# Explain the Democratic obsession with Hillary Clinton **URL:** \ **Category:** Politics & Elections\ **Created:** [June 25, 2014, 4:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/explain-the-democratic-obsession-with-hillary-clinton/691621 "2014-06-25T16:42:43Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [June 26, 2014, 1:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/explain-the-democratic-obsession-with-hillary-clinton/691621/41 "2014-06-26T01:14:04Z")
> [@](#): > > Maybe I’m not getting it, but how would Hillary Rodham Clinton being elected President be any sort of a dynasty? If Hillary Rodham had married Bill Gates rather than Bill Clinton, I still think she would have gone on into a career in politics. She might have tried, but would she have gotten anywhere significant? Consider that her first elected office was Senator: That’s a very unusual career path. Usually senators have extensive experience at lower levels. Could she have gotten that far if she hadn’t been married to a president? And would she be a contender for the Presidency if she’d never been a senator? ---
**Author:** ![Itself](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/d07c76/32.png) [@Itself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Itself)\ **Post date:** [June 26, 2014, 3:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/explain-the-democratic-obsession-with-hillary-clinton/691621/42 "2014-06-26T03:23:00Z")
> [@Starving\_Artist](#): > > 1. The media likes the idea of a female president (provided she’s a Democrat, that is) and they’re aware of the liberal proclivity to elect/appoint people because they belong to a politically correct group rather than due to their character and/or ability to do the job. This why we wound up with Jimmy Carter (not Nixon), Barack Obama (McCain would’ve been another GWB, plus Obama was _quasi-black_!), and have had appointees like Madeline Albright, Joycelyn Elders and Janet Reno inflicted upon us. Nonsense. While a significant part of Carter’s appeal came from his being a southern governor with a decent record on race relations, he became president from a combination of a power vacuum in the Democratic party at the time, anger at Ford’s pardoning Nixon, and Nixon’s tarnishing the Republican image by his abuses of power. Also, Carter ran for president in 1976, when Nixon had been impeached two years prior and would have been ineligible for a third term. I’m not sure what “politically correct group” Carter would belong to anyway. McCain lost the 2008 election because he was tied to a very unpopular president, was an anemic campaigner, failed to juggle supporting the party base (which doubted his conservative credentials for some reason) with burnishing his ‘maverick’ bona fides, wasn’t as strong a campaigner as Obama, lacked the fundraising appeal of Obama, and lacked the amazing and genuinely revolutionary infrastructure of Obama’s campaign. His ace in the hole was that he had a good rapport with the media— except that Obama had a better one, and not just because he was a member of a “politically correct group.” Still, thank goodness that despite the media’s fetish for minorities, we were able to get competent white men like Bush, Rumsfeld, and Cheney in office to lead the country to an unprecedented age of peace and prosperity. Also: “quasi-black”? ---
**Author:** ![jayjay](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jayjay/32/6765_2.png) [@jayjay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jayjay)\ **Post date:** [June 26, 2014, 3:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/explain-the-democratic-obsession-with-hillary-clinton/691621/43 "2014-06-26T03:29:44Z")
> [@Itself](#): > > McCain lost the 2008 election because he was tied to a very unpopular president, was an anemic campaigner, failed to juggle supporting the party base (which doubted his conservative credentials for some reason) with burnishing his ‘maverick’ bona fides, wasn’t as strong a campaigner as Obama, lacked the fundraising appeal of Obama, and lacked the amazing and genuinely revolutionary infrastructure of Obama’s campaign. His ace in the hole was that he had a good rapport with the media— except that Obama had a better one, and not just because he was a member of a “politically correct group.” You’re forgetting the Sarah Factor…once people realized just how insane and stupid Sarah Palin was, the polling seriously moved in Obama’s direction. ---
**Author:** ![Itself](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/d07c76/32.png) [@Itself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Itself)\ **Post date:** [June 26, 2014, 3:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/explain-the-democratic-obsession-with-hillary-clinton/691621/44 "2014-06-26T03:36:31Z")
> [@2ManyTacos](#): > > So with all this in mind, what do you think is driving the groundswell of support for Hillary Clinton as a '16 nominee? For my two cents, I think it largely boils down to a couple of things: 1) Americans broadly look back on the last Clinton presidency with fondness, and they think that another Clinton administration would be similarly as prosperous, and 2) voters are increasingly ready for a female POTUS, and they think that Hillary is the most qualified woman to assume that mantle. I’d agree but add in a couple of other features: 1. There aren’t many other prominent potential candidates. There are a few governors whose names have been suggested, but I don’t think any of them quite has national name-recognition. I don’t know of any Democratic senators\* or representatives who would be in the running. In the executive branch, Biden doesn’t have the support, Kerry ran once and lost, Hagel’s a Republican, and I don’t think any of the other people in cabinet-level positions are prominent enough to win primaries. 2. After the tediously long 2008 primary season, Clinton has been vetted and gotten some experience campaigning. I don’t think she was a particularly good campaigner, but she probably learned some lessons from 2008 and would make a better attempt in 2016, if she runs. 3. She earned some praise in the general public for her tenure as Secretary of State and some praise within the party elders for defusing a lot of the unpleasantness after the 2008 primaries. - Elizabeth Warren has been mentioned a few times, but she will have served less than a full term in 2016, has never held another public office before, will be in her late 60s in the election, hasn’t had any particularly stunning or widely recognized accomplishments as a Senator, and lacks the charisma of Obama or the political discontent preceding Carter’s election to springboard her onto the national stage so quickly. ---
**Author:** ![Itself](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/d07c76/32.png) [@Itself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Itself)\ **Post date:** [June 26, 2014, 3:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/explain-the-democratic-obsession-with-hillary-clinton/691621/45 "2014-06-26T03:42:42Z")
> [@jayjay](#): > > You’re forgetting the Sarah Factor…once people realized just how insane and stupid Sarah Palin was, the polling seriously moved in Obama’s direction. That’s a good point. I’d say that he was forced (well, nudged) into it after the base turned on him for being insufficiently conservative, but it was probably not a good VP choice. Still, was that a significant event in the campaign? I seem to recall that McCain was consistently down for most of the mid- to late-campaign, but foundered completely after the financial meltdown worsened in fall 2008 and never recovered. I’ve poked around Gallup to try to find actual data, but haven’t found anything conclusive yet. Besides, Palin presumably helped McCain with fundraising. (And Obama too, for that matter, but he would have been fine regardless.) ---
**Author:** ![Derleth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b9e5f3/32.png) [@Derleth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Derleth)\ **Post date:** [June 26, 2014, 4:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/explain-the-democratic-obsession-with-hillary-clinton/691621/46 "2014-06-26T04:25:07Z")
> [@Icarus](#): > > She is inevitably a corporatist [Not according to the accepted definition of that term](http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/138442/corporatism): > [@The Editors of Encyclopædia Britannica](#): > > corporatism, Italian corporativismo, also called corporativism, the theory and practice of organizing society into “corporations” subordinate to the state. According to corporatist theory, workers and employers would be organized into industrial and professional corporations serving as organs of political representation and controlling to a large extent the persons and activities within their jurisdiction. However, as the “corporate state” was put into effect in fascist Italy between World Wars I and II, it reflected the will of the country’s dictator, Benito Mussolini, rather than the adjusted interests of economic groups. It’s nice to be specific when you re-define terms. It prevents equivocation, which is important when a word is associated with Fascists, as this one is. ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [June 26, 2014, 4:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/explain-the-democratic-obsession-with-hillary-clinton/691621/47 "2014-06-26T04:40:16Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > I shall prepare myself for four to eight years of “Why won’t Hillary lead?” headlines. Truth. Maybe electing Hillary will dispel the notion that presidential temperament means fuck-all to getting shit done. ---
**Author:** ![appleciders](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/85f322/32.png) [@appleciders](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/appleciders)\ **Post date:** [June 26, 2014, 5:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/explain-the-democratic-obsession-with-hillary-clinton/691621/48 "2014-06-26T05:57:52Z")
> [@Itself](#): > > That’s a good point. I’d say that he was forced (well, nudged) into it after the base turned on him for being insufficiently conservative, but it was probably not a good VP choice. Still, was that a significant event in the campaign? I seem to recall that McCain was consistently down for most of the mid- to late-campaign, but foundered completely after the financial meltdown worsened in fall 2008 and never recovered. I’ve poked around Gallup to try to find actual data, but haven’t found anything conclusive yet. Besides, Palin presumably helped McCain with fundraising. (And Obama too, for that matter, but he would have been fine regardless.) As I remember it, Palin gave McCain a substantial polling bump upon the announcement, as the only people who really knew who she was were the evangelical base that she appealed to, and they thought better of McCain for selecting her. However, as the rest of the public got to know Palin, she really became an albatross around McCain’s neck for the rest of the campaign. I know several Rockefeller Republican types who voted for Obama because McCain was old enough to potentially die in office and Palin frightened them so much. That said, I’m having trouble digging up a cite myself. ---
**Author:** ![Octarine](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/22d042/32.png) [@Octarine](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Octarine)\ **Post date:** [June 26, 2014, 3:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/explain-the-democratic-obsession-with-hillary-clinton/691621/49 "2014-06-26T15:51:19Z")
> [@Itself](#): > > - Elizabeth Warren has been mentioned a few times, but she will have served less than a full term in 2016, has never held another public office before, will be in her late 60s in the election, hasn’t had any particularly stunning or widely recognized accomplishments as a Senator, and lacks the charisma of Obama or the political discontent preceding Carter’s election to springboard her onto the national stage so quickly. Warren doesn’t have a realistic chance at becoming President, but what about a Clinton-Warren ticket? She’d quell the fears of some liberals that Hillary is too far right and bring some excitement to the prospect of voting, but moderates would still feel comfortable voting for Clinton based on the idea that she’d have most of the power. It would actually follow the “Trojan horse” idea the Republicans have been doing for some time with Presidential tickets now - the moderate as President and the risky, exciting candidate who stirs up the base as VP. ---
**Author:** ![Icarus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/icarus/32/72_2.png) [@Icarus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Icarus)\ **Post date:** [June 26, 2014, 3:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/explain-the-democratic-obsession-with-hillary-clinton/691621/50 "2014-06-26T15:54:19Z")
> [@Derleth](#): > > [Not according to the accepted definition of that term](http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/138442/corporatism): Forgive me for using a familiar word (that most everyone here would understand in general usage) that also has a different dictionary definition based on foreign usage. My apologies. :rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [June 26, 2014, 3:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/explain-the-democratic-obsession-with-hillary-clinton/691621/51 "2014-06-26T15:56:21Z")
> [@Octarine](#): > > Warren doesn’t have a realistic chance at becoming President, but what about a Clinton-Warren ticket? She’d quell the fears of some liberals that Hillary is too far right and bring some excitement to the prospect of voting, but moderates would still feel comfortable voting for Clinton based on the idea that she’d have most of the power. That assumes Clinton actually adopts some of Warren’s key ideas rather than just generally co-opting her rhetoric, which she might already be starting to do. Otherwise it’s just tokenism and I’m not sure Warren’s fans will really care. ---
**Author:** ![Osiris\_the\_1st](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/9de0a6/32.png) [@Osiris\_the\_1st](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Osiris_the_1st)\ **Post date:** [June 26, 2014, 4:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/explain-the-democratic-obsession-with-hillary-clinton/691621/52 "2014-06-26T16:25:05Z")
> [@Octarine](#): > > Warren doesn’t have a realistic chance at becoming President, but what about a Clinton-Warren ticket? She’d quell the fears of some liberals that Hillary is too far right and bring some excitement to the prospect of voting, but moderates would still feel comfortable voting for Clinton based on the idea that she’d have most of the power. It would actually follow the “Trojan horse” idea the Republicans have been doing for some time with Presidential tickets now - the moderate as President and the risky, exciting candidate who stirs up the base as VP. Hillary is firmly a centrist like Bill before her. I would like to see Elizabeth Warren run if just to push the party a bit back toward the left during primary season. ---
**Author:** ![AHunter3](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ahunter3/32/368_2.png) [@AHunter3](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AHunter3)\ **Post date:** [June 26, 2014, 4:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/explain-the-democratic-obsession-with-hillary-clinton/691621/53 "2014-06-26T16:56:19Z")
from [a post I made about her when she was running for the nomination in 2008](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=450738): > [@](#): > > • there are things she wants to do (aside from “I’d like to be President”). Seriously. She wants a second run at Health Care. And I strongly suspect she’d like to play a role in changing the composition of the Supreme Court. > > • the things you probably don’t like about her may be assets in her line of work. She’s way pragmatic and likes to do politics and make deals and connive a bit and plan and deploy plans. Straightforward and honest and non-smarmy and idealistic? Nope. But as Captain I think she can run the ship. Run it with every angle considered beforehand. Sharp. Unless you live in dread of her political intentions, that’s not so horrible. Hey, a freaking competent prez in the Oval! > > • she is not charismatic. Bill was charismatic. Obama is charismatic. Kennedy was charismatic. She ain’t. She’s your everyday spectacularly efficient administrative type writ a bit larger than usual. Efficiency and willfulness without charisma can be abrasive, but I think she’s calculating enough to lube interactions where abrasiveness would result in bad outcomes. She’s not likely to make people hate the US. She will be able to deal with Ahmadinejad, Kim, Poutin, and whoever else needs dealing with, without provoking them or leaving you shaking your head or jeopardizing the US or its interests, idealistic or practical. > > • she doesn’t phone it in. Whether you regard it as admirable, as weird, or as freaking psycho, she likes doing the work itself, getting a bunch of oppositionally-poised and aggressively self-interested parties to the table to bang out deals. The admiration from various Republicans who expected to continue hating her as Senator Clinton and then didn’t is largely due to the work-ethic thing, and that she’s pragmatic, not that she’s a diluted Democrat. The Republicans should not underestimate her but neither should the Democrats. She’ll get things done. > > • OK she can be nasty. You think Giuliani can’t be nasty? McCain? Heck, Carter could be downright nasty. Willful + not charismatic tends to come across like that. Fuckit. It’s not like she’s up to no good and you’d be worrying with good reason where she’s taking the country. An occasionally ill-tempered, very competent, policy-loving, intellectual back-room deal-making end-result-getting kinda sensible person who wants to be at the helm. Got a problem with that? ---
**Author:** ![septimus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/septimus/32/410_2.png) [@septimus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/septimus)\ **Post date:** [June 26, 2014, 6:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/explain-the-democratic-obsession-with-hillary-clinton/691621/54 "2014-06-26T18:13:04Z")
I think the focus on Hillary is partly out of desperation, lack of anyone else who might win in 2016. I worry that the aging soon-to-be grandmother may run, in large part, due to a sense of obligation. Is there another viable candidate? If so, I hope he/she starts making a splash soon. (And if “viable” means “appeals to progressives,” I hope progressives start splashing. OWS may have been the last real hope; I’ve now given up and am joining the Majority: _ **Bachmann-Beck for the White House in 2016** _.) > [@iiandyiiii](#): > > Albright, Elders, and Reno were all very qualified for their jobs, and Elders in particular was an exemplary public servant. Yes. Interesting that **Starving** ’s list omitted Condoleezza Rice, the woman who _was_ apparently way past her depth. ---
**Author:** ![Buck\_Godot](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/buck_godot/32/6573_2.png) [@Buck\_Godot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Buck_Godot)\ **Post date:** [June 26, 2014, 6:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/explain-the-democratic-obsession-with-hillary-clinton/691621/55 "2014-06-26T18:17:56Z")
> [@Octarine](#): > > Warren doesn’t have a realistic chance at becoming President, but what about a Clinton-Warren ticket? She’d quell the fears of some liberals that Hillary is too far right and bring some excitement to the prospect of voting, but moderates would still feel comfortable voting for Clinton based on the idea that she’d have most of the power. It would actually follow the “Trojan horse” idea the Republicans have been doing for some time with Presidential tickets now - the moderate as President and the risky, exciting candidate who stirs up the base as VP. I’d gladly vote for it, but I’d be concerned that the sheer amount of estrogen on the ticket would be a major distraction. With Clinton and a male running mate, the campaign would be about what Clinton brings to the white house with the added bonus of being the first woman to run as either vice president or president. With two women it would look like the ticket was about nothing but the battle of the sexes. ---
**Author:** ![Blaster\_Master](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/cab0a1/32.png) [@Blaster\_Master](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blaster_Master)\ **Post date:** [June 26, 2014, 6:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/explain-the-democratic-obsession-with-hillary-clinton/691621/56 "2014-06-26T18:23:33Z")
I don’t see an obsession with Hillary at all. What I see is, we’re more than two years away from the election, and the only names in the hats for either major party are going to be the big names. Who are the big names in the Democratic Party? Clinton and Biden. Frankly, between those two, Clinton is more electable, so she’s the obvious frontrunner. Hell, she was the obvious frontrunner about 8 years ago, 2 years out from the 2008 election. But, as we saw last time, being the frontrunner this far out doesn’t really mean a whole lot. I strongly suspect that she’ll see some serious challengers that just haven’t announced their candidacy yet; I’m sure several are going to wait until at least after the midterms to consider running. That all said, I don’t see her as a great candidate. I could agree with the idea that some of the baggage has already been tried, but there’s definitely a few things that will matter. For one, I think the biggest thing that killed her against Obama is that she is utterly lacking in charisma, where Obama had it in spades. Charisma is a big deal and it doesn’t just go away. If a charismatic Democrat runs against her, she’ll have a hard time. If the Republicans can nominate a charismatic center-right candidate, she’ll have an uphill battle. Second, she is old. Yes, she’s 9 years younger than McCain, but since it’ll be 8 years later that she’s running, she’s more or less the same age he was, and his age was a concern for a lot of people. I don’t think it’s as much a concern of her dying in office, as much as her just being out of touch. This is complicated by her lack of charisma too. Reagan was attacked for his age when he ran, but was able to overcome that in large part because of his charisma. I don’t think it’s a huge barrier, and how much of an impact it is depends on who her opponents are, but I could easily see someone that is late 40s to early 50s being able to take advantage of that. Third, she’s the very definition of a Washington insider. I think with Obama, we as a nation wanted a fresh face, but I think even for people that generally approve of his performance will probably comment that he was perhaps too much of an outsider. I don’t expect we’ll take a full swing in the opposite direction though. She is certainly uniquely qualified for President, and has a solid resume, but at this point being so strongly in the public consciousness for so long, especially as upset as people are with things, I think that will work more against her. I think she’ll have a hard time against a governor. Fourth, she’s extremely polarizing. Sure, to some extent this is a good thing, but I also think that, in general, as much as Republicans hate Obama, the hatred for Hillary Clinton runs even deeper. She may even be more willing to fight for things, but I suspect that Republicans will find ways to be even more obstructionist with her. So, even if she is viewed neutral or positive by a majority, I also think that a lot of people may be hesitant to vote for her because they might be afraid of things getting even worse. Finally, I get that people like the idea of how Obama was the first black president, and though I’m sure some people voted for him for that reason, I don’t think that was more than a minor reason; hell, it probably did more to hurt him than help him. By that same token, while many may vote for her just because she’s a woman, many will vote against her for that reason too. But where Obama brought a message of hope, fresh ideas and these sorts of things, it seems to me that she isn’t bringing all that much unique to the table other than the fact that she’s a woman. Yes, she’s well qualified, but in light of the other issues here, how many people are going to overlook a potentially better candidate and vote for her for that reason. In short, I see her as well qualified, but just too much baggage and lacking in the intangibles. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [June 26, 2014, 6:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/explain-the-democratic-obsession-with-hillary-clinton/691621/57 "2014-06-26T18:50:18Z")
> [@Blaster\_Master](#): > > I think the biggest thing that killed her against Obama is that she is utterly lacking in charisma, where Obama had it in spades. I would retort that she has an image of proven competence and steadiness, and that is a form of charisma in itself. When attempting to gain voters’ trust, it may be even more effective than the transient emotional kind. Note her continued solid, stable approvals. > [@](#): > > Second, she is old. Yes, she’s 9 years younger than McCain, but since it’ll be 8 years later that she’s running, she’s more or less the same age he was, and his age was a concern for a lot of people. I would restate that in terms of energy. If she still seems active and healthy, with all the stamina needed to conduct a long campaign, then pointing at a number won’t make a difference, like it didn’t for Reagan, who was even older. McCain already had the cranky cloud-yeller thing going during his own campaign, and ISTM that’s what hurt his credibility as a candidate more than age as a number. FWIW, women do live substantially longer than men on average, for whatever reason, and their loss of energy is slower and comes later in life. > [@](#): > > I could easily see someone that is late 40s to early 50s being able to take advantage of that. In theory, but who would that be? > [@](#): > > Third, she’s the very definition of a Washington insider. Washington is not all the same. She’s the very definition of a \*Democratic \*Washington insider, yes, but that’s hardly the same as a GOP one, and it’s not at all clear that it’s a disadvantage for her. You think that will work against her, but the evidence of polling data does not support that. > [@](#): > > Fourth, she’s extremely polarizing. Here’s a hint: \*Any \*plausible Dem candidate will be portrayed as “polarizing” to those who make their careers out of doing so. It even backfires when they try it. You can’t let \*Fox and Friends \*pick, or even influence, the Democratic choice of nominee by accepting what they’ll say about the frontrunner as valid in any way. Fuck 'em, and the country will be better off if you do. > [@](#): > > I suspect that Republicans will find ways to be even more obstructionist with her. I would be interested in knowing how that’s even possible. More likely, given her stiffer spine than Obama’s, she won’t waste nearly as much time and energy as he has in even trying to find compromises with “Fuck off, bitch”, but will be more determined to go around the obstructionists. Many of us tried to make that case in 2008 as well. > [@](#): > > So, even if she is viewed neutral or positive by a majority, I also think that a lot of people may be hesitant to vote for her because they might be afraid of things getting even worse. With Congress’ approvals down in _single digits_, that just can’t happen. Instead, I think a lot of people would be happy to see the children spanked and sent to bed without their supper far more than has been the case in many years. > [@](#): > > By that same token, while many may vote for her just because she’s a woman, many will vote against her for that reason too. More likely, pretty much all of them would vote against her for being a Democrat even if she were a man. You can’t win \*every \*vote and shouldn’t even try. > [@](#): > > it seems to me that she isn’t bringing all that much unique to the table other than the fact that she’s a woman. Yes, she’s well qualified Well, which is it? > [@](#): > > how many people are going to overlook a potentially better candidate Again, who? You can’t beat somebody with nobody. > [@](#): > > In short, I see her as well qualified, but just too much baggage and lacking in the intangibles. Your concern is noted. :dubious: ---
**Author:** ![Beware\_of\_Doug](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/278dde/32.png) [@Beware\_of\_Doug](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Beware_of_Doug)\ **Post date:** [June 26, 2014, 9:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/explain-the-democratic-obsession-with-hillary-clinton/691621/58 "2014-06-26T21:01:35Z")
Hillary is the only choice because big business. I’ll hold my nose, but I’ll vote for her. Warren as runningmate might cook her, but might be big business’ choice because she’d have to be less of a firebrand as VP than as Sen., Mass. ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [June 26, 2014, 10:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/explain-the-democratic-obsession-with-hillary-clinton/691621/59 "2014-06-26T22:38:04Z")
Now, Warren as a VP candidate, I could get behind. That’d give her the national stage to push her agenda, and would probably pull the administration to the left, but still leave someone more experienced at the top of the ticket. ---
**Author:** ![Derleth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b9e5f3/32.png) [@Derleth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Derleth)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2014, 1:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/explain-the-democratic-obsession-with-hillary-clinton/691621/60 "2014-06-27T01:49:46Z")
> [@Icarus](#): > > Forgive me for using a familiar word (that most everyone here would understand in general usage) that also has a different dictionary definition based on foreign usage. My apologies. :rolleyes: It’s nice to _not_ associate politicians with Fascism based on a logical fallacy. We have enough people associating the Clintons with Fascism based on sheer hysteria. Oh, and the rolleyes is a _wonderful_ substitute for reasoned debate. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/explain-the-democratic-obsession-with-hillary-clinton/691621.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/explain-the-democratic-obsession-with-hillary-clinton/691621.md?page=4)