Is it possible to "like" and "admire" Hillary Clinton

[FrenchieCat]

and not want her to run for President in 2008?

I think that it's possible, because that is the position that I am in.

[Idioteque]

1. I like her. I DON'T want her as my nominee. I will vote for her if she is!

nt

[mitchtv]

10. my thoughts exactly

Not my first choice, but.....

[Protagoras]

2. 2 AND 7 please

She's a wonderful and accomplished lady. But I don't think she'll end up saving our party if she runs.

And I don't wanna spend much more energy on our hypothetical longshots in 08 till we've made some massive inroads in 06.

[Ladyhawk]

3. I'd probably like her as a person, but I don't want her to be the nominee.

That's all.

[mirandapriestly]

4. I get the feeling it's a set up from the rethuglicans

Fox and other msm sources have been pushing her for the longest time and it just makes me suspicious. I really do admire her, though.

[Ladyhawk]

5. That's been my thought as well.

I don't want anyone foisted on me by the news media.

[ArkDem]

15. Doesn't foisted mean:

To pass off as genuine, valuable, or worthy?

[Rowdyboy]

6. I like and admire MANY Democrats that I don't want to see as nominee

in 2008. I think we can find a less polarizing candidate, but if the party disagrees with me, I'll support her....

[jobycom]

7. I hope she's the nominee and the next president, barring Gore, but

you can easily like and admire her and not want her as president. Kind of how I felt about Kucinich and Clark.

[FrenchieCat]

8. That's my point for this poll.

I think that many here, at Du, don't really dislike...or even want to "bash" Hillary....I just think they see a lot of downsides in having her as our nominee.

Of course some folks just don't agree with her politics and that is a legitimate reason not to support her.

I like her well enough...but I think that she would put us at a considerable disavantage if she were become the nominee.

The thing I hate the most about considering her as a candidate...is that IMO, pushing a Bush/Clinton/Bush/Clinton pattern is not an "advantage" in the least. I actually find that encouraging a 28 year rule via 2 familes.....downright undemocratic. If she were to win, it would be the first time in our history that such a pattern was ever made.

She's a woman, and no woman has ever won the White House. Again, this would be a first in our history.

She's a President's wife, and no President's wife has ever become a nominee....let alone a President. Another first.

She's a Freshman Senator of a Blue state....and the odds of that spelling success, based on history, will again, not be on our side.

She does come with personal baggage that cannot be denied, and whether any of us will admit it or not......The GOP will not be above using downlow tactics against her....and the media will play. (they love the sensational more than policy issues....that is for sure).

She also comes with professional baggage (the bombed health care reform of '93--hard to deny that it did bomb...whatever the reason) on an issue that should be an important one in 2008.

All in all, I just don't think that we can afford to start a race so far back from the starting gate.....not in these times. This country is being destroyed as we speak....and rolling the dice and "hoping" that it will all work out with Hillary out front...to me is not sound strategy.

I think we need to start aheard of the game....in order to win back the congress in 2006, and the White House and even more congressional seats in 2008.

We will need coattails in 2008....and (just like I didn't see Kerry helping out with our 5 southern senate seats in 2004), I just don't see how Hillary does this for us by running in 2008.

[jobycom]

11. Well, here's why I think you're wrong

First, you can throw out all the "history" stuff. That only matters in retrospect.

The fact that Hillary is already a recognized name will start us far ahead of the starting gate. She won't have to build name recognition. She'll just have to define her name.

Her personal and professional baggage also help. The Republicans will smear anyone. They have no other tactic--that's it. They won't focus on the issues because they will lose. Their SOP is to take the strength of their opponent, and turn it into a negative so that the candidate cannot play to his or her strength. I predicted way back that they would try to make Kerry look like a traitor, they would question his patriotism and his war record, and they would try to make him look soft on defense. With Hillary, they will question her family values, they will accuse her of turning on Bill (who will suddenly become someone they respect, so that they can use him as a counterpoint against her lack of experience), etc. No matter who we run, the Republicans will lie, slander and smear that candidate, and the media will back them up.

So, if we run someone lesser known, before that candidate will even have the chance to define himself or herself, the Republicans will have created a negative image around anything that candidate can brag about. That's the way Republicans work, and to underestimate them is fatal. A lot of people, even Dems, will say that Kerry was flawed, or Gore wasn't the best candidate, so they were easy targets, and thus we need someone without any baggage. But that's all wrong. Gore was a solid a candidate as we could have imagined. Before becoming VP he had full respect from both parties. He was brilliant, a published author, a visionary, a man with high morals, and despite the image the media created of him, funny and engaging. They smeared him to look the opposite. Similar with Kerry. That's what they will do to any perfect candidate we put forth.

Thus, a candidate whose image is already somewhat formed weakens the Republicans' only campaign strategy.

In addition, there will be aspects of Clinton that they can't smear. No matter what, she would be an historical first as a woman president. There will be voters who will choose on that alone (and voters who will turn against her for that, but they are already likely to vote conservative anyway). She will have a connection to the Clinton economy and world image, and that will appeal to a lot of voters. She is well-spoken and brilliant, and after W, that will be a nice change.

She plays well against everything the Republicans will throw at us, in other words. The only candidate I can think of as having a better mystique is Gore. Maybe. Kerry isn't far behind. After that, we would have to start anew, and the candidate would have to be someone as clever and dexterous as Bill Clinton. I don't know that they are out there.

So I like Hillary as our candidate, and those are my reasons. Having said that, it's a long way out, I'm not set, and who knows what the actual situation will be by then.

[FrenchieCat]

13. I respectfully disagree with your assessment.....

Hillary has already been defined. That means the Republicans won't have to define her....but will only have to reinforce what is already out there. That's an easier job for the Republicans considering that the media will be on their side and there is certainly a lot out "there".

I think that Health Care reform will be a winning issue for Democrats. But Failed Health Care Reform is something that many voters don't want to have to remember. The fact that Hillary's proposal "failed" and was considered Convoluted, complex and difficult to understand will be one of the topics that you will hear about. Our platform on this issue would turn from credible to doubtful. Not a good thing, IMO. And please understand that history will not be re-written by the media to favor Hillary's side of that 1993 story.

In addition, it is a fact that one could certainly spin that she was easily "mis-led" by her husband in their personal life and therefore could be easily "mis-led" by world leaders as a potential President (especially considering that she is also a woman).

Just like we constantly hear that Giuliani's personal life is one of the barriers to his winning a national election, the same will be made true of Hillary (this is the part that I believe will not slip by the GOP...although they may wait till she has the nom in hand before revealing that lowdown tactic).

I also don't agree that her high name recognition is an automatic positive quality, because it may shut down many voters who might have otherwise considered voting for a Democrat. Feeling like they already "know" her, many voters will shut their minds to Hillary and may gravited toward a relatively unknown out of sheer "Hillary" fatigue. George Bush was not a "known", and I believe that this helped him in 2000. Gore's name was known, and I don't believe that this really helped him (although he did win...it was still too close for comfort with such considerable name ID). Being unknowns also helped Clinton and Carter. So the name factor, IMO, is not a decisive factor by the time one gets to the general election.

If you believe what Hillary has is "Mystique", I beg to differ with your usage of that word.
1 : an air or attitude of mystery and reverence developing around something or someone
2 : the special esoteric skill essential in a calling or activity
http://www.docguide.com/dgc.nsf/html/English-Dictionnary.htm

In the end, it's not a candidates actual attributes that will help them, but whether they can define themselves before the GOP does. In the case of Hillary, she's been defined. In the case of both Gore and Kerry, they were beaten to the punch. Having successful achievements to point to is helpful in those instances that you are defining yourself. Pointing to your husband may not quite do it....especially for a woman running for the highest office in the land.

To conclude, we shall see where all of this takes us. I would venture to believe that we can both certainly agree that, after all is said and done, only time will tell all.

[tomreedtoon]

9. She's just too cold and calculating-looking.

Maybe this isn't fair. Maybe she's a nice person once you get to know her. But her attitude and appearance strikes me like a more competent version of the Desperate Housewives; someone who talks sweetly but coldly, who has only her own interest in mind. She would be easy to make fun of, she doesn't know how to fight dirty and nasty, and that's why the Republicans are hoping she runs.

[LittleClarkie]

12. Multiple choice

I really need to pick more than one.

I'm sure it's possible to like her. I'm not in that position. But I'm sure it's possible. And just as some say it's possible to like Kerry but not want HIM for 2008, I'm sure it's possible to be in THAT position as well.

But I'm sick to death of hearing about her and really sick of people saing get used to it, she's inevitable. Geez, can we vote first.

And finally, yes, see me after 2006 please.

There you have it.

[fujiyama]

14. I think she's a decent senator

Not perfect, and not really one of my favorites.

But she's doing a decent job for her constituents and I'm sure she'll win her senate reelection handilly because of that.

But she's not getting my vote in the primaries.

[Blue Belle]

16. I think we need to focus on 2006...

that's where the shift in power needs to start. I don't care how much they're trotting out Hillary and John McCain right now... we need to keep our focus on putting Democrat butts in current Republican seats.

[samos1016]

17. I would love nothing

more than to cast my vote for Hillary in 2008, however, I do not want her run for president. She needs to stay in the senate. If she stays in the senate ( hopefully for a long time) she will become the right's Ted Kennedy boogyman . Which she can handle!! Hillary stay a senator and keep up the fight. EDWARDS/CLARK 08