Why Do We Hate Hillary?

[skipos]

(I didn't write this, and I don't agree with the end conclusion. My feeling is, fair or not, primary voters should consider the fact that Hillary has high name recognition and big $$$, yet weak poll numbers, favorable/unfavorable numbers "I won't vote for that candidate" numbers etc. Compare that to Dame Rudy, who has equally as high name recognition but much better results. This far out numbers don't mean everything, but they are worth considering.)

By: Daniel Adams, The Emory Wheel

Rarely is one politician both so blessed and so cursed in the polls. Since announcing her candidacy for the 2008 presidential election, Hillary Clinton has dominated the Democratic field in nearly any poll you care to name: CBS, Zogby, CNN/Gallup, Time, and AP/Ipsos. Clinton leads Sen. Barack Obama in every single one - in most cases, by double digits.

At the same time, 45 percent of women say they won't vote for her. Fifty-six percent of men say they won't vote for her. A staggering 69 percent of those 62 and older say they won't vote for her. In a simulated head-to-head matchup, Clinton loses to Republican candidate Rudy Giuliani by anywhere from one to seven percentage points.

Worst of all, a recent Gallup poll found that her appeal among Democratic voters has slipped nearly 10 percent since January. Clinton is bleeding support, and her competition - namely John Edwards and Sen. Barack Obama - haven't even fired a shot.

This is the Hillary Paradox. Her political pedigree, her star status and her raw intelligence place her as one of the lead contenders for the presidency in 2008. Yet, in some circles, she is profoundly, devastatingly, almost inexplicably, unpopular.

The mere mention of her name provokes a visceral and even violent response from many voters, Democrat and Republican alike. (One in five Democrats - a group of voters that, as of late, hasn't been particularly choosy about who it's nominated - say they won't vote for Clinton.) Few Americans love Clinton. Many Americans hate her with a ferocity that is rare - even in our highly-charged political climate.

True enough, she is no charmer. She exudes a confidence (or is it arrogance?) that rubs a lot of people the wrong way. She's disconnected: In a Harris Interactive poll released last week, over half of all respondents agreed with the statement that, "she does not appear to connect with people on a personal level."

She's ambitious: Most were correct in predicting that her run at the Senate in 2000 was a mere stepping stone to an eventual run at the White House. She's calculating: She always seems to recalibrate her positions on issues like abortion and Iraq so as to capture the maximum share of the lucrative middle.

These standard justifications, however, simply don't go far enough in explaining all this animosity, nor do they reconcile the sharp disagreement between her undeniable qualities and her status as the Democrat everyone loves to hate.

The five other contenders - Gov. Mitt Romney, Rudy, Sen. John McCain, Obama and Edwards - are, to a man, guilty of precisely the same political sins. Punishing her in the polls or hating her as a person because she's confident, ambitious and calculating is to hold her to a bizarre double standard.

Couple this with the fact that the most venomous Hillary bashers couldn't pick Hillary's platform out of a lineup, and it's clear that something is missing. Do we hate Hillary because of some other unmentioned attribute, or do we hate her because she's all of those things and also a woman?

Most of us instinctively bristle at this notion - that sexism is what's driving the Hillary-Hate Machine. Clearly though, gender cannot be entirely divorced from the issue. What in Hillary's background as an attorney, first lady and U.S. senator would cause Bill O'Reilly to label her "weak," or columnist Robert Novak to compare her to Madame Defarge - the Dickens character who knitted while people were beheaded during the French revolution in A Tale of Two Cities? Surely it wasn't her economic platform that prompted radio host Glenn Beck to label her the "stereotypical bitch."

Even if we assume that it is her personality (and not her gender) that is prompting the criticism, why do we care whether Hillary "connects" with us?

As New York Times columnist Judith Warner points out, "she is trying out, after all, for the job of president of the United States, not fairy godmother." A charming lack of sophistication wins elections. As we've seen with the Bush Administration, however, it does not win wars or fix the economy.

Now, more than ever, you'd think we'd be ready for a little more substance and a little less style. The last seven years of straight-talkin', baby-kissin', spare-no-expense folksy charm have left us in a hell of a mess, both at home and abroad. For nearly a decade, Democratic voters have been asking, begging for a candidate with backbone - a candidate who is sensible on the issues, who is intelligent and articulate, and who isn't afraid of a fight.

If Americans weren't so preoccupied with hating her guts, they might find that Hillary Clinton is just that candidate.

http://zogby.com/Soundbites/ReadClips.dbm?ID=14763

[LiberalEsto]

1. Her pro-war vote

and the fact that she's so pro-corporate and DLC.

I used to be a fan of hers, but that vote for the war, and her continued defense of it, soured me on her.

[jobycom]

57. She does not continue to defend the vote.

She was never pro-war, did not vote to go to war, and has said the IWR was a mistake. Now, ask yourself why you've been led to believe otherwise, and you will understand how the Republicans plan to beat us in 08, no matter who we nominate. And probably will, if we don't learn to understand their lies.

--------------
Here's her reason for voting for the IWR: Because bipartisan support for this resolution makes<\b> success in the United Nations more likely, and therefore, war less likely, and because a good faith effort by the United States, even if it fails, will bring more allies and legitimacy to our cause, I have concluded, after careful and serious consideration, that a vote for the resolution best serves the security of our nation.
http://clinton.senate.gov/speeches/iraq_101002.html

----------------

Here's her explanation of the vote and of her position on Iraq in November, 2005:
In October 2002, I voted for the resolution to authorize the Administration to use force in Iraq. I voted for it on the basis of the evidence presented by the Administration, assurances they gave that they would first seek to resolve the issue of weapons of mass destruction peacefully through United Nations sponsored inspections, and the argument that the resolution was needed because Saddam Hussein never did anything to comply with his obligations that he was not forced to do.

Their assurances turned out to be empty ones, as the Administration refused repeated requests from the U.N. inspectors to finish their work. And the "evidence" of weapons of mass destruction and links to al Qaeda turned out to be false.

Based on the information that we have today, Congress never would have been asked to give the President authority to use force against Iraq. And if Congress had been asked, based on what we know now, we never would have agreed, given the lack of a long-term plan, paltry international support, the proven absence of weapons of mass destruction, and the reallocation of troops and resources that might have been used in Afghanistan to eliminate Bin Laden and al Qaeda, and fully uproot the Taliban.

Before I voted in 2002, the Administration publicly and privately assured me that they intended to use their authority to build international support in order to get the U.N. weapons inspectors back into Iraq, as articulated by the President in his Cincinnati speech on October 7th, 2002. As I said in my October 2002 floor statement, I took "the President at his word that he will try hard to pass a U.N. resolution and will seek to avoid war, if at all possible."

Instead, the Bush Administration short-circuited the U.N. inspectors - the last line of defense against the possibility that our intelligence was false. The Administration also abandoned securing a larger international coalition, alienating many of those who had joined us in Afghanistan.

From the start of the war, I have been clear that I believed that the Administration did not have an adequate plan for what lay ahead.
http://www.clinton.senate.gov/issues/nationalsecurity/index.cfm?topic=iraqletter

-----------------

You do not understand the context of the vote if you call the IWR vote a vote for war. It was a vote to put restrictions on Bush's rush to war, to stop Bush from doing what he said he was going to do: invade with or without Congressional approval. This was the best chance the Dems had to stop Bush. It failed, but Bush would have invaded Iraq anyway. Let me repeat that, because many people don't seem to understand this. Bush was going to invade with or without the IWR vote. Without it, he may not have gone to the UN (he was claiming he didn't have to), and he may have invaded sooner. The IWR was the closest compromise the Dems could get that would put some restrictions (more like suggestions) on Bush and still pass the Republican Congress.

I don't care (so far) who wins the nomination, but I hate seeing candidates trashed by fellow Dems who have been tricked.

[Ron Green]

2. She has all the negatives of being a woman but none of the positives.

Negatives: Many people aren't ready to support a woman for President, there's no precedent for it, etc.

Positives: Nurturing, peaceful, feminine, etc. Unfortunately, Hillary doesn't project these.

[MonteLukast]

24. I'd like to know, though...

How does the average woman project those qualities without undercutting her credibility as a professional? A lot of women have trouble doing it. And remember, we didn't always feel so rosy toward Nancy Pelosi. As I recall, until she became Speaker a lot of us considered her a wet noodle.

Projecting femininity is a risky game, because it's tricky business attempting to change how others see us. I, for one, do not think for a second that if Hillary acted feminine and nurturing, that any one of us would buy it. Even if she has a sincere desire to bring out those qualities in herself, if she looks awkward in any way-- as we all do when we're trying out unfamiliar behaviors-- w're going to doubt her sincerity. Apparently, you only have a sincere desire to engage if you do it smoothly. But where does smoothness come from? Repetition!

Leaving out her Iraq vote and the rest... how many "repetitions" of nurturing and femininity from Hillary will it take before we believe she's not defined by her "mean streak" any more?

[Ron Green]

61. I think you bring up some excellent questions.

And it probably goes to the heart of politics, because we've lived in a male-dominated, imperial system for 5,000 years, and it's not going to change overnight, even though it needs to. Hillary got to where she is not just because she's Bill's wife, but also because she's a strong player in her own right. But a "strong player" in politics means tough, decisive, linear-thinking, and so on - all traditional "male" qualities.

What we need in government, of course, is not what's required in politics: Listening, care, nurture, and above all truth. Hillary doesn't really project these, and if she did perhaps she would not have become a Senator.

I suspect Americans have got a long way to go before they'll elect anyone other than an instrument of Empire to high office.

[Donnachaidh]

3. WHO'S pre-occupied?

There are people out there that don't spend their days digging up anti-Hillary information to post on DU. :eyes:

[John Q. Citizen]

29. Can you direct me to where I can find out where Hillary stand on the issues?

Hillary is smart, articulate, and well known.

But I can't seem to find her positions on any issues at all. Do you know where I could find out that information?

Thanks.

PS. I've been to her web site, but all I can find are her life story, her bio, and such. But nothing at all on the issues.

[w4rma]

53. Answer: She's a corporatist chameleon. You can't find that information out directly. (nt)

[truebrit71]

4. BECAUSE. SHE. CAN'T. F*CKING. WIN.

THAT'S WHY!!!

If she is nominated the repiglicans will win in a fucking landslide....

[ChairmanAgnostic]

10. yup, what you said.nt

[Dawgs]

44. Thank you.

If Democrats nominate a candidate that starts out with 45%+ very strong disapprovals then they deserve to lose.

[Missy M]

5. I don't hate Hillary ........

I am a Hillary supporter. She will make a great president.

[Bitwit1234]

6. Yeah 15 years of GOP swiftboating will do that.

wonder how Obama would fair if he had been ding donged, lied about and downright targeted for bullshit. That's why rudi isn't suffering her fate. He has had the press behind him. I think they should blow up the newspapers and TV stations and start all over. But until the are made to be fair it will continue.

[blm]

34. That would be the case - but Hillary's camp claimed Kerry was disadvantaged for the same reason

and that disqualified him.

Fact is that ANY Dem will get attacked and smeared by a corporate media that is COMPLICIT with the GOP and its agenda. That some Dems chose to pretend that somehow Gore and Kerry were just weaklings, really lets the corporate media off the hook for their deliberate machinations of the perceptions of the campaign.

Fix the fairness of the vote counts and the news media, Dems, or suffer the consequences in Nov 2008.

[napi21]

7. I don't hate Hillary, and I actually think she would make a very good

President. My problem is that I don't think she could ever get elected. Many may not want to admit it, the that line in the OP explains why. 62 and older say they won't vote for her. The anti woman leader belief will only go away when this older generation dies. Now before you all start complaining about me being anti seniors and anti woman, let me explain that I am a 63 year old female. I grew up with the prejudice, mostly in the work place. Things have gotten better in recent years, but I don't believe anything will change the attitude of the older generation, and anti women, anti gay and anti ethnicwill only go away when the current older generation is gone.

[CrownPrinceBandar]

8. I don't hate Hillary.........

I just like the other candidates better.

edit: Oh yeah, her Iraq War vote doesn't help either.

[AndyA]

9. Hillary: The Stepford Politician.

You never know where she truly stands. Today, she is for this and that, and against this and that. Tomorrow, it is reversed. Or explained differently. It all depends on the audience and the climate on the topic at a given moment.

I just want Hillary to take a stand. Make a decision, and stick with it. Not everyone is going to agree with her, but some will. It's very hard to support someone when you aren't really sure where they stand on the issues.

Disclaimer: My opinion on this topic is subject to change without notice, and without incurring obligation. :)

[ChairmanAgnostic]

13. how about her taking a leadership position on a tough issue?

she ducks better than ALI in his prime.

[MonteLukast]

31. Be careful...

I believe that "taking a stand and making a decision" were what people wanted when they voted for Dubya Bush in 2004.

Make a decision... but leave room for adaptation within the confines of law and compassion. Don't presume you know all the answers.

For me, Hillary has made too many wrong decisions regarding the long-term future of the Democratic Party. We'll have a lot harder time establishing it as the party of progressives and populism, if her philosophy prevails.

[waiting for hope]

11. I don't dislike Hillary, but,

this just rankles me:

"She's calculating: She always seems to recalibrate her positions on issues like abortion and Iraq so as to capture the maximum share of the lucrative middle."

[Warpy]

12. All of the above plus the dual dynasties her election would

symbolize, one of two families controlling the political scene for at least 32 years.

(anyone who thinks poor, senile Reagan was controlling things after Hinckley shot him is delusional)

That's setting off alarm bells in a lot of heads. The same alarm bells go off when a Rockefeller gets elected. Or even a Kennedy. Our country was not designed for aristocrats and dynasties.

I don't hate Clinton. I would just vastly prefer to see her as Majority Leader in the Senate.

[Fovea]

14. I too, do not hate Hillary

But I do not support her candidacy.

I don't want *any* DLC triangulator
to be our candidate.

I do not want to vote for an unrepentant Iraq invasion supporter.

I have no hatred of Hillary. She just does not represent the America I want.

[originalpckelly]

15. She gives off a mean vibe, compare her to Nancy Pelosi...

and you see a woman doesn't have to be mean in order to be a great leader.

[MonteLukast]

16. Have you read...

... the previous issue of Mother Jones, the one with two hands balled into fists and "Why Do We Hate Hillary" on the cover?

The article in there about Hillary makes an excellent point about how she is a symbol of America's collective uneasiness with feminism. Probably sexism IS driving the Hillary-Hate-Machine. All "isms" have to do with the need to feel comfortable, after all, and we humans will walk across oceans and move mountains-- or throw other people away-- for comfortability.
But she CAN use that to connect with voters. The article says that she did, in fact, do that in her first Senate race. After Rick Lazio's tasteless comments about her womanhood and personality, a lot of women saw themselves in her: the woman who is mad as hell and not going to take it anymore. Suddenly, a vote for Hillary was a vote to stand up and fight.

I enjoyed that article, and I don't dislike Hillary. But I'm not voting for her.
Why? I think she has the wrong long-term strategy for the Democratic Party. Her DLC-ness, her alliance with Rupert Murdoch, even her lack of a retract of her Iraq war vote are all sending the message, "I'm sorry, but we have no choice but to keep on with the fundraising, the big money, and the soullessness." She may have substance, but it's the wrong substance: her decisions show an inability to show progressives any new hopes or ideas; all I see is a bunch of "There Is No Alternative" thinking.

And that's the last thing we progressives need. Sorry, Hillary.

[Czolgosz]

17. I don't hate her. Some resent being force fed a pre-selected candidate. Others feel she triangulates

too much which projects an image in valuelessness. Still others are just sexist.

Me? I just prefer a more progressive candidate (Edwards, Obama, Kucinich), but I'll support her fully is she gets the nomination.

[aikoaiko]

18. she is a gun grabber.

and that will lose us important moderate votes over something I don't think we should doing in the first place.

[shimmergal]

19. I don't hate her, and in fact

will vote for her if she's the Democratic nominee, but she's far from my favorite candidate.

Why? Well, in addition to the points above, for some months her candidacy has given me the impression that "the fix is in." That it's already been decided by power brokers that she's the one (at least as far as the Dem. nomination goes) and there's nothing left for the voters to do but fall in line. Arghhh!

Credit for the phrase ("fix is in") goes to Patrick Buchanan, who said it in 2000 describing W's race. No, I don't equate Hillary with the Chimp in other ways, but in their being set up for success regardless of the voters' sentiments, it's creepy.

[rman]

20. we don't -

it's just that many here think she won't do the right thing as a president.

[Beelzebud]

21. I'm tired of 2 families running the US. It's that simple. We need CHANGE.

[Moochy]

27. Best Answer!

Reagan(Bush),Reagan(Bush),Bush, Clinton, Clinton, Bush, Bush, Clinton.

Twenty eight years, Hell why not go for thirty two, or thirty six years with the same two families running this "democracy."

[snooper2]

39. We don't have a democracy, it's a plutocracy at this point..

So say no to Clinton in 08' ! That reason alone is enough...

[blm]

49. Bush and Clinton are also now close friends and allies though Clinton HAD to know

what the BFEE was all about within his first year of taking office in 93.

And why Clinton has worked more consistently to rehabilitate Poppy Bush's legacy in the public eye than he ever did to help the 2002 and 2004 Dem candidates.

[Faux pas]

40. I'm with you. Give us some fresh faces and new ideas. n/t

[bdamomma]

46. I am all for fresh ideas and new faces.

Two come to mind Edwards and Obama.

[Faux pas]

64. All I care is that who(m)ever wins, they are really to the left of

center. Old Hill is too far on the right of that line for my taste.

[Greyhound]

22. No hate here either. I don't support her at this point because she betrayed

her constituents and an entire segment of the economy by siding with corporations (major campaign donors) against their victims.

I don't want to see her get the nomination because her candidacy would, in itself, provide the Republiks with the energy and motivation that they lack and have failed to muster, due to their innumerable failures over the last six years.

If she does get the nod, I'll vote for her, but I'm afraid it will badly hurt the country.

[John Q. Citizen]

23. If I only could find out where Hillary stands on the issues, I might be able to decide

if I support her or not.

In the meantime, I'm not planning on voting for warm and fuzzy slogans, whether they come from Hillary or anywhere else. I'm not voting for a bio, I'm not voting for a narrative of a life story. I'm voting
for a candidate whose understanding of the issues, and whose solutions to those issues I can agree with in large part.

I've been to her web site. Nowhere can I find does she mention issues or her plan for dealing with those issues. Help me out! Where's the beef?

http://www.hillaryclinton.com/



When the author of the piece talks about substance, is that in reference to her changing positions?

" She's ambitious: Most were correct in predicting that her run at the Senate in 2000 was a mere stepping stone to an eventual run at the White House. She's calculating: She always seems to recalibrate her positions on issues like abortion and Iraq so as to capture the maximum share of the lucrative middle.

What is substantive about constant recalibrating of positions for purely political positioning?

[MonteLukast]

30. Hillary is instructive.

How do you act ambitious without coming across like someone who will do anything to win?

I believe that to a certain percentage of people, being ambitious will ALWAYS equal "being underhanded and unprincipled."
So, what. I and other women still like to be ambitious. How do we keep that negative perception of ambition from ruining our credibility and leadership?

[John Q. Citizen]

33. What are Hillary's stands on the issues? I can't find them. Maybe you can help?

I could care less about ambition. Anybody running for president is ambitious by definition.

But where do she stand on the issues?

[MonteLukast]

38. Well...

Here we go.

It can be confusing in spots, as it includes her old positions (and really not much from 2006).

Here's some of her most recent rundown:

Respect Roe v. Wade, but make adoptions easier too. (Nov 2006)
Last six years were challenging; let's try a new direction. (Oct 2006)
Pushing for privacy bill of rights. (Jun 2006)
Voted YES on repealing tax subsidy for companies which move US jobs offshore. (Mar 2005)
Transfer tax cuts from rich & corporations to student aid. (Jun 2006)
Remove energy dependence on countries who would harm us. (Jun 2006)
Dems believe in fighting terror with cooperation. (Jun 2006)
Verified paper ballot for every electronic voting machines. (Nov 2006)
Increase America's commitment against Global AIDS. (Nov 2006)
Voted NO on limiting medical liability lawsuits to $250,000. (May 2006)
Voted YES on expanding enrollment period for Medicare Part D. (Feb 2006)

What bothers me is how vague most of these positions are. Especially "Last six years were challenging; let's try a new direction" regarding the economy. Now who says that, that is really serious about reducing the gap between rich and poor? She did take a concrete step by voting yes to repeal the tax subsidy for offshorers, but that was only a first step and still defeated by the previous Congress.

And as far as her take on national security: "Dems believe in fighting terror with cooperation..." I can just see the GOoPers using that against her, claiming she wants to "hug terrorists" or something.

The most specific thing I can see is her 100% favorable pro-senior voting record. That's one good thing, at least. But we need a lot more from her-- I totally agree with you.

[sellitman]

25. I'm for ANY Democrat who can win.

If we (A Democrat) don't win then it matters not if our candidate mirrors our own ideals exactly. This is what the Nader supporters cleverly forgot. We can always move our candidate left or right once in office.

First they have to get there.

Yes...I have my favorite, but I will look long and hard at the polling numbers in theoretical match ups very closely when the time comes to pull the trigger.

I hope others here on DU do the same.

[ronnykmarshall]

43. You said it!

:yourock:

[Dawgs]

47. Exactly.

[Zenlitened]

52. Yep, me too. And I think Sen. Clinton CAN win, and she CAN overcome...

... the knee-jerk negativity that many of those being polled have been conditioned to exhibit.

I look back to 2004, when I started out as a Deaniac. Even though John Kerry was my senator, I felt he was too (insert all the anti-Hillary descriptors here) to make a good candidate.

But as the primary was decided and the general campaign rolled along, I became more and more enthusiastic about supporting him. It certainly wasn't a "hold your nose and vote" situation for me come election day. I'd gotten to know the candidate better, and was consistently impressed by what I saw.

I think Hillary Clinton can do that as well, if she wins the primary. I think she could connect with the skeptics and show us what a talented, compassionate, committed person she is. And what an excellent president she'd make.

Mind you, I have some criticisms of Kerry still. And Clinton, too, for that matter. I don't have a favorite in the current race, either. But I think all our Democratic candidates are good people, with a diversity of strengths, and I'm willing to them all a chance to try to earn my vote.

[Cha]

26. How about substituting "hate" for

"don't like"? I don't like her because she's a tool for the dlcorporate bullshit. hillary is a hawk..we don't need any more fucking hawks in the Whitehouse.

"For example, she opposes the international treaty to ban land mines. She voted against the Feinstein-Leahy amendment last September restricting U.S. exports of cluster bombs to countries that use them against civilian-populated areas. She opposes restrictions on U.S. arms transfers and police training to governments that engage in gross and systematic human rights abuses, such as Egypt, Morocco, Saudi Arabia, Oman, Israel, Pakistan, Cameroon and Chad, to name only a few. She insists upon continuing unconditional funding for the Iraq war and has called for dramatic increases in Bush’s already bloated military budget. She has challenged the credibility of Amnesty International and other human rights groups that criticize policies of the United States and its allies."

http://www.commondreams.org/views07/0309-23.htm

And if she gets in is she going to expose the crimes of the bushit pnacers? Or is she going to help cover them up?

[dysfunctional press]

28. three little letters: d. l. c.

dinos, every one of them- they need to be purged from our party.

[skipos]

42. I'm glad we didn't purge DLCers like Gore, Kerry, Dean and Edwards

I find this "purge them all" talk to be pretty ridiculous. We tried to "purge" Lieberman in a state that voted for Kerry by a 10% margin, and 33% of Democrats still voted for Joe. What do you think would happen if we "purge" Ben Nelson in NE (a guy who has insanely high approval ratings from NE Democrats)? I am all for trying to replace conservative Dems with progressive ones when it makes sense, but not not every state or district wants a progressive Dem.

[Annces]

32. She is a woman and a moderate

We should not have to wait until we elect whomever we want. Right is always right from beginning of time to the end.

She is more of spartan than Pelosi, and society does not want women that way.

[bumblebee1]

35. She's a smart woman

who puts the fear of God into certain kinds of people. As for Judith Warner using the words "trying out" I've got something to say about that. Trying out is what you do for the cheerleading squad, not running for the highest office in the U.S. Judith, it's a run for the Presidency, not an audition for the Dallas Cowboys Cheerleaders.

[1monster]

36. I don't hate her. She just leaves me cold. And she supported Bush

too much and too long over the Iraq invasion.

[PATRICK]

37. More devastating defense

like that and she's finished. What I don't like about this piece is the constant repetition of "hate". Some of the back handed defense also unfairly grants some prejudicial points even as it tries to deflate others.

Most of all, we don't want candidates we will have to rescue from public approbation before we even get to legitimate campaigning. "We" are are not "some circles" or just a segment of the party electorate. As the article cruelly points out, she is not the popular choice. Now, in 2004 Kerry worked hard to win (back) voter confidence with barely a tenth of these negatives. We are going to expect the Dem primary voters after 2000 and 2004 to start out with truly hardcore deficit popularity- again- based on that flat but solid argument? That hidden strength?

Granted Hillary might do well with some of that battered, residual respect, the women's vote and the juggernaut machinery within the MSM media fog of bitter attacks on her opponents. She might very well go all the way and govern well. But to spread this kind of defense far and wide will set the voters to thinking just the opposite of the intention of Emory's article.

We have heard all this type of argument before for other candidates. "Why do you hate this competent and worthy candidate?" It is not one that will serve Hillary at all well this time. She deserves a shot on the merits and if every candidate gave way to the more logical first choice we would always have one candidate in the primaries and loads of people meekly popping in and out. Broad context defensiveness presented to a twice stung electoral group is an unacceptable sign of weakness. Individual defense against specific attacks or issues would do the job much much better, and certainly better than avoiding controversy that points out negatives(done that too and people know it). That piece of advice is a generous gift from an Edwards supporter that will do wonders compared to well-wishing analysis like the above. Simply because I would hate to see "hate" and tainted GOP smears openly dominate considerations of our candidates. The familiar household background context will haunt her more than enough. That and the fact she likely will not find a way out of the conundrum.

[MODemocrat]

41. I just happen to like Hillary

She's just fine in my opinion, which probably doesn't mean too much. She's smart, and she can say at
least 2 or 3 sentences without mumbling; and she kicks butt. I'm working in her behalf right now.
However, I'll hold my nose and vote for the DEMOCRATIC PARTY candidate.
:dem:

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

Because I hate nepotism.

And I hate phonies.

[PhilipShore]

45. Hillary is urged to run by Military-Industrial-Complex $$$

[ComerPerro]

48. I don't agree with the conclusion, either. Is she a candidate with a backbone?

I will leave that to others to decide.

[JackRiddler]

50. Why are writers stupid?

"We" don't hate Hillary, although she's certainly nothing like the fictional character praised in this bullshit article. I even voted for her (once, in 2000) in reaction to all the irrational hatred she has received from the right. Then she voted for USA PATRIOT, Homeland Security, the Iraq war resolution and pretty much every other madness that has come down Bush's pike. She's been all the way with the 9/11 coverup, the GWOT, slave to AIPAC and ready to bomb Iran. Her husband's presidency was the disaster that led to our present hyper-disaster. The failures of the Clintons are what enabled the horrors of the Bush.

[ZinZen]

51. Agree with many posters

I do not hate Hillary. I just am not inspired by her candidicy. Nor do I think she cares about the average voter. I think she cares about winning and her ambition supercedes the end all be all.

I save my really negative feelings for Bushco. They are truly the ones who deserve all of this negative rancor.

[BuyingThyme]

54. She could do herself a huge favor by simply reaching out and

grabbing one of the headline issues. For instance, she could make a big deal about the Swiftboat recess appointment. She is a senator, after all. People are waiting.

(Not me.)

[WI_DEM]

55. I don't hate her, I just don't think she has any real core principles. I think the Clinton's

will say and do almost anything to win. I also don't think she can win because she is too polarizing. The one advantage that Bill had was his charisma and ability to sway people, if only momentarily, by his words. Hillary doesn't have this.

[mtnsnake]

56. I think she's hated because of a sadly successful campaign of misinformation & railroading

which takes place from both extreme ends of the political spectrum.

[Forkboy]

58. Don't hate her,just don't think she's even close to what this world needs.

[HughBeaumont]

59. Mostly because of this neo-lib crap:

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/GC01Df03.html

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/538674.cms

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0403/03/ldt.00.html

You know, we cannot close our borders. We have to be smarter about competing. We have, more enforceable trade agreements. But we also have to attract jobs from around the world. And you know, we are still the biggest market with the greatest potential for growth for businesses from literally every corner of the world.

Gee, smells like N Greg Mankiw, not a progressive populist.

[mnhtnbb]

60. I have a visceral, negative reaction to Hillary, but I gave her money for her first Senate race

That said, I like other candidates better for the presidential race and it has nothing to do with her being a woman. I don't like her corporate connections, her DLC connections, her stand on the Iraq War, or how she completely screwed
up her foray into health care during Bill's first term. I have never forgiven her for her put-down of women who give up careers to raise kids and become community activists.

So, Hillary, don't expect me to sit quietly by and accept your candidacy
as though you were entitled to it. I don't think she's the best person for the job.

But I don't hate her. I just don't like her.

[mudesi]

62. She comes off as wooden and scripted

I have no doubt that she would make a fine president. But charisma is something she does not have, unlike her husband.

[gravity]

63. I don't hate HIllary and believe she would make a good president but

I just don't think she can win any swing states over.