Did they say why?
No, and I wasn’t asking for policy analysis. Just impressions.
I’m Canadian so I won’t be voting, but if I were an American I’d be aligned with the Republicans. For me, Hillary is the only presidential candidate on the Democratic side that I would vote for, for the simple reason that she’s the most centrist of the bunch. Biden might get my vote, but he’s not going to win the nomination. Richardson might get it if he stopped swinging to the left.
I wouldn’t vote for Obama because he’s too far to the left and because his total lack of experience is not what you need at what is turning out to be a pretty dangerous time in history. Edwards is, to me, a pandering salesman. I wouldn’t buy a used car from him. The only reason he’s in the race is because he’s rich enough to buy himself into the position he’s in.
Hillary is annoying the ‘base’ right now because she’s doing the typical Clinton triangulation thing - refusing to let herself get pulled too far to the left so she can plausibly move to the right for the general election. But that strategy worked wonders for her husband, and it can work for her too. Obama and Edwards have moved over to the left, and that’s what will really hurt them in a general election.
If you think Hillary is unelectable, then all I can say is that the Democrats are in the process of snatching defeat from the jaws of victory, because I think a serious Republican candidate will chew up Edwards or Obama. But I honestly think Hillary has a chance to win. I wouldn’t underestimate her.
Good thing the Pubs don’t have any serious candidates! 
Sam Stone, from what I have seen, you (though Canadian) seem to be most closely affiliated with the neocon wing of the Republican Party. Small wonder, then, that you think Hillary is the most viable Democratic candidate, since she has come closer than any other to buying into the neocon agenda. She supported the war in Iraq, and now she is (in line with neocon philosophy) happily rattling sabers at Iran.
Small wonder that you don’t like Obama, since he has come closest to challenging this mindset, by saying that he would like to engage Iran.
Most of the Republicans in my circle of friends are expressing serious doubts about their party’s Middle East adventurism. And most of the moderates I encounter express a deep aversion to Hillary.
Sam, I just don’t think you have the slightest understanding of what swing voters in the US are thinking. No offense, but I don’t give much weight to your proffered advice.
It’s one of them there paradoxes. You’re correct that Hillary is one of the most centrist candidates. She’s also the most hated by the right. I have no idea why, other than that the right-wing political machine has been been painting her as Satan since 1992.
The fact that she’s as strong as she is, despite this irrational hate-on for her is probably the best testimony to her electability there is. The Right-Wing hate machine has been throwing everything they had at her for over a decade, and she still stands. You’ve got to respect that. I agree with DrDeth and RTF that all Democratic candidates will be subject to the slings and arrows of the opposition and that at least we know that Hillary’s been there before, has used their best ammo already, and knows how to survive that.
That should be cause for concern, since a Hillary candidacy is going to motivate a lot of right-wing voters who might otherwise sit out this election.
But why do they hate her? Is it because she’s a woman? I’ve never understood it. Why do they hate Clinton? He was a total centrist. Anyone who looks at their positions would be hard pressed to say she’s some sort of super liberal (hell, that’s why I don’t like her; she too right wing for my taste), but she’s always painted as this nutty left winger. Does anyone know why, or how this happened? Because it has been seriously baffling me for years.
Because Clinton beat Bush, and when they impeacheded 
him, he survived.
I’m by no means convinced that, given time and motivation, the right couldn’t drum up sufficient vitriol against Edwards or Obama. They already have a good start on Edwards.
After all, the hate against Hillary is almost entirely irrational and a product of right-wing media*. There’s no reason that they couldn’t do it against someone else. They did it to Kerry and Gore, after all.
*There are plenty of perflectly good reasons to oppose Hillary Clinton, from either the left or the right. But it’s pretty clear that the right’s beef against her goes pretty far beyond that.
No offense, and I know you were trying to be glib, but this doesn’t make any sense. I mean, I remember, not long after Clinton took office seeing a Christian magazine that asked, in all seriousness, whether or not Bill Clinton was the Antichrist. I was pretty young when all this started (I was 12 when Clinton was elected) so I don’t know how it all began.
Everyone just says, “Oh, she’s unelectable. People hate her!” but no one ever says why. And it seems like, if they could do it to her, why not to anyone? I think before we toss Hillary overboard because she’s been demonized by the right wing, we need to understand how and why that happened, or it will just happen again.
I really think that the only reason that hate Hillary is that they feel she’s the strongest. Edwards strikes me as weak and Obama strikes me as inexperienced - easily attackable when the heat is on. Hillary? What haven’t they tried against her? She’s still there and on top to boot. They hate Hillary because they’re scared.
- She’s a strong woman.
- In 1992, the GOP still regarded this as a Bad Thing. (Their convention that year was a sight to behold - it was the last stand of “women should stay in the kitchen” as a centerpiece of conservative cultural values, and they made the most of it.) So they demonized Hillary, in addition to Bill. (Who was demonized because he was the Dem candidate.)
- “Hillarycare” was a great way of feeding off that demonization. Not only is she a ball-busting woman - maybe a lesbian - but she’s for socialized medicine!!
Oh yeah, and she killed Vince Foster. Can’t forget that.
But all that’s stuck to her, to a fair extent, even as the world has changed. Even conservative Christians don’t think it’s a big deal for married women to have bona fide careers, and even conservative Christians are starting to see the sense of universal health care. But by now, the antipathy has lodged pretty deeply in their psyches.
At least, that’s my theory. But I’m sticking with it.
I think you must be confusing him with Romney, who has dumped large chunks of his personal fortune into his campaign.
Seriously, exactly how has Edwards bought himself into the race?
Is it something my fevered mind invented or did that convention feature a speech by Pat Robertson in which he inveighed against witchcraft and lesbianism in the same sentence?
It is kind of a strange thing, isn’t it? But I think really it is a combination of coincidence and opportunity. In 1992, the religious right was just hitting its stride as the controlling faction of the Republican party. George H. W. Bush, who was seen as a symbol of the old guard northeast liberal elite that was being deposed, was on his way out.
I believe Bill Clinton himself has commented on the level of hatred against him and he has said something to the effect of – Well, to them I look like I should be one of them, white, Southern, Baptist, etc. And the fact that despite his ethnic, religious, cultural backgrown he’s against him politically makes him a traitor, which is far worse than just being born the enemy.
The 1992 campaign was a testing ground for tactics that exploded (with Rush Limbaugh in the driver’s seat) at the start of the Clinton presidency. The right worked hard to depict Hillary as the kind of leftist, elitist, pro-abortion, secularist, intellectual feminist that was destroying America. One largely innocuous comment by her referencing Tammy Wynette and staying home and making cookies was seized on as a defining cultural moment by the right.
(It’s really amazing if you go back to the 1980s and look at the rise of the religious right, e.g., Phyllis Schlafly. It’s astonishing how much of it was along the lines of “keep women at home raising children.”)
And … and … and … after all that, the fuckers won! So then they decided to get serious. All the elements of the religious right were falling into place and demonizing Bill and Hillary became the most effective means of spreading the message.
Clinton was a total sleazeball and a compulsive liar. Hilary was his co-President. Now she wants to be real President.
If by that you mean “Republicans are going to campaign against whoever the Dems pick”, well, no duh. Same can be said about Dems - they are certainly going to drum up vitriol against whoever is nominated by the Republicans. Certainly some of it is going to get nasty - from both sides. Hilary isn’t going to get a pass from the other side, and trying to spin it entirely as “resentment of a strong woman” the way the Usual Suspects have/will is not going to make it go away.
Here’s the problem - no, it’s not. There are plenty of perfectly good reasons to hate Hilary - her “co-Presidency” in The Most Ethical Administration in History[sup]TM[/sup], the health care debacle, Travelgate, Filegate, her chief of staff being spotted by the Secret Service removing documents from Foster’s office the night he offed himself, subpoena-ed documents that she swore she knew nothing about turning up on her library table, with her fingerprints on them, Hilary channeling Eleanor Roosevelt, etc.
Look, I realize the mere mention of any of the myriad scandals of the Clinton administration is going to send the Usual Suspects into spasms of denial. But if Hilary wants to make it to the White House, she is going to need votes from the middle. The yellow dog Dems who make up probably 80% of the SDMB are going to vote for her, providing someone further to the left doesn’t make it (he won’t). But simply trying to wave away all the sleaze Hilary has waded thru on her way to the Oval Office as “old news” is not addressing the major issues that Hilary has.
She may still be elected. The campaign has not seriously begun yet, and while she is the front-runner, there’s many a slip between the cup and the lip.
Most people realize that “no fair talking about past scandals” is hypocritical unless it applies to both sides. You wanna argue “she’s never been convicted”? Fine with me. Then no Republican scandal counts unless you got a conviction, neither. Is a politician’s marriage off limits for discussion? OK, that goes for Giuiliani as much as Mrs. “Ah did not have sex with that woman”.
And so forth.
Regards,
Shodan
I’m not going to be going into paroxyms of denial. With the perspective of the last eight years, this list of “scandals” makes me go into convulsions of laughter. Even if every single word were true, they are in comparison so petty as to be nonexistent.
Seriously. And both Clintons remain as popular as ever. They’ve weathered those storms, and then we got to see what an immoral presidency with no regard for law really looks like, so they look even better.
Not that his personal fortune is going to feel it. Romney is worth at least $190 million and maybe as much as $250 million–more than the rest of the Presidential candidates, Republican and Democrat, combined.
Heck, even Hillary is worth a lot more than Edwards ($51 million vs. $30 million).
Indeed. Which is why he can afford to lend eight-figure amounts to his own campaign. He really won’t miss it.
That’s impressive. What I’m wondering is, exactly when and how did she become worth that much money?
Most of us recall that instance where she picked up a $100K profit on a brief investment in the commodities market, which I’m amazed that Shodan didn’t include in his List of Trivial but Overblown Clinton Scandals. (E.g. Travelgate - where they fired a bunch of people in the White House travel office that they had every right to fire. Why was it a ‘scandal’? Because it inconvenienced the White House press corps that were the real beneficiaries of that office. Who knew the wingnuts cared so much about the welfare of the Liberal Media?) If she’d had real money back then, she probably wouldn’t have been taking that particular flyer.