Conservatives: Why do you support Hillary Clinton for POTUS?

According to the latest Gallup Poll 33% of conservatives support Hillary Clinton for POTUS.

FWIW I’m a libertarian/conservative and I’d rather stick needles in my eye than vote for HC for anything.

Could someone please explain the above, and maybe we can have a debate?

Probably they support her running on the theory she would have no chance of winning.

Thats my view too. She is a woman and she is considered radical. She is also already reviled by the right, there’d be no need to run huge propaganda campaigns on a new guy nobody knows about like Kerry, Dean or Edwards, the hate for her is already instilled.

She’s been a fairly moderate Dem since she became senator, very pro free market and quite hawkish. And as a social liberal, I’d venture that she’s in fact closer to a lot of libertarians in a lot of ways then Bush II is.

But if the OP is correct, the Gallup poll doesn’t just say they want her to be the DNC candidate but that they would actually support her as President.

Can you elaborate why you feel so strongly against her? I know little about her policies.

I voted for her for Senator and I might do so if she ran for President. But I also am suspicious about what seems a surprisingly high rating for her among conservatives.

One idea I’ll just throw out there is that she may have appealed to some family values conservatives by staying with her husband instead of divorcing him.

name recognition is also a underrated factor in these kind of off-season polls. A lot of people who aren’t really that politically tuned in will sometimes give amenable responses about people just because they’ve heard of them.

This thread from last year might have some relevance: “Why do you hate Hillary Rodham Clinton?” –

And this article from The Nation, 6/6/05:

It has nothing to do with her policies. She’s probably about average for Democrats in terms of how liberal she is and how inconsistent she is (not that Dems are any more inconsistent than Reps).

I find her personally repulsive. She started out her career with an obvious payoff disguised as a winning commodity trading streak. She supported Bill Clinton as he destroyed the lives of any woman who spoke up after he sexually abused them. She is the most divisive politician of my lifetime, remember the “vast right-wing conspiracy” line? I was a registered Democrat/libertarian at the time, didn’t take too kindly to that.

I also found some of her female supporters to be a little too emotional-in a bad way-for me. Too much of that “in your face we’re gonna win this one i don’t have to be logical screw you” stuff. Don’t want to deal with those assholes again.
Other than that no problems.


So? She was right. What’s your point?

BTW, forgot to add that the above may take us away from the OP.

Interesting that one hour and ten posts later we don’t have a single conservative saying why s/he supports HC for POTUS. Maybe the poll results are bogus.

We’re getting away from the OP, but I’ll answer just this once. If you re-read my post you’ll see that I was a Dem at the time. I also was clearly opposed to Bill Clinton, because he was a lying scumbag (also not because of policy-it was obvious even that he was selling out the liberals for his own benefit). I resented being called part of some vast right-wing conspiracy. It was demeaning to me and dismissive of my thinking and point of view. If you don’t get it, sorry.

As for the first point it’s also not the intent of the OP. I’m sure you can google it and learn about HC’s genius in commodity trading.

No, she wasn’t. Certainly there was a concerted effort by many Republicans to unseat Clinton, but her allegation was that they had concocted the Monica Lewinski story and that here husband did not have an affair with her. Link:

OK, she was wrong in asserting Bill’s innocence, but she was right in assuming he was more sinned against than sinning. There was a vast right-wing conspiracy, not only to unseat him but to undermine everything he tried to accomplish from day one; and it was that conspiracy that turned a dead-end investigation of a shady land deal in Arkansas – from before Clinton was even president – into a completely inappropriate and irrelevant investigation of his sex life.

She just might pull it off. Her hawkish stand on the war may make her more palatable to those that supported it than other Dem hopefuls. Liberals could hold their nose and vote for her despite her strong defense posturing. Conservatives could hold their nose and vote for her despite her tendency to promote “big government” ideas such as national health care. And economic conservatives may hate to admit it, but the fiscal responsibility shown by the Clinton administration is sorely missed.

True. I doubt anyone but the hardcore Repubs are going to blame her for not wanting to admit her husband was cheating on her though. In general, I think the whole Monica thing won’t be much of an issue in 2008 beyond late-night comedy routines. It was really streached about as far as it could go in 2000, and it’s pretty hard to pin much of the blame on Hillary, except perhaps for having questionable taste in husbands and being overly beliving in her spouse.

So what? I think a lot of people have a hard time believing that she didn’t know Clinton was fooling around with Monica. At any rate, she was wrong in her assertion, and I wanted to correct your inacurate statement.

What did the polls say Bush voters cared about the most in 2004? Not taxes, not abortion, not gay marriage … it’s the war, stupid.

Her centrist positioning on many issues has helped. But I don’t think she will ever change the impression among many that she is a cold, ruthless bitch who will tear apart anyone who dares to fuck with her.

That wasn’t an image people liked in their first lady in the 1990s; it sounds pretty good in a post-9/11 president.

When has she ever done that? We’re talking about Hillary Clinton, not Karl Rove!