# Liberals: What do you think of Hillary Clinton for POTUS now? **URL:** \ **Category:** In My Humble Opinion\ **Created:** [November 27, 2005, 11:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/liberals-what-do-you-think-of-hillary-clinton-for-potus-now/332973 "2005-11-27T23:45:07Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Fear\_Itself](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fear_itself/32/19637_2.png) [@Fear\_Itself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fear_Itself)\ **Post date:** [November 28, 2005, 10:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/liberals-what-do-you-think-of-hillary-clinton-for-potus-now/332973/41 "2005-11-28T22:53:58Z")
> [@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!!! ---
**Author:** ![World\_Eater](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/f04885/32.png) [@World\_Eater](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/World_Eater)\ **Post date:** [November 29, 2005, 1:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/liberals-what-do-you-think-of-hillary-clinton-for-potus-now/332973/42 "2005-11-29T01:36:24Z")
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 ---
**Author:** ![cerberus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/71e660/32.png) [@cerberus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cerberus)\ **Post date:** [November 29, 2005, 1:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/liberals-what-do-you-think-of-hillary-clinton-for-potus-now/332973/43 "2005-11-29T01:41:19Z")
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… ---
**Author:** ![Acsenray](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/acsenray/32/4519_2.png) [@Acsenray](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acsenray)\ **Post date:** [November 29, 2005, 2:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/liberals-what-do-you-think-of-hillary-clinton-for-potus-now/332973/44 "2005-11-29T02:55:10Z")
> [@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. ---
**Author:** ![cerberus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/71e660/32.png) [@cerberus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cerberus)\ **Post date:** [November 29, 2005, 3:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/liberals-what-do-you-think-of-hillary-clinton-for-potus-now/332973/45 "2005-11-29T03:01:02Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![Acsenray](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/acsenray/32/4519_2.png) [@Acsenray](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acsenray)\ **Post date:** [November 29, 2005, 3:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/liberals-what-do-you-think-of-hillary-clinton-for-potus-now/332973/46 "2005-11-29T15:12:41Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![cerberus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/71e660/32.png) [@cerberus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cerberus)\ **Post date:** [November 29, 2005, 3:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/liberals-what-do-you-think-of-hillary-clinton-for-potus-now/332973/47 "2005-11-29T15:27:29Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![FriarTed](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/friarted/32/1052_2.png) [@FriarTed](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FriarTed)\ **Post date:** [November 29, 2005, 3:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/liberals-what-do-you-think-of-hillary-clinton-for-potus-now/332973/48 "2005-11-29T15:31:23Z")
> [@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! 😃 ---
**Author:** ![roger\_thornhill](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/d9b06d/32.png) [@roger\_thornhill](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/roger_thornhill)\ **Post date:** [November 29, 2005, 3:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/liberals-what-do-you-think-of-hillary-clinton-for-potus-now/332973/49 "2005-11-29T15:35:41Z")
> [@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. ---
**Author:** ![Lamar\_Mundane](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/85f322/32.png) [@Lamar\_Mundane](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lamar_Mundane)\ **Post date:** [November 29, 2005, 3:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/liberals-what-do-you-think-of-hillary-clinton-for-potus-now/332973/50 "2005-11-29T15:46:00Z")
> [@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. ---
**Author:** ![UnwrittenNocturne](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/6de8d8/32.png) [@UnwrittenNocturne](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UnwrittenNocturne)\ **Post date:** [November 29, 2005, 3:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/liberals-what-do-you-think-of-hillary-clinton-for-potus-now/332973/51 "2005-11-29T15:46:47Z")
A long way too far to the right for me already. If I thought she would socialise healthcare (for starters - my list is pretty big). I would like to see a woman as POTUS but I doubt that the majority of American voters are ready for it at this stage (why they are not is another question). ---
**Author:** ![Acsenray](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/acsenray/32/4519_2.png) [@Acsenray](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acsenray)\ **Post date:** [November 29, 2005, 4:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/liberals-what-do-you-think-of-hillary-clinton-for-potus-now/332973/52 "2005-11-29T16:27:16Z")
> [@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. This is a theory regarding who makes better presidents. It is not evidence that people lose elections because they were senators and not governors. > [@](#): > > 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. Yeah, this is standard boilerplate “help” from Republicans. Forget the fact that most of these conclusions are based on right-wing propaganda in the first place. Basically, the argument that Democrats can only win by trying to be more Republican with regard to ideology and policy. That one’s a loser too. ---
**Author:** ![Acsenray](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/acsenray/32/4519_2.png) [@Acsenray](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acsenray)\ **Post date:** [November 29, 2005, 4:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/liberals-what-do-you-think-of-hillary-clinton-for-potus-now/332973/53 "2005-11-29T16:34:21Z")
> [@Lamar Mundane](#): > > 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. This is not evidence that these characteristics were deciding factors in any of these elections. Show me _something_ other than a list. I can make lists too. Which candidates were taller? What were their star signs? What colour suits did they wear during debates? Do you seriously think Mondale lost to Reagan because Mondale had been a senator and Reagan had been a governor? Can you really look at the 1984 campaign and seriously pick _that_ out as an important factor at all? Same with the other races. I have already acknowledged the facts you present. I do not believe that these facts are relevant with regard to who won or lost these elections. Politics is complicated. People are complicated. You can’t win elections by pretending that people make decisions based on these kinds of characteristics, especially when there are characteristics that are much more in evident during campaigns. ---
**Author:** ![ITR\_champion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/c67d28/32.png) [@ITR\_champion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ITR_champion)\ **Post date:** [November 29, 2005, 6:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/liberals-what-do-you-think-of-hillary-clinton-for-potus-now/332973/54 "2005-11-29T18:50:14Z")
Gore did not lose the presidential election. He won the presidential election. ---
**Author:** ![cerberus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/71e660/32.png) [@cerberus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cerberus)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2005, 2:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/liberals-what-do-you-think-of-hillary-clinton-for-potus-now/332973/55 "2005-11-30T02:56:20Z")
The problem with Senators is that the job is essentially a matter of bully pulpit/debating society. One can be a very partisan advocate of a party without much regard for the interest of the state. Senators are very much creatures of their parties, rather than creatures of their states. This is because the Senate was opened to popular election. The Senate was originally going to represent the states. The House of Representatives was to be the voice of the people. Governors, even very partisan ones, are required to work with and compromise with both parties at the state level, with their state legislatures and with their state-level judiciaries. They must also try to play nice with their mayors. Senators can cheerfully yammer on for decades, with little or no consequence. ---
**Author:** ![Revtim](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/revtim/32/1042_2.png) [@Revtim](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Revtim)\ **Post date:** [December 6, 2005, 3:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/liberals-what-do-you-think-of-hillary-clinton-for-potus-now/332973/56 "2005-12-06T15:00:01Z")
This is a big strike against her in my book: [Sen. Clinton co-sponsors anti-flag burning law](http://www.newsday.com/news/local/wire/newyork/ny-bc-ny-brf--clinton-flag-1205dec05,0,7179096.story?coll=ny-region-apnewyork) > [@](#): > > Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton is supporting new legislation to criminalize desecration of the United States flag \_ though she still opposes a constitutional ban on flag attacks. ---
**Author:** ![bup](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/6bbea6/32.png) [@bup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bup)\ **Post date:** [December 6, 2005, 3:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/liberals-what-do-you-think-of-hillary-clinton-for-potus-now/332973/57 "2005-12-06T15:24:52Z")
I agree with the chorus who say she’d doom the Dems’ chances of winning. Rove will probably try to make her win primaries, because she could be 2008’s gay marriage - the thing that’s irrelevant but will get lots of knee-jerk people to vote Republican. The first woman president will be a Republican, or whatever the conservative party is at the time. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [December 6, 2005, 5:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/liberals-what-do-you-think-of-hillary-clinton-for-potus-now/332973/58 "2005-12-06T17:41:23Z")
> [@bup](#): > > Rove will probably try to make her win primaries Oh Lord, not this again… > [@RevTim](#): > > Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton is supporting new legislation to criminalize desecration of the United States flag \_ though she still opposes a constitutional ban on flag attacks. Why the need to have it both ways? ---
**Author:** ![Contrapuntal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e274bd/32.png) [@Contrapuntal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Contrapuntal)\ **Post date:** [December 6, 2005, 6:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/liberals-what-do-you-think-of-hillary-clinton-for-potus-now/332973/59 "2005-12-06T18:04:40Z")
> [@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. Have we? And who is this great Republican who stacks up so poorly against even the crappiest liberal? ---
**Author:** ![Acsenray](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/acsenray/32/4519_2.png) [@Acsenray](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acsenray)\ **Post date:** [December 6, 2005, 6:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/liberals-what-do-you-think-of-hillary-clinton-for-potus-now/332973/60 "2005-12-06T18:14:22Z")
> [@Contrapuntal](#): > > Have we? And who is this great Republican who stacks up so poorly against even the crappiest liberal? We’ve seen a series of liberal or sometimes-seeming-to-be-liberal-or-at-least-somewhat-moderate Republicans – John McCain, Colin Powell, Lincoln Chaffee – fall in line behind the White House on a series of important issues. So to hell with “good” Republicans. There ain’t any. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/liberals-what-do-you-think-of-hillary-clinton-for-potus-now/332973.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/liberals-what-do-you-think-of-hillary-clinton-for-potus-now/332973.md?page=4)