I like her because she’s strong, independent, and intelligent, also articulate (which one can not say about the current president but anyway) I like that she is more moderate…even though she’s a democrat she’s not so far left that she completely disregards anything the republicans have to say. She has voted on both sides, and even though I don’t agree with all of her positions, I think that it is essential for a presidential candidate to be able to honestly listen to both sides and then make a decision …not jump to a vote just because it is labeled republican or democrat. This is a quality that I think a majority of the candidates lack on both sides… but not her.
In what way? Both left and right agree that she is partly counting on the Clinton name to get into office. That particular piece of the standard-feminist-adjective string doesn’t seem to fit here.
First of all, what you just stated is an opinion more than likely coming from the majority of people that don’t like her both on the left and right who are trying to reduce her political credibility… an opinion can not represent fact. Yes it is true that having the Clinton name makes her a well-known candidate but she’s hardly relying on it. She’s had a very stable political career, a rather successful one, that she achieved on her own, not because she’s married to Bill. Again, the only people who have those kinds of opinions are those who want to diminish her credibility for office…saying she “doesn’t really have any political qualities, just a political name…” which is just not reality.
Second, I’m definitely not a feminist. Just because I am a woman who supports another woman who I deem “strong” politically does not make me a feminist. Look the word up.
Third, even supposing these ridiculous opinions have some merit, it has nothing to do with her political strength. Alot of the people who think this country is “not ready for a woman president” say so because they claim that a woman would be only diplomatic and not fight when fighting is needed. Her voting record (though i did not agree with this particular vote) proves otherwise.
In answer to your original question, I think it works like this.
Candidates declare and the landscape is quickly laid out. Once the participants are known, there’s name recognition issues and first impressions. On the former, obviously Hillary does the best. On the latter, not so much. I think it’s at that point that you also have folks engaging in the fantasy concepts that were mentioned like the husband/wife dynasty thing. It’s kind of cool, but it’s not determinative.
Then, as someone pointed out in an earlier post about PR and money, one candidate becomes known through the media as appearing inevitable due to those reasons (the idea being that with enough money, you’ll be able to do more ads and therefore affect more people’s viewpoints and get more votes; whether or not that’s true – or the degree to which it is or isn’t true – isn’t the point there; the media just operates on this assumption).
Once the candidate comes to appear inevitable (inevitably the nominee, that is, not necessarily the next president), people rally – in advance – around their party/against the other party (and/or policy positions, ideology, etc.) That’s why the zeal.
In other words I think the support for Hillary is more of a feeling, by those that are feverishly supporting her, of a general election sensibility and wanting to not have a republican in office. And the reason it’s Hillary that they feel that way about isn’t mostly because she’s Hillary but because she’s the presumptive nominee.
The cool factor of the dynasty thing I think adds a little zing to it so that you’ve got the drama element which Americans obviously enjoy but it wouldn’t be the one thing that would make a difference on its own; it’s just that they are not wanting to ‘mess around’ with watering down their zeal with other candidates that aren’t going to become the nominee anyway (due to the PR/money thing that they understand to be ultimately determinative of who the nominee will be.)
I think the zeal indicates their urgency for the democratic nominee to win more than it does anything specific for Hillary, but she’s adequate and seems to be proceeding reasonably well without any major gaffes.
Towards that end, even her debates and policy positions seem generally to be about a sort of “trust me, I’ll figure it out when I get there” type of deal that’s based more on the assumption that her supporters are going to vote more for her party and their nominee than based on any singular issue or brilliance on her part.
OK, 9thfloor, you see–I hate that. That’s the sort of nonsense which gave us both Bushes.
So, if you had been a grassroots Pub in 2000 or 2004, would your thinking WRT W have been any different?
I like Hillary because I like money. Hillary shares a last name with the last president to create a budget surplus. Also, the Clintons seem like people with genuine intellectual curiosity and a willingness to stock their cabinet with the best and brightest and actually listen to what they say.
Alan Greenspan described Bill Clinton as the last great Republican president due to his fiscal responsibility and willingness to listen. And they achieved results that I agree with, even if many of my countrymen does not. Sometimes, you gotta choose the frontier microwave over the pizza party.
And if Hillary gets in, people will finally shut up about all the presidents being old white men. Obama would fix this problem, too, but I feel he will talk about great things, but not achieve any of them.