Well, I’m not a Republican, so my ox is not being gored here, but that statement is either willfully ignorant or deliberately inflammatory. And not to the point, as well, for it posits that Republicans are intrinsically bad, rather than bad in comparison to “a crappy liberal.”
I don’t know whether you’re being sincere or not. The OP asks liberals’ opinions of Hillary Clinton. The thread has demonstrated that there is a range of self-identified liberals, but the general thrust is that whatever a person, as a liberal, might think of Clinton, if she is nominated, then there is no choice but to vote for her. There is no Republican, real or theoretical, who could draw a vote from many liberals, including me, regardless of any isolated evaluation of Republican X and Clinton.
You asked why. I’m telling you why: This is the lesson that many of us have taken since 1994: It doesn’t matter what the individual merits of a candidate are; if a Republican is elected, liberals lose. Period. (Especially with regard to presidential elections.)
This position is neither willfully ignorant nor deliberately inflammatory. It is simply what many liberals believe and they believe they have good reasons for holding this belief. If you don’t understand why this might be the case, then ask. I’m sure there are plenty of people here who would be willing to respond to such an inquiry.
Your question regarding “who is this great Republican” misses the point (whether deliberately or not, I don’t know). Because it doesn’t matter which Republican. Positing that there might, in theory, be a “great Republican” is merely offering the benefit of the doubt that it is theoretically possible for there to be a Republican that liberals might, on balance, find appealing. The fact is that there is no such Republican, and even if there were, many liberals would still vote for the Democratic nominee, no matter who it is, over a Republican they might, in theory, like better.
No, he didn’t. You wish he won. You wish it so much that even now, five years after the event in question, with the clear evidence in front of you that Gore’s opponent has been in the White House, not Gore, you are still moved to make a statement like this.
[Nelson Muntz]
HA ha!
[/Muntz]
I am
Where?
Does “liberals lose. Period.” mean all liberals? Absolutely? In every case?
The position in question is (paraphrase) “there ain’t any good Republicans.” I know several. I welcome yours or anyone else’s efforts to prove me wrong.
**even **sven posited the great Republican. Your beef is with her, not me.
Here’s a hypothetical. The Republican nominee for president is John McCain. The Democrats nominate Al Sharpton. Who do you vote for? Is the above crappy liberal better than any possible Republican?
Had a full recount of the ballots in Florida been undertaken, it would have shown that Gore actually did win the presidential election in 2000.
Gore is not in the White House because of a shameful power grab by Bush and the SCOTUS.
This is exactly what I was going to say, but y’all beat me to it.
John Kerry was no more or less a “waffler” than most other senators; senators change their minds on legislation constantly. It’s the nature of the beast. One minute a senator expresses support for a bill, then something gets added or removed in committee, and he changes his mind. It’s the more deliberative house, and senators by nature take longer to make decisions, and they change their minds.
This isn’t a bad thing, until one of them decides to run for president against a governor, who by nature administers his state with more decisive actions, and can label his opponent a “waffler” and “indecisive.”
Senators have more of a handicap than any other politician when it comes to running for office. Even representatives, while often less known nationally, act more quickly in their house, and more along party lines, which can help them in a pres campaign.
Happy
Happy
I’m reminded of that quote from Michael Moore, “Bill Clinton was the best Republican President we ever had.”
I don’t think the American electorate is sophisticated or open-minded enough to elect any woman to the presidency. Maybe 16-20 years from now, but not in the immediate future. Frankly, I doubt that a woman candidate can attract enough *women voters * to overcome the political gender-bias inherent in the current voting population.
Personally, I would have no problem voting for her. I’m accustomed to rarely “getting” the president that I “deserve”. 
I also have high hopes for Obama. I hope we’ve come far enough that his race isn’t a major roadblock. Maybe a Gore/Obama ticket, and Gore resigns once inaugurated- that’d be cool. 