Liberals: What do you think of Hillary Clinton for POTUS now?

[Plan B]

First of all some disclosure. I am not a liberal. I try not to get too involved with the personalities of politicians so I don't have any strong feelings about her personally. But one thing that amazes me is how far to the right HC has been able to move without losing any support from the left.

A couple of possibilities come to mind. Maybe she hasn't moved that far to the right. Maybe she has and she's lost some support but I'm not reading about it.
But it seems to me that she could slowly and steadily move to the right of Tom Delay on every issue and her base would come with her.

So, I'd like to throw out a few queestions to liberals on the board:

What do you think of HC for POTUS?
If you do support her, is there any limit to when you would drop her - support for vouchers, privatizing SS, bigger tax cuts?
Do you believe that no matter what she says now, that she'll be a true liberal once elected?
Who else would you support for POTUS, whether or not she's your first choice?

Finally I put this post here to get a poll of members kind of thread. I'm not interested in debating her character or positions on this board.

[Patty O'Furniture]

Has she made available a poisition statement? I make the default assumption that putting Hilary back in office would be tantamount to putting Bill back in office, but that could be very wrong because I really don't know what her views are.

[Plan B]

Originally Posted by Patty O'Furniture

Has she made available a poisition statement? I make the default assumption that putting Hilary back in office would be tantamount to putting Bill back in office, but that could be very wrong because I really don't know what her views are.

She's made a number of public statements and voted many times since taking office.

[Patty O'Furniture]

I am strongly in favor of candidates who make public statements and vote. Hillary for prez!

[Eve]

I would love to see her in the White House, I think she'd make a terrific president--but it's never going to happen. And I hope the Democrats are not stupid enough to put her anywhere near the next ticket, we need someone who has some realistic chance of winning.

[a35362]

I hope she doesn't run, because I think a lot of Democrats would instantly jump on her bandwagon thinking she'd be the most "viable" candidate, but I just don't think she can handle the job emotionally. I may be completely wrong here, but I have an image of her as being someone who is way too angry and controlling and generally controlled by her own emotional responses to ever be anything like a good president. She's very smart, very dedicated, she works very hard, yadda yadda yadda -- so let her stay in the Senate as long as the people of New York state want her there. Let Kennedy retire (please, Massachusetts?), and let her take over as "the great liberal voice of the Senate."

Unless you're suggesting that she's not as liberal as many seem to think she is, about which I have no opinion.

She reminds me of when Elizabeth Dole was running for president and everyone said the poor woman could never do the job because she's a control freak and would just implode.

AFAIK she has not ever said she wanted to be president, so who knows?

[Lamar Mundane]

Originally Posted by Eve

I would love to see her in the White House, I think she'd make a terrific president--but it's never going to happen. And I hope the Democrats are not stupid enough to put her anywhere near the next ticket, we need someone who has some realistic chance of winning.

I couldn't agree more. I like her and respect her credentials and would support her if she ran, but she has zero chance of winning a national election. The Democratic establishment seems to have no idea how loathed she by so many. Deserved or not, her very name riles up the right like no one else save Michael Moore. If she runs, it is all over for the Democrats. She'd lose by double digits.

[even sven]

I hate her- especially for her opinions on video games/movies (who will think of the children!!) and I would vote for nearly any other liberal besides her. However, if she was the one running I'd support her. I think we've all learned that even a crappy liberal is better than a great republican.

[jasonh300]

My opinion of her aside, I think that Kathleen Blanco's (governor of Louisiana) handling of the Hurricane Katrina incident is going to make things VERY difficult for any female politician for a long time, especially with voters in the South.

I'm not saying that ALL potential female politicians would break down emotionally under stress and fail to handle a crisis situation, but Americans reluctantly started electing ladies to public office 20 or 30 years ago and this is going to set that back a LONG way.

[jasonh300]

Originally Posted by jasonh300

My opinion of her aside

Her being Hillary...or Blanco...I'm not discussing my opinion on either one of them...just making an observation on the way people seem to be thinking about female politicians in general.

[Revtim]

Originally Posted by Eve

I would love to see her in the White House, I think she'd make a terrific president--but it's never going to happen. And I hope the Democrats are not stupid enough to put her anywhere near the next ticket, we need someone who has some realistic chance of winning.

I don't know enough about her positions to make such a a ringing endorsement (and I know she jumped on the "video games make kids killers" idiot bandwagon as even sven notes), but I'm sure I'll agree with her more than any Republican, if history is any indication. But I agree it would be suicide to put her on the ticket, even as a vice presidential candidate.

[RealityChuck]

I think she'd be a good president, but her reputation is too much of a liability. It will energize the Republican base more than any other Democratic candidate, and she'd be easy to portray as a candidate to hate. In addition, she lacks the likeability factor that made GW Bush president: he won twice because voters thought of him as a nice guy; few voters think of her in that light. Finally, most voters have already made up their mind about her qualities; it'd be better if someone less well-known (and less threatening) got the nomination.

[Plan B]

Thanks for the responses so far. It's interesting that the thread sparks some interest - 157 views and 10 replies in less than three hours - but no one except me seems too interested in the specific questions I posed.

[Chefguy]

I actually heard our resident far-righty at the office say that if she was elected, he would move to Canada: sound familiar?

[Marley23]

I'm not sure if I count as a liberal these days - maybe I do. Anyway, I think Hillary is going to run and win in '08, but I'm not a fan.

Originally Posted by a35362

Unless you're suggesting that she's not as liberal as many seem to think she is, about which I have no opinion.

I think it's become clear she isn't. From her position on the Iraq war to the video game thing to her public appearances with Newt Gingrich and work with Lindsey Graham, she has spent her whole term trying to carve out a niche in the middle.

[Little Nemo]

Did Hillary Clinton actually ever call herself a liberal? Or is that just a label that was put on her by conservatives?

[Sunspace]

Originally Posted by Chefguy

I actually heard our resident far-righty at the office say that if she was elected, he would move to Canada: sound familiar?

I suspect your resident far-rightie would like Canada less than a USA inder President Hilary...

[Der Trihs]

Originally Posted by Plan B

What do you think of HC for POTUS?

Too conservative for my tastes, and she'd be too good a rallying figure for the right. The right has always had this insane hatred of the Clintons, for no reason I can see; it's not like they are all that far to the left, or bad people by Washington standards.

Originally Posted by Plan B

Do you believe that no matter what she says now, that she'll be a true liberal once elected?

No.

[Askance]

Originally Posted by Lamar Mundane

The Democratic establishment seems to have no idea how loathed she by so many.

Why, exactly? Just because she was Clinton's wife? Disagree with her politics, such as the Medicare thing, fine; but why such hatred and loathing?

[Marley23]

Originally Posted by Lamar Mundane

The Democratic establishment seems to have no idea how loathed she by so many.

I don't think that's true. But I do think, if anything, the anti-Hilary backlash has been overestimated. It's not 1995. She's not the President's wife, and (although it's just my interpretation) she has been a somewhat low-key Senator, given her fame. I think Republicans who expect her to lose because "people hate her" would be in for the same surprise as Democrats who expected Bush to lose in 200 because "he's an idiot."

[Lamar Mundane]

Originally Posted by Marley23

I don't think that's true. But I do think, if anything, the anti-Hilary backlash has been overestimated. It's not 1995. She's not the President's wife, and (although it's just my interpretation) she has been a somewhat low-key Senator, given her fame. I think Republicans who expect her to lose because "people hate her" would be in for the same surprise as Democrats who expected Bush to lose in 200 because "he's an idiot."

I completely disagree. I know a number of Bush voters who are disenchanted with the Republican party who would vote Democratic if they ran someone fairly centrist like John Edwards or Mark Warner, but would run away screaming if it were Hillary. I know a number of Democrats who wouldn't vote for her. Deserved or not, she has become a symbol for everything Republicans hate about Democrats.

[saoirse]

Originally Posted by Marley23

I don't think that's true. But I do think, if anything, the anti-Hilary backlash has been overestimated. It's not 1995. She's not the President's wife, and (although it's just my interpretation) she has been a somewhat low-key Senator, given her fame. I think Republicans who expect her to lose because "people hate her" would be in for the same surprise as Democrats who expected Bush to lose in 200 because "he's an idiot."

Yes, and they failed to grasp that being an idiot is not too much of an impediment if you can get people to like you. Hillary is smart as a whip, but she is not likeable even when she's saving a VA Hospital from closing. Also, the right were the ones who initially pushed for her to run, because they know how high her negatives are. They haven't been hitting her lately, because they would rather wait until the party is committed to her. Hell, just being "the Senator from New York" is enough to cost you two dozen states. Add "Hillary Clinton" to that and you've got a disaster, just when nominating any credible candidate is likely to win it for the Democrats.

[Marley23]

Originally Posted by Lamar Mundane

Deserved or not, she has become a symbol for everything Republicans hate about Democrats.

I understand what the idea of Hillary means to many people. My feelings is that the passionate hatred she inspires in some people has made others decide that there are more Hillary-haters than there actually are. I just think that once she actually gets out there and offers positions on the issues in 2008, that will become a bigger deal than what's come before.

Originally Posted by saoirse

Hillary is smart as a whip, but she is not likeable even when she's saving a VA Hospital from closing.

She's definitely not warm and fuzzy.

Also, the right were the ones who initially pushed for her to run, because they know how high her negatives are. They haven't been hitting her lately, because they would rather wait until the party is committed to her.

Citey cite cite. I could've sworn Jeanine Pirro was campaigning and not being particularly nice.

Hell, just being "the Senator from New York" is enough to cost you two dozen states.

I don't think that many states will even be up for grabs.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

I'd like to see HRC be elected POTUS just for the entertainment value of seeing conservatives weeping and gnashing their teeth.

I don't think she'd ever have a chance of winning, though. She's been too deeply demoinized by the right. Too many righties see her as a caricature of liberal, feminist harpy who's going to socialize everthing and turn their wives into lesbians and offer free abortions in high schools.

If only....

[Helen's Eidolon]

a35362, please see my response here.

[Campion]

Originally Posted by Plan B

What do you think of HC for POTUS?
If you do support her, is there any limit to when you would drop her - support for vouchers, privatizing SS, bigger tax cuts?
Do you believe that no matter what she says now, that she'll be a true liberal once elected?
Who else would you support for POTUS, whether or not she's your first choice?

I do not now support her for President, and I am unlikely ever to support her. It's an issue of winnability; she is far too divisive and we need a rallying point. She ain't it.

Originally Posted by a35362

I may be completely wrong here, but I have an image of her as being someone who is way too angry and controlling and generally controlled by her own emotional responses to ever be anything like a good president.

Our current president, in my opinion, is a very angry man, and reports have him becoming ever more emotional and petty in his responses to set-backs, particularly as his approval ratings drop. And for a variety of reasons, including his overly emotional nature, I do not believe that he is a good president. I also believe that there was some evidence relating to this aspect of his character before he was elected. I have not seen such evidence relating to Hillary. Perhaps it's there, perhaps not. The difficulty she will face should she run is that, unlike many men, she will not be judged on her character, record, or personality, but will instead become Everywoman. She will be painted with all the flaws (whatever those might be ) of all women, and will also carry the burden of having to fulfill everyone's expectations.

For some reason, I think that there are people who persist in believing that a woman cannot be a good leader because she is more open with her emotions. I think we're better off looking at a candidate's track record, and not ascribing gendered traits to that candidate. This is, of course, difficult to do.

Originally Posted by RealityChuck

In addition, she lacks the likeability factor that made GW Bush president: he won twice because voters thought of him as a nice guy; few voters think of her in that light.

I think that's the key.

I will note that both my parents are pro-Hillary. If my dad weren't anti-bumper sticker, he'd have put a Hillary 2004 sticker on his car long ago. Unless something changes, he'll vote for her in 2008.

[roger thornhill]

Originally Posted by Campion

I have not seen such evidence relating to Hillary.

Me neither, but I put that down to the fact that she has little or no sentiment, or the capacity for feeling. Like many of that ilk, she has of course plenty of sentimentality, allied with its near relatives, the ability to feel sorry for herself, that the world is against her, etc. etc.

[Johanna]

This is why it's so tough for women in leadership, getting accused of being too emotional and not emotional enough at the same time. This is bullshit. Men aren't judged on that criterion.

[tomndebb]

Originally Posted by roger thornhill

Me neither, but I put that down to the fact that she has little or no sentiment, or the capacity for feeling. Like many of that ilk, she has of course plenty of sentimentality, allied with its near relatives, the ability to feel sorry for herself, that the world is against her, etc. etc.

This is silly. I have no idea what sort of domestic U.S. stories make it to East Asia, but while I could possibly see some complaints that Senator Clinton is not emotionally demonstrative, any claims that she is given to "sentimentality" have to come from an overactive imagination and claims that she "feel[s] sorry for herself" are ludicrous. (I suppose one might go back seven years to note that she publicly identified much of the Whitewater press activity as an attempt to smear her husband as "self pity," but since much of the Whitewater press activity was actually funded by people who were attempting to attack her husband, that claim is not too far out of line (if, admittedly, somewhat self-serving).
Given that descriptions of her as a senator usually have included synonyms for "professional," "tough," and "hardworking" and are often accompanied by mentions of the "grudging respect" she has earned from opponents, it is hard to see where claims of "sentimentality" could arise.

This is not a claim that one cannot oppose her for either her positions or her personality, but the quoted descriptions of her personality are really odd.

[BobLibDem]

She's much too hawkish for me. On domestic issues, I probably agree with her 90%+ of the time, but her support for Bush's war is something I can't abide by. Since she's a lightning rod for the tighty righties, the Dems would be far better off nominating someone less objectionable.

[Acsenray]

To answer the OP's questions, I was a big fan of Hillary Clinton before she became a senator. Since then, she has pretty much disappointed me.

I'd prefer that she not be the Democratic nominee for president, mostly because the conservative propaganda machine has successfully laden her with tonnes of baggage that will be hard to overcome.

However, if she is nominated, of course I'll vote for her, regardless of how I feel about her liberal bona fides. The lesson learned since 2001 is that Republicans can't govern. All I care about is getting Republicans out of office.

[stretch]

Originally Posted by Plan B

What do you think of HC for POTUS?
If you do support her, is there any limit to when you would drop her - support for vouchers, privatizing SS, bigger tax cuts?
Do you believe that no matter what she says now, that she'll be a true liberal once elected?
Who else would you support for POTUS, whether or not she's your first choice?

I'll answer your questions though I'm not really a liberal--I'm a moderate Independent who generally votes for a Democrat. If it makes a difference, I'm 39, female, married.

I think that it would be a disaster for Hillary to run for POTUS--I don't think the country is ready to vote for a woman in general and Hillary would be a huge mistake because she is such a polarizing figure.

However, if the Dems nominate her and the Republican candidate is as shitty as the last choice, I'll support her. Caveats: bigger tax cuts,a sudden huge pro-life stance, any of the more draconian "conservative" issues--those are right out and would lose my support immediately.

I don't consider Hillary to be a true Liberal now, so I'm sure if she got elected she would not become a true Liberal. Health care is not a Liberal issue, though it seems that's were everyone got the idea that the Clintons were liberal.

I'm hoping that John Edwards runs again. I would also support Mark Warner. If the Republicans run McCain (fat chance) it's gonna be harder for me to choose between the parties, especially if the Dems choose a loser out of the gate.

[Little Nemo]

Of course Hillary Clinton has a negative image; she's already been in the White House. And Al Gore and John Kerry have negative images - now. Can anyone spot the pattern here? Any Democrat who appears to be approaching 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue loses fifty points of approval rating during the trip. So it's unfair to compare Hillary Clinton's public image to someone like John Edwards' or Barack Osama's; she's already been through the wringer and they haven't. If anything, Hillary Clinton is the safest candidate the Democrats could pick because she comes pre-attacked.

[saoirse]

Originally Posted by Marley23

Citey cite cite. I could've sworn Jeanine Pirro was campaigning and not being particularly nice..

I noticed them talking her up back in 2002. So, BTW did Evan Thomas of Newsweek, in an article shortly after the 2004 election (i cn't give you a link; I don't subscribe to their archives). Of course I would have to agree with you about Jeanine Pirro, once I googled her and found out she is the hapless republican opponent in next year's race. I was talking about conservatives with a national reputation, who are falling over themselves to explain that Hillary has their grudging respect. Off the top of my head, William Kristol and George Will come to mind, and Safire called her "effective," and seems to have dropped the "congenital liar" bit for now.

[Fear Itself]

I'll vote for Hillary if only to allow Bill to have sex in the White House again.

[Spoke]

Originally Posted by Der Trihs

The right has always had this insane hatred of the Clintons, for no reason I can see; it's not like they are all that far to the left, or bad people by Washington standards.

True enough. But then again, the extreme wing of each party is able to work up an insane hatred of any opposing politician when they put their minds to it. The question is whether the center buys into the hatred. In Hillary's case, I fear they do.

[Marley23]

Originally Posted by saoirse

I noticed them talking her up back in 2002.

If this was the scheme, they should've have "let" her run last year.

I was talking about conservatives with a national reputation, who are falling over themselves to explain that Hillary has their grudging respect. Off the top of my head, William Kristol and George Will come to mind, and Safire called her "effective," and seems to have dropped the "congenital liar" bit for now.

That leads you to think the right is trying to maneuver things so she'll get the nomination? Sorry. This sounds like yet another case of "the Republicans must be supergeniuses."

[ITR champion]

I've not been following what Hillary has been doing lately, as I'm more concerned about following Democratic candidates who are either facing a tight race in 2006 or running for President in 2008. However, for the purposes of this thread I'll suppose that I was living in some parallel universe where Hillary got the Democratic nomination in 2008.

Would I vote for her? Of course. The Republicans, by ramming through massive tax cuts and spending increases, pushed the deficit from nothing to 450 billion in three years. Now they are demanding even more massive tax cuts and spending increases. If the Republicans win again in 2008, we will get four more years of tax cuts and spending increases. The resulting financial situation, coupled with the impending baby boomer retirement, must lead to the country going bankrupt. Hence I would vote for the Democratic candidate, no matter who it is.

What would she do once elected? On that I'm clueless, but I imagine it would be pretty similar to Bill's administration. Unsatisfactory on social issues, but basic good sense on fiscal policy and foreign policy.

Who would I vote for instead? Obama is my leading choice at the moment, though that could change. I still harbor fantasies of Rudy jumping ship and becoming the Dem nominee. Bill Richardson is another solid choice.

In every previous thread about Hillary in 2008, I've offered to wager at odds of three to one, about her getting the Democratic nomination. (If she's nominated, I pay you thirty dollars. If not, you pay me ten dollars.) The wager is still open, if anyone is stupid enough to take it.

[BobLibDem]

Originally Posted by Fear Itself

I'll vote for Hillary if only to allow Bill to have sex in the White House again.

I'm sure she would. Only not with her.

[DMark]

I like Hillary.

Regarding what everyone says about her chances of becoming POTUS;

Primaries.

That is what Primary Elections are for. If Hillary squeaks by Iowa with just 51% and barely wins New Hampshire with 51% etc. - well, it is all over for her.

But if Hillary wins big, there is something called momentum. Add to that the "underdog" status of being a woman, and the severe bashing she will get by Republicans and you might see a huge backlash and sudden surge in popularity that will sweep her into office.

And once President, I can hardly wait until she hires all the White House interns - Chuck, Alan, Mark, Jeff, Dan, Martin, Steve, Joe, Fred...

[Fear Itself]

Originally Posted by BobLibDem

I'm sure she would. Only not with her.

That goes without saying.

But I still smile at the thought of the gnashing of teeth and rending of garments her election would cause the right wing. Bubba's Back!!!

[World Eater]

I don't really like her. I got this carpet bagger vibe from her when she ran for NY senate, and I just can't shake it. Of course these days I think my top lock key could run the country pretty well, so give her a shot.

/won't happen though

[cerberus]

Stupid Democrats....

Run successful governors for POTUS, not senators.

If HRC (or any other women) wants a valid shot at POTUS, she'll have to do a term or two as a governor of a state.

Preferably, go with a southern or mid-western state.

Specifically exclude these states: New York, Massachussetts, California.

Also, do avoid running one term Senators....

[Acsenray]

Originally Posted by cerberus

Stupid Democrats....

Run successful governors for POTUS, not senators.

If HRC (or any other women) wants a valid shot at POTUS, she'll have to do a term or two as a governor of a state.

Preferably, go with a southern or mid-western state.

Specifically exclude these states: New York, Massachussetts, California.

Also, do avoid running one term Senators....

Frankly, I don't buy this kind of demographic tactics. I don't believe for a minute that Dukakis lost because he was from Massachusetts or that Kerry lost because he was a senator, and not a governor. It comes down to the actual candidate. Dukakis ran a really bad campaign and his personality was all wrong. Kerry lost through a combination of bad campaign and failure to answer the Bush campaign's dirty pool in a timely or effective manner, plus he failed again to come across personality wise. Gore actually won in the voting booth but lost in the court room because he was not tough and ruthless enough in the court room or in the press.

Just keep thinking along these lines and you'll see the Republicans put up a senator and win, and then put up a Massachusetts governor and win, and so on.

[cerberus]

Let's work backwards, shall we, say to 1976 (a good thirty years or so)?

Bush 43: Governor, Texas
Clinton 42: Governor, Arkansas
Bush 41: ***Legacy from Reagan, One-term former VP***
Reagan 40: Governor, California
Carter 39: Governor, Georgia

Five of the last six POTUS are former governors...and the POTUS from Cali was a Republican...And the one non-Governor was a single term POTUS.

[Acsenray]

And where is your evidence that these characteristics were the cause of their victory or necessary to it? This is a trend, but in my opinion an over-hyped one. All the victors were also white men. Perhaps we should take a look to see whether they were all circumcised.

I don't beleive that when people go to the voting booth, they are thinking, "Hm. X was a senator and Y was a governor. I'm going for the governor." And ignoring all kinds of other factors, such as the candidates' policies and how they successfully or not managed to put them across during the campaign while displaying a "presidential" personality. Show me some proof of that and maybe I'll change my mind.

But my larger point is that so long as Democrats get lost in this kind of small-level mucking about with details, they're going to keep losing, and one-by-one the Republicans will prove each of these theories wrong. What's wrong with the Democratic party is not petty details regarding state of origin or resumes of its candidates. It's big stuff, starting from a complete absence of a long-term strategy and day-to-day work on educating the public and building a movement and a complete unwillingness or inability to actually meet the Republicans on the political field of battle.

[cerberus]

Governors, at least successful governors, have experience balancing a state budget, managing a comprehensive legislation program, share in their state-level party leadership, interact with (and possibly nominate or appoint) state judicial personnel.

As for the Democratic Party's problem, the over-leveraging of the party by idealogues residing in certain coastal states and an overly left-leaning DNC consistently costs them elections.

The only times that the DP crawls out in recent history is when the moderates and centrists seize control from the DNC, most recetnly via the DLC.

This is how WJC did it, and this is how any recent future DP POTUS candidates will do it.

[FriarTed]

Originally Posted by Chefguy

I actually heard our resident far-righty at the office say that if she was elected, he would move to Canada: sound familiar?

I did not!

[roger thornhill]

Originally Posted by Johanna

This is why it's so tough for women in leadership, getting accused of being too emotional and not emotional enough at the same time. This is bullshit. Men aren't judged on that criterion.

It's certainly tough being a woman.

[Lamar Mundane]

Originally Posted by acsenray

And where is your evidence that these characteristics were the cause of their victory or necessary to it? This is a trend, but in my opinion an over-hyped one. All the victors were also white men. Perhaps we should take a look to see whether they were all circumcised.

I don't beleive that when people go to the voting booth, they are thinking, "Hm. X was a senator and Y was a governor. I'm going for the governor." And ignoring all kinds of other factors, such as the candidates' policies and how they successfully or not managed to put them across during the campaign while displaying a "presidential" personality. Show me some proof of that and maybe I'll change my mind.

But my larger point is that so long as Democrats get lost in this kind of small-level mucking about with details, they're going to keep losing, and one-by-one the Republicans will prove each of these theories wrong. What's wrong with the Democratic party is not petty details regarding state of origin or resumes of its candidates. It's big stuff, starting from a complete absence of a long-term strategy and day-to-day work on educating the public and building a movement and a complete unwillingness or inability to actually meet the Republicans on the political field of battle.

Look at the losers as well for more evidence -

Kerry - Senator (Mass)
Gore - VP, former Senator
Dole - Senator
Bush 41 (VP)
Dukakis - Governor, (Mass)
Mondale - Senator

This is more than a trend. A big part of the problem is that Senators have voting records that can be scrutinized for every inconsistency ("I voted for it before I voted against it") and used against the candidate.