The real reason some of us don't like Hillary

[hedgehog]

Back in 1992, there were a number of Democrats running for the nomination; among them Tom Harkin, Jerry Brown, Al Gore, Paul Tsongas and Bill Clinton. The Internet was nowhere near as active, so information about the candidates was controlled by the MSM and by advertising dollars. Tom Harkin spoke a lot bout the working man. Both Brown and Gore emphasized the environment. What I remember happening is that only one candidate had the money to compete in every primary; Bill Clinton. Living in New York, a late primary state, I had to watch as the candidates I preferred dropped out one by one as they ran out of money. It seemed that the reporters had also become bored with any real discussion of issues such as wages or the environment and instead focused on Clinton's personal life. For example, 60 Minutes featured Bill and Hillary discussing their marriage, not Al Gore on Global Warming. It didn't hurt a bit that Bill Clinton seems to have charmed the individual reporters.

Bill CLinton won in 1992 at least in part because Ross Perot siphoned away votes from George Bush. In 1996, Clinton took 49.2% of the vote running against Robert Dole and Ross Perot.

Fast forward to 2008. We keep hearing reports about Hillary's big money donors. If she raises $2100 from a single donor, that matches the $2100 another candidate raises $25 a person from 84 donors. Whatever the truth, the PERCEPTION is that big money donors are buying the nomination for Hillary. Once again, the PERCEPTION is that the press has nominated a CLinton before any of us gets a chance to vote. Instead of a discussion of issues, the press is feeding us info on dollars raised and rumors of back room sniping. Once again, 60 Minutes features John Edwards not because he talks about the need to improve the lot of the average American but because of the drama of his wife's health! I want to hear what Edwards has to say, but it is frustrating that 60 Minters got interested only when his personal life took on some drama!

So there you have it. If Hillary APPEARS to waltz into the nomination, some people will resent it. If she APPEARS to win it honestly, that resentment may diminish.

Why does the resentment over 1992 linger? Ask yourself where woe would be today if stodgy old Al Gore or crazy Jerry Brown had been elected in 1992?

[dkofos]

1. She will tell you exactly what you want to hear, and then do

whatever she wants to do.

[Hepburn]

10. I am not a Hillary fan:

1. Like you said ~~ basically IMO an opportunist.
2. Her war vote.
3. Not electable.

IMO, if the Dems nominate her...we are looking to lose.

[KingofNewOrleans]

2. Gore didn't run in 1992

Money matters, but it's not everything.

And Bill Clinton would have beat Bush Sr. head to head (Bush Jr. too, for that matter)

[EFerrari]

3. How democratic are elections where candidates buy their nomination. nt

[saltpoint]

4. I was a Brown supporter in that primary, and had the chance to meet him

in Arizona. The Tsongas people swarmed the joint for their guy, but many of us outnumbered Brown supporters did get some quality time with Jerry Brown. He was humble and quietly answered our questions. When we asked him things, he looked us in the face and then answered thoughtfully. Quite unspectacular, and all the more spectacular for that very reason. We left that day respecting him far more than when we began the morning.

I will support whichever Democratic candidate Democratic primary voters nominate from January onward. I have respect for our blue team and want the Republicans GONE.

I prefer some more than others but the big picture demands we get the Rethugs out of office, far out of office, out of office for a damned long time, and sooner rather than later.

Go, Democrats.

[Debi]

5. Gore ran in 1988 n/t

[hedgehog]

15. Mea culpa

1988 and 1992 tend to blur together from this vantage point. In 1988 we had Dick Gephardt was running as the voice in the wilderness regarding globalization, Gary Hart, Jesse Jackson, Joe Biden (until he was caught plagiarizing) and ended up with Mike Dukakis. He was alright, I guess, except that he lost. Al Gore sat out that year because of his son's near fatal accident in 1989. To illustrate the general attitude of the MSM, both times around the list of candidates was trivialized as the Seven Dwarfs. We're lucky so many Republicans are in the race this time around or we'd be hearing the same thing again. It's a shame that the people covering politics seem to have so little interest in ideas.

My point remains though, that regardless of actual events, a lot of people are convinced that Clinton beat out their candidate back then because he was able to schmooze with reported and was bankrolled by the DLC. Rightly or wrongly, these people suspect Hillary of using the same techniques now.

[Debi]

19. I won't argue much with your post in the Clinton family abilities

raising money or schmoozing.

Look at my former Governor, Tom Vilsack, who attempted to run on a 'get the hell out of Iraq NOW' stance, who will be endorsing Clinton on Monday (he also has decided to support grassroots campaigning and campaign finance reform suspiciously AFTER he spent the last five years raising a boatload of money for his 2002 re-elect, the 2004 caucuses and his Heartland PAC, and his brief presidential campaign. His complaint is that the Party leaders raise all the money and then dole it out to the lower electeds and use that money to keep them in line vote-wise. If you know anything about the 2006 Gubernatorial primary this is exactly what Vilsack did.)

Vilsack was head of the DGA and then Chair of the DLC. He pretended to be all grassroots/for the little guy when he ran in 1998 and in his brief presidential run. He talks a good talk, but his endorsement of Clinton proves his transparency.
He will use whatever power he thinks he has left to strong-arm Iowans to support Clinton in the caucuses. She has bought and paid for the majority of Vilsack's former staff (and I mean that as Clinton is not only paying higher salaries than any of the other campaigns, she is also hiring more staff than any of the other campaigns). I can't wait to see her campaign finance reporting as I'm certain that she will have an interesting mix of 'paid advisors' that failed to mention to the press that they were paid advisors at her early Iowa events.

[MonkeyFunk]

6. There's much wrong with your post

first, Gore didn't run in '92, so there's no reason for him to have gotten media attention as a candidate.

Every analysis I've seen shows that Perot didn't affect the outcome of the race - Clinton would've won handily heads-up against Bush.

And how did the Governor of Arkansas get all the money you seem to think he had? It's not like he started with an enormous war chest. You don't think Senators Kerrey or Harkin had access to bigger money than Clinton?

No, Clinton resonated with people, and he's a helluva fundraiser, due to his charisma and his tirelessness.

But OK, if you want to carry a grudge against Hillary for the 1992 primary season, I can't stop you. I can only laugh.

[papau]

7. the PERCEPTION is that big money donors buy all elections - nothing to do w/ Hillary - we need

federally financed elections.

[rodeodance]

8. seems you are dumping media and election money problems on Hil. Clinton.

[Justice Is Comin]

9. Yeah, but like it or not,

that's how this dirty business works.

We'll be very thankful for that money too if she is the nominee.

I just hope we can say the nominees initials will be A.G. Monster amounts of money will sweep him to victory. But I'll be dancing in the streets.

[skipos]

11. You are 100% wrong about Ross Perot getting Clinton elected.

There is plenty of research out there that debunks that myth.

[jgraz]

12. Also the level of dishonesty from the Clintons was striking

I watched Hillary speak on the UW-Madison campus, where she introduced herself to us lefties as Hillary Rodham (no Clinton). That should have been my first clue that we were in for some serious pandering. What I wasn't prepared for were the lies she told about Jerry Brown (the only other candidate left at that point) and the empty promises she made about any left-wing cause she could think of.

Of course once they got into office, they delivered on exactly zero of those promises. Universal healthcare became their weak proposal to preserve for-profit health insurance, abolishing the military's bigoted policies became Don't Ask, Don't Tell, and helping the poor became "Ending Welfare as we Know It".

They didn't even wait to get into office to start reneging on their promises. As soon as they won the WI primary and knocked Brown out of the race, all talk about progressive issues ceased.

I simply don't think we can afford another Clinton-style presidency after the disaster of the past 6 years. I'll hold my nose and vote for Hillary if she gets the nom, but until then I'm going to work my ass off to make sure that doesn't happen.

[Maru Kitteh]

13. Iraqi War Authorization

And a REAL lack of honest or candid remorse. THAT is why I do not like her and quite frankly anything said by her or anyone else to try to change my mind is a useless waste of time.

We're doing eight years of hard, ugly time with someone who will not admit error. I'll not be voting for someone with the same awful character flaw just because she shares my gender and party.

[mitchtv]

14. Gore or Crazy Brown?

Jerry Brown would have us all in hybrids by now.No DADT, NO DOMA not so bad and No Hillary

[hedgehog]

16. I deliberately said Crazy Brown because that was how he was treated.

I hauled my kids up to Syracuse University to hear him speak in 1992 because he wanted to build a high speed train service across New York State as a demonstration project. Now those kids travel home from school on Amtrack service that routinely runs several hours late!

Several people have noted that there are myths or at least disagreements about how Clinton won. That's why I was careful to use words like perception and appearance. In politics, there can be a difference between the facts and what people believe, and people vote based on what they believe. I think it's safe to say that for many, Hillary Clinton represents the triumph of a group of insiders over the will of the rank and file. Oddly enough, Obama is subject to the same suspicions simply because he appears to be a front runner. People are looking to see who is standing behind the curtain!

[Double T]

17. Can a presidential candidate win a nomination and then an election.......

WITHOUT the BIG MONEY behind them??? Unfortunately, I think it would be impossible, in the current political environment. Before YOU condemn ANY candidate, better honestly ask yourself that question.

[hedgehog]

18. That's a good question.

Does advertising work, or are we all being conned by the advertising agencies? (That applies to consumer marketing as well, not just politics) If we don't want big money to be the dominating factor, we have to stand up and get involved with and for our candidates. I suspect (hope?) this is going to be the year the tide changes. Agree or disagree with what it says, the most effective campaign commercial (or at least
the most talked about) campaign commercial so far this year is something some guy whipped up on a Sunday afternoon and dumped on You Tube!

[Double T]

20. True. The minion drone commercial with the catapult sledge hammer thrown........

into the image of Hillary's head did get a lot of play, press and reaction. But what did it say about the candidate or accomplish.....next to NOTHING; might get some points for artistic value. BIG MONEY and BIG WALLETS win elections, as unfortunate, sad and disgusting as that sounds. After the NEXT American Revolution perhaps it will bring the tides of change to our elections.