The problem with Hillary for prez.

[Liberal Veteran]

I tend to listen a lot to what is going on around me.

Yesterday, I heard one young woman I know leans more in a democratic direction in a conversation with someone else saying that if Hillary got the nod, she would march right up to republican headquarters and join because she "can't stand that woman".

Sadly, it's not the first time I have heard conversations like that about Hillary from various sources.

I think the right-wing has done pretty good job instilling an almost visceral negative reaction to Hillary Clinton that defies all logic. When pressed, these people who dislike Hillary Clinton can't really put their finger on what they hate about her or why....they just do.

Personally, I don't understand it. I like her a great deal. She is not as liberal as I would like, particularly when it comes to corporate matters, but I think she would make a fine president.

I also think the repubs have done a great job of twisting the nature of elections. Instead of elections being about who will support the rights of the people, freedom, quality of life in the country, and management of the government for all Americans (which when you think about it is the REAL reasons to vote for a candidate based on reason)...they have pursued a tactic of degrading elections into a matter of who is more "likeable" and "just like me" and "who I'd like to have a beer with". In a sense our elections now seem to be more akin to High School Homecoming Queen election than an election to a major political office. From my standpoint, I'd vote for Leona Hemsley if I thought she could do the job well, even though I find her about a negative 10 on the personal likeability scale.

Quite frankly, it's sad and frightening, and I am not sure how we counter that. I guess it comes down to how to adjust our strategy now that the age of reason in America has passed.

[opihimoimoi]

1. If Hill runs, she got my vote...smart, seasoned, and possesses VISION

[Liberal Veteran]

4. Mine also, but we aren't the people who we need to somehow reach.

People like us aren't the problem. I'm more worried about people like the ones I described who have left reason behind and have fallen into this pattern of voting based on trivialities that have nothing to do with ability to do the job well.

[Pepperbelly]

13. so what is it that you are suggesting?

Should we just allow them to so demonize people on our side that we allow these vicious bastards to, in effect, be rewarded for their lies, hatred, and relentless attack-machine.

I don't want that. Fuck these right wing sons of bitches. I would dmaned near support her BECAUSE of the demonization.

[Liberal Veteran]

16. I didn't say that....

Those are your words...not mine.

I was very clear that if you read my post all the way through that I don't know how we counter this kind of insanity.

But unless we do find a way to counter it, we are either going to continue to struggle or it will take some momentous to turn the tide.

Last time it took the Great Depression for people to figure out that the corporatists and aristocracy could not be trusted with having the reigns of this country.

Maybe that's what it'll take again, but I'd like to think there must be a better way.

[Pepperbelly]

20. Sorry ...

didn't mean to misinterpret.

But we cannot let these fucks define our leadership out from under us. Let us make no mistake in underestimating what these rotten bastards are capable of ... lying is a daily ... maybe hourly activity for the gop leadership and their unelected minions are even more vicious.

And we are on the horns of a dilemma. If we fight them the same way, we truly become indistinguishable from them except for policies. However, what is essential, is that we call them on each and every lie. The mistake we made in the 90s when we allowed them to so demonize Bill Clinton ... as they did every nominee we've had since Humphrey ... was that we allowed them free reign to lay the predicate for the discussion. Clinton ---liar or pervert? See, it starts from predicates that were far from established initially but with the connivance of the media, the predicate was established.

And that where we have to stop them.

That is why it infuriates me to read right wing CRAP on DU about Hillary, Kerry, or Clark. Hillary is an opportunist. Kerry flip-flops. Clark tried to start WWIII. What we have to do is have OUR minions NEVER grant that predicate. Never. Not even for the sake of argument. And when the predicate is based on lies, the mendacity needs to be called, immediately and bluntly. Of course, our minions are horribly uninformed and passive. We should fire the lot of them. Totally ineffectual.

It is only then that we will begin to have the debate on our terms rather than theirs.

[atommom]

2. She was right, unfortunately, about the RW conspiracy.

After the talking heads got through with her, there was a significant portion of the public that thought she was just like the Antichrist, only worse. Just a few days ago, I got a very offensive animated anti-Hillary animation in my email, from one of my many Republican relatives. They are already gearing up for the attack.

[marylanddem]

3. She can't win - too polarizing

And that's why the prospect of Hillary running for president delights the Republicans SO much AND why they keep the chatter about Hillary alive.

[etherealtruth]

6. Chimpy won ...

... Is and has been the most polarizing pResident in (recent) history. She'd get my vote and the votes of most of the people that I know well. Admittedly she is not my first choice ...

I agree that you are correct in saying that she is polarizing ... I'm not sure if another polarizing figure would be good for the country as whole ... but would not vote for a repuke because of it.

[baby_bear]

7. W was not perceived as polarizing in 2000

He was (insincerely) packaged as a "uniter" and a fair number of people apparently fell for that. The Republicans are packaging Hillary as an extremist way before the election to make people afraid of her. And it's working.

I'm afraid we're going to end up with someone like Evan Bayh who is perceived as inoffensive and therefore more likely electable.

What a platform. "Vote for me. I won't offend you."

b_b

[Cosmocat]

12. I agree ...

Again ... Strong willed Democrates want to pin her as too close to republican, while the republican talking point is that she is too liberal ...

The reality is, she is a pretty strong democrate with the political savvy to stay close enough to the middle to make a real run ... All the hand wringing over Ds, whoever the candidate is has to GET INTO THE OFFICE FIRST, and an extreme liberal just isn't going to get past the R/Con spin ...

Once in office, Hillary will be a VERY strong democratic president ...

I agree with Bayh ... I will back him if he turns out to be the guy, and I think he is a decent man ... But, I don't view him as president material ... Not enough juice ...

[election_2004]

25. Chimpy cheated

Why do you think he came out on top in two consecutive elections?

[etherealtruth]

27. Good point ...

[rhett o rick]

5. I think there are better candidates that are more winnable. nt

[carrowsboy]

8. My main beef with Hill for Prez

1988 - Bush

1992 - Clinton

1996 - Clinton

2000 - Bush

2004 - Bush

2008 - Clinton

This is NOT democracy.

[speedoo]

9. Unfortunately, I do not believe she c an be elected..

to national office. There are many, many women who have been brainwashed by the RW with the help of the media against her.

The fact is she does not have a strong national constituency, not even among women.

[CTLawGuy]

15. she's too tied to the DLC for me to support her

NT

[Raiden]

10. I have some problems with some of Hillary's positions

but if she does get the nod, she has my vote--I just wouldn't vote for or support her in the primaries

[niallmac]

11. Hillary is intelligent. But

I have heard her speak a couple of times. She is not very inspiring. Hillary is sharp but she is no Bill Clliniton oratory wise.
I followed her NY Senate campaign and found her flip flopping on issues like Palestine when the pro Israel pressure got too hot. Now I know to win the prize of Senate seat from NY a pro Palestinian postion is not a ticket to the Hill but I just felt that once again I am looking at one who's ground level principals are soggy rather than rock solid.
I confess I am a Dean admirer and so dooming my party to extinction according to the poll watchers but I do bellieve principal counts for something and perhaps, depending on the subject, more than whether your particular position pleases me entirely. I miss people with guts. My stance at this juncture: Prove me wrong Hillary. Pick a vision and commit to it. Be bold. We need a very strong leader. DLC means nothing to me.

[Raiden]

14. She is very monotonous

She needs to work on that

[kenny blankenship]

17. You had it in the first paragraph

"one young woman...'can't stand that woman'".

The problem with Hillary is there are a lot of women who despise her. The reason they hate her (without saying why) probably has to do with her infidelitous husband and Hillary's acceptance of his behavior. It's not just that they don't know and can't put their finger on it; they often do know and are reluctant to admit why they hate her, which intensifies their hatred. It's a shame thing.

Anyway, what should be more obvious is that a Democratic candidate that arouses such intense dislike among women is a non-starter.

[aspberger]

18. very well stated

but not so. Hillary can win and the republican attack machine is doing everything they can to keep her off the ticket. When it comes time, the Democrats and fair minded citizens will snap out of it, and rally to Hillary.

[KatyaR]

19. I like her, too, but I think it would be disastrous if she were to run

for president. Think about it--there are too many people in this country who hate the Clintons, who think they are evil incarnate (remember "Hillary killed Vince Foster?"), and the Right would win the election in a landslide that would make the last election look like a walk in the park.

I think she is much more effective where she is now. We need to find someone else for a candidate.

[AuntPatsy]

21. It really doesn't matter who gets the nomination, the rw propaganda

gang banging machine will come out in full force in thier attempt to destroy credibility for whom they consider their adverseries. And there are many rw robotic creatures roaming our land who will spout the "I hate them" rhetoric simply because it is implanted in thier pea sized brains...

What really bothers me is seeing so many on this side themselves falling into this very hypnotic state of parroting the same talking points they denounce other's using time and time again...

The simpilist sitution in adverting this ticking time bomb that destroys inner sanctions is to constantly and without reservations counter it by denying such talk as nothing more than mere sour grapes and high school style antics..

[Liberal Veteran]

22. I agree, but part of my point was...

...that even people that we should be able to count on have already bought into the demonization of Hillary.

This isn't the first time I have heard otherwise intelligent people say that.

[election_2004]

24. Maybe so, but.....

A less-controversial candidate will actually have the chance to define himself/herself before the Sheeple are brainwashed.

[Zhade]

23. That's one of several problems, yes.

I cannot vote for her - I simply can't stand too many of her political positions.

[oldcoot]

26. Redefine patriotism

Ask them if they consider themselves patriotic Americans. If they say "yes," then ask them why they want to give a big wet kiss to the party that outed a CIA agent thus doing serious damage to national security. They will probably will ask you what you are talking about so you can take that opportunity to educate them.

Seriously, we need to redefine patriotism in this country because voting is a very important civic duty. Those individuals who truly love their country should make an effort to be informed about the issues.

[doc03]

28. She could win only if the Repugs run Rice

That is the only chance I could see her being elected. I just can't comprehend a Republican voting for a black woman for President. I always hear the Repugs' claim that the Democrats voted against the Civil Rites laws. They fail to tell the rest of the story that those southern Democrats then changed to Republicans and the south has been Republican ever since.

[Muddy Waters Guitar]

29. The problem is that she's embraced the DLC platform and alienated Dems

While I have no doubt that there is a very well-oiled Republican smear campaign machine out there ("Swift Boat" campaign, anybody?), much of Hillary's unpopularity with Democrats these days are a result of things she has brought upon herself. The root of this is that she has embraced the platform of the DLC, which is a warmongering, corporatist Rethug platform in all but name. A large swath of Democrats recognize this, and it's the reason that they will not vote for a DLC candidate like Lieberman, Hillary or Biden if nominated for the election, and would instead support a third party candidate.

The neoconservatives who run Washington these days are a dangerous collection of ideologues who are now in total control of the Republican Party, and in substantial control of the platform of a wing of the Democratic Party as well-- specifically, the DLC. The DLC fully embraces the world warmongering aspirations of the neocons, and Hillary has demonstrated this not only with her strident support of the Iraq War, but her ambitions to expand the conflict by attacking Syria and Iran. She has also become an inveterate corporatist, with ardent support for the outsourcing trend which will turn the US into a low-wage backwater within a couple decades. (Though she did wise up recently on the bankruptcy bill.) Dems who have been loyal for decades will not support any candidate who's espoused the neocon platform, Democratic or Republican.

The heart of this is that a large fraction of otherwise loyal Dems are tired of the warmongering of the DLC and are repulsed by it. And please, don't start up on the theme about how, "Well, Hillary and the DLC may be hawks on foreign policy, but they're good Democrats on domestic issues." Forget it! Nothing, and I mean nothing is more important in a national candidate's platforms than their views on foreign policy, because nothing is more serious than launching a war against a foreign nation that will kill thousands (or millions) of innocent people and make the US a target for resentful terrorists for decades to come. Besides, after squandering so many trillions of dollars on these stupid foreign wars, any administration would not have much of anything remaining in the bank to support domestic programs whatsoever. The guns sabotage the butter.

The DLC could gain so much more support by drawing back from this idiotic hawkishness, by espousing a sensible antiterrorist policy (with international cooperation and a joint police effort) rather than the warmongering against Syria and Iran. But they've chosen to define themselves by their war fever.

There are numerous non-DLC Dems who would unify the party and attract the support of independents and disaffected Republicans-- Clark, Boxer, Gore, even Kerry among others. Nominate one of these people, invite a smart populist like Brian Schweitzer from Montana as running mate, and the Dems have a formula for victory in 2008. If we get caught up in the whole "DLC's are moderates" stupidity, however, we're asking for disaster in '08. The core of the Democratic Party will defect to an antiwar third party candidate in such a case.

[election_2004]

30. Schweitzer

Brian Schweitzer is a good example of the type of the candidate who should run...however, Governor Schweitzer himself cannot be on the national ticket in 2008 because he'll be running for reelection as Governor of Montana.

The soonest that Schweitzer himself could be tapped for a presidential or vice-presidential slot would be 2012.