:

You are someone sitting in a college poly-sci class. You've made a comment that Hillary is unelectable. The professor says, "What statistical analysis has made you arrive at that conclusion?" You say "I know it in my heart." The Professor says "This is poly-sci, not philosophy"

[xkenx]

123. Gosh, I thought most of the words in OP were yours. You did not attribute them to anyone else.

BTW, in my original comments questioning Hillary's ability to flip red states, they actually drew upon statistics from red state voting patterns, then drew some personal conclusions. You're entitled to disagree, but you're "projecting" here. You make flip statements backed by nothing but gut feel, but accuse others of doing the same thing.
Okay, I've tried every which way to induce you to say something positive about Hillary's electability, but you can't/won't. Either way you do a disservice to Hillary. I would have thought you'd want to support Hillary, regardless of how little you thought of others' comments, but I guess not. I've wasted enough time on this. I know you'll take the last word here. Go ahead.

[wyldwolf]

124. yes I did. That is what the link at the end is for.

BTW, in my original comments questioning Hillary's ability to flip red states, they actually drew upon statistics from red state voting patterns, then drew some personal conclusions.

Where?

[ShortnFiery]

52. Whaat?

Madame DeFarge?

OMG Tweety finally made a funny. :rofl:

[Captain_Nemo]

73. Excellent post!

[Imagevision]

75. Obama - Edwards - I'm sure Bush Sr. would endorse Hillary

[Tellurian]

77. I'm sure he's insanely jealous of Bill

[Clarkie1]

78. She enabled the war and continues to support the war.

Richardson has called to withdraw ALL troops this year. I think I may have to send the good governor of NM some $$$.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

79. But Hillarians will argue several things:

if she knew then what she knows now.

We were given bad intel

and besides, saddam was a bad boy


To each, I say bullshit.
she was a member of the senate, one of the 100 most important elected offices in the country. Collectively, they represent 300,000,000 sheeple. it was her SWORN DUTY to investigate, to know now, what we know now. In fact, many people, including people in the CIA, State, DIA, DOD, and more, orgs that any one of the blessed 100 could access and question privately at any time, were stating that there was no WMD, no threat from Saddam, and in fact, a war would be a disaster.

But she said nothing. She did nothing, she investigated nothing. A huge investment in an invasion of a country that had nothing to do with 9/11 and she did NOTHING? I am sorry, but that is not leadership, at least not how it is defined in my dictionary.

HER ACTIONS IN THE RUN UP TO THE WAR ARE PRECISELY WHY WE WON'T VOTE FOR HER. It is not her vote, it is her refusal to make waves, her refusal to do her sworn duty, her refusal to question the president and his evil cabal.

HIllary is already falling in the polls. it could not happen to a more deserving person.

[Tellurian]

80. Behind the information curve are you......much?

Here's the latest in the polls showing Hillary almost 10 pts ahead of her nearest competitor, Obama. As of yesterday.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3191288

[ChairmanAgnostic]

82. that is mere name recognition, not honest polling.

what I find much more convincing are the polls that show her losing in head to head comp. w/ most GOP candidates.
What I find more amusing, and telling, is how more than 50% of the public will never vote for her.

THOSE polls are convincing, and probably a hell of a lot more accurate than the poll you reference. But Hillarians will do anything to get elected. that's another part of her problem.

[wyldwolf]

84. "honest polling???" LOL!

[xkenx]

112. She didn't have to personally investigate--that the intel was bogus was given to her and all others.

Senator Carl Levin and Ted Kennedy have often commented that all the Democratic members of Congress had been given plenty of information to know that the WMD/nuclear pitches by Bushco were bogus or not substantiated. That is why they and 21 other Dem. Senators voted a courageous NO to the IWR. They knew that there was no near-term threat from Iraq. Those who voted YES had the same info. They either had a great need to look macho (when they didn't have national security creds), or were making a political calculation about what might play in their states after 9-11. Either was, colossal displays of non-courage. I would question the ability of such people to make clear-headed courageous decisions in the White House when (not if) the next critical issue comes up.

[SheWhoMustBeObeyed]

90. James Wolcott is a very bright person

and one of my favorite commentators. Thanks for posting.

[PATRICK]

101. We have the same basic evaluation

although this particular post puts the burden back on "progressives" suffering from absolutism of opinion, purity of ideals.

Ignoring the fears and enmities the rather flexible posters on DU have toward Hillary, their actual judgment and that of the poster is the bottom line. Could, can, will. Ignoring the crystal ball for the moment, for me it comes down to who has more potential to get the most plus coattails, even if the GOP were to implode and lose their cheat margin and the media rats started switching sides enthusiastically.
And very likely not just for me but for millions of seething Dem voters with a memory of having other candidates sold as strong, highly probable winners get cheated by the chimp like a bunch of chumps.

Hillary has fixed negatives, fixed by now in cement, mostly unfair compared to the real issue problems studied Progressives have. Even with people who will eventually vote for her. Tell me this will not depress victory at the least, reduce coattails and eat up the spotlight with shadows and doubt before the GOP slander machine clears its parched throat to make a whisper against her. And yes this will affect governance and survivability along too familiar, also fixed lines. As the GOP grinds its teeth in triangulated despair they yet will survive to recur another day, the American Yin Yang of Tweedledum-dee politics unnaturally preserved in the death throes of America in strangled denial.

Unlike Lieberman it takes some work to defeat this lesser, less desired, possibly catastrophic effect and so cut the Hillary opponents some slack who for the sake of party, country and the world actually campaign against her based on good judgment and better choices needing activist help. it is not the progressives alone who will feel stuck with Hillary. A huge mass in the middle will be kept in that truculent sentiment as well(by the GOP that Hillary lets off the hook), a political great depression unseen since the revolt against was landed us Richard Nixon for two terms. I am not saying we are rolling dice with the end of the world to cut her slack, but to get a better candidate(not possibly one immune to GOP assault, of course)we have some stacked cards to peel away.

And peel away her grass roots opponents will since none of her present advantages represent much of the true desires of the voters. More, unlike the Clintons, steps must be taken to stop the sort of thing that has "branded" Hillary from happening again and done through popular will informed and getting what it truly wants for information, fairness, justice, strong popular leadership. Gore, who people may forget also suffers under fixed unfair prejudice to this day, has the much stronger probability of "progressing" his candidacy and healing the harm progressively.

I too back Edwards for almost every ideal and reason and feel those are edges that will give party and nation more than the other candidates. Fundraising, endorsements, opinion sniffing polls try to sway me, but the votes, riddled with suspicion as they may be are what will decide and we all will have to deal positively with the results.

[Patiod]

106. I feel like she is going to be FORCED on me, and I resent it

I feel like Kerry was forced on me, and I didn't like that either. I worked hard for him on an ABB basis (I would have campaigned for anyone running against the Chimp), but I don't' want to go through that again.

I don't want Hillary Clinton as the Democratic nominee, and never have. And I am sick to f#cking death of being told by EVERYONE (outside DU and outside the Dems that I talk to at Dem Committee meetings) that she is INEVITABLE as our nominee. Sick sick sick. Sick of conservatives ASSUMING that she's our nominee and that I support her. I just got a hateful email from one of the few conservatives who works here, mocking her fundraising money, thinking it would get a rise out of me because he assumed I'm one of the blind Democratic minions being led over the cliff.

NO. NO. NO.

I actually like and respect her, and admire the job she has done in NY, but I will not have this candidate crammed down my throat

[wyldwolf]

107. It's called the campaign/nomination/election process

No, we don't get to pick our own personal president.