…when she seam to have zero chance to be elected as 44rd president
why don’t go for Edwards or Obama instead?
Your premise is false. Enough said.
She SEEMS to be the best person running, I’ll count her out if she actually loses.
Without getting into Clinton’s electability, I vote for the candidate with whom I most agree. The majority of the time this is a 3rd-party “no-freaking-chance-in-hell” candidate. Why would I vote for someone who can’t win? Because I take the process seriously and feel it’s wrong to vote for someone just because they have a better chance of winning.
Perhaps, and I’m just throwing this out, perhaps those who support Clinton do so because they believe she’s closer to their viewpoints than Obama or Edwards.
based on what?
No, I believe you are being 100% truthful in what you just said. Perhaps some people follow the crowds and think they should vote for the candidate most likely to be elected than really read and listen to what all the candidates have to say and vote for the one you like the best and who you think would make the best POTUS.
I’ve read and heard Hillary Speak many times and I follow wha tshe does with scutiny, and I am still not goign to vote for her. I’m choosing to cast my vote for Obama, because I like this way of thinking, the substance behind his word and quite honestly, I think the man has a heavy hand in winning this election.
IANAD.
Is it? (Of course anyone is electable if they get enough votes.) It seems to me that Clinton has a lot of ‘baggage’. First, she’s married to Bill Clinton. A lot of people won’t vote for her just based on that. Second, she’s a woman. I don’t have cites, but I have a nagging suspicion that a lot of people won’t vote for because of it. Third, although she is the injured party in Bill’s peccadilloes, she just seems tarnished by them. She has a lot to overcome.
Personally I don’t like her style. I’ve spent most of my working life in corporate environments. I’ve seen a lot of presidents, vice-presidents, directors and managers. They belong to a certain ‘Corporate Culture’. They use words and phrases like ‘going forward’ and ‘paradigm’ and ‘solution’ and ‘outside the box’ and ‘best practices’. They go on and on about how much they value their ‘teams’ while all the while deciding which ones to ‘downsize’. Many I’ve known have been slick to the point of smarminess, and one in particular exuded an ‘I’m better than you’ vibe. (She was heard disparaging workmen who were fixing the a/c in the building.) Hillary Clinton reminds me very strongly of the corporate presidents and vice presidents I’ve known.
That said, if she is nominated I will vote for her. But she’s Number 3 on my list of Democratic candidates.
“Zero” chance, Johnny?
I put it down to hyperbole.
Well, those who are registered Democrats in the states holding primary elections will have the chance to do just that.
If Mrs. Clinton happens to collect enough delegates to clinch the nomination, then I’ll hold my nose and vote for her over any of the Republicans currently in the running, and I imagine I am not alone in this regard.
Would the same apply if Mr. Obama cinched the nom?
A lot of people WILL vote for her because she’s married to Bill Clinton. I don’t think that being a woman matters that much.
Yes, she definitely does seem like a corporate CEO.
She’s number 3 on my list too, but I wouldn’t feel terrible if she were elected. I wouldn’t have to hold my nose to vote for her. I was very impressed with her performance at the debate last night. I don’t like her because I do see her as the status quo candidate, but we could do much much worse. I actually feel kind of happy that the Democratic field is so strong. The only candidate running that I truly revile is Giuliani. I would be content with Huckabee and ambivalent about Romney, Thompson or McCain.
Why shouldn’t they vote for her? If they think she’s the best person for the job then they’ve every right to vote for her.
Presumably she’s got zero chance of being the 43rd President…
As an added plus, voting for Hill also really cheeses off a certain class of Republicans.
Becuase she is for"change"??
Meh. If nominated I think she’d win. But I do think Obama would do better and be a better President by far. Still, as much as I dislike her she’d still be my second choice. But I might have to vote McCain or Romney (if one of them wins the Pubbie nod) over Edwards.
She’s in a damnable position now. Arguing that she’s the agent of change when she has done nothing to work for change, when she has spent her Senate years showing that she is the establishment. When she is continuation of the same families switching off the Oval office like we’re some South American country. Sorry, no Evita Clintons folks. Arguing that she has White House “experience” because she was first lady when her acting like she had the power and responsibility of an elected office by virtue of being married to the President was what gave so many of us our distaste for her in the first place. Focusing on healthcare when that only reminds us all of how much her abject failure at that job before poisoned the well for healthcare reform for more than a dozen years.
But to the op. Some like her (I don’t know why.) Many respect her smarts and toughness even if they don’t like her. Many respect the power of the Clinton machine and have been afraid to go against it. Many wax nostalgic for Bill’s tenure and feel that she’d put the same operational structure and approaches back in place - that she and Bill have always had a good professional partnership (despite their marital relationship being sometimes shaky) and that such would continue with Bill being the unelected one this time round instead of her but otherwise the same.
Probably most to the point of the op - Democrats tend to be not so partisan. They support who they like as a candidate and would cross-over for the right one even. They are less likely than many Pubbies to see the goal as having their party’s operative in the White House as having the right person for the country in the White House. Those who believe that person is HRC should support her.
I like her. I don’t think she’s been a bad senator, and while I don’t personally care for Bill Clinton that much, I think he was a good president, and it would be good to see another Clinton presidency, even if it’s Hillary instead of Bill. I think she’ll govern pretty much the same way as he did.
She’s also, of the three major candidates, the one who’s most part of the system, for a lack of a better word. I don’t have anything against Obama or Edwards, and if they get the nomination, I’ll vote for them, but they sort of get carried away with the rhetoric sometimes.
I think this is probably the reason why so many Clinton supporters didn’t vote for either Gore or Kerry; because they weren’t related.
Or possibly they didn’t worry about it then, and condemning Clinton for it now is stupid. Yes, by all means let us not vote for Clinton, because we had two Bushes as president! It would look bad. What would the neighbors think?
Does anyone actually believe that Clinton would be a poor President?
Yes, in a way…I think she’s do fine in terms of being a CEO, but in terms of running the country - I’d rather inhale and choose a diferent tack than have a Clinton in there again. Not that those 8 years were bad…not at all, I’d just like something a little better.