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.
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.
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.
She’s definitely not warm and fuzzy.
Citey cite cite. I could’ve sworn Jeanine Pirro was campaigning and not being particularly nice.
I don’t think that many states will even be up for grabs.
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…
a35362, please see my response here.
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I’ll vote for Hillary if only to allow Bill to have sex in the White House again.
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.
If this was the scheme, they should’ve have “let” her run last year.
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.”
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.
I’m sure she would. Only not with her.
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…