Is There A Touch Of Misogyny In The Anti-Hillary Crowd?

[ruggerson]

A lot of them keep referencing how unpopular she is, but then in the next breath, many of these same people will push Al Gore or John Kerry as their preferred choice.

The numbers, however, show that both Gore and Kerry are MORE UNPOPULAR with the US electorate than Hillary is.

According to a very recent Newsweek poll (amongst others):

http://www.pollingreport.com/2008.htm#misc


45% of the country says there is NO CHANCE they would ever vote for Hillary.

53% of the country says there is NO CHANCE they would ever vote for Al Gore.

55% of the country says there is NO CHANCE they would ever vote for John Kerry.


So, obviously, Hillary is far more electable than either Gore or Kerry.

Hence, one must deduce that many of those screaming about her unelectability have some heretofore hidden reason why they would not vote for her.

Disclaimer: Hillary is not my first, or even second choice in the primary process, but you can bet your sweet ass I'll be strongly supporting her if she wins the nomination.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

1. I don't like Hillary

because of her stand on the Iraq War. I don't like Kerry for the same reason, and haven't decided about Gore. I'm not anti-woman--but I don't like this woman running for President. And I see no other woman saying she wants to run. If there is, I'll look at her record and how she stands on issues and then make up my mind.

[Warpy]

24. She is procorporate and pro free trade, too

although her voting record has been much better than the Blue Dogs.

If she's the nominee, I'll vote for her. I won't be happy about it, though, and I think that election would be so close even Jebbie could steal it.

[AJH032]

92. no, she is not

She voted against CAFTA. How is that pro-free trade?

[w4rma]

97. She was a board member of Wal-Mart how is that not pro-free trade? (nt)

[AJH032]

136. what?

are you serious? That's like saying, "He's an American, how is that not pro-Iraq war?" Come on, just because you're part of some organization doesn't mean you have to agree with everything that organization does. On the other hand, her vote against CAFTA is a definitive way of determining her stance on this issue (ANTI-free trade).

[w4rma]

142. Woah. Being among the top leadership of one of the most corrupt buisnesses, that did *very* well

under her husband (with her husband's penchant for mergers and free trade) is like comparing an American to the Iraq War?

No. It's like comparing one of the neo-cons/neo-liberals in the Bush administration who LED us into the Iraq war.

[AJH032]

144. no

My point with that analogy was not to make a comparable extreme (obviously the American-Iraq connection is a false one). I was simply trying to show that just because someone is a member of an organization doesn't mean that he/she supports what that organization does 100% of the time. I disagree with people I work with all the time.

Also, you're disregarding something much more important: her NO vote on CAFTA. Please, explain how someone so "pro-corporate" and "pro free trade" could bring herself to do that?

[sadiesworld]

152. At BEST...

Hillary has a mixed record on trade. While it's true that she voted against CAFTA (several potential '08 candidates did) she has voted for trade agreements with Singapore, Chile and Oman. She supports MFN status for China, opposes withdrawing from the WTO and, to my knowledge, has NEVER called for an overhaul of our trade policy.

[shirleemom]

95. Yeah, but...

Hi guys. Yes, passion gets involved and pretty soon the discussion turns into qualifications et al., rather than the original question re: misogynistic attitudes...which I frankly have seen on BOTH sides (to say someone should run just because she's a woman is just as offense in reverse...patronizing, don't cha know.)

Incidentally, I'm a newbie and would have posted an intro but the board wouldn't allow it, so unfortunately I had to just jump in, so please forgive me.

I'm more interested in finding out why some people come to the conclusions they do rather than coming in all hot to trot first thing. So, please, bear with me as I don't wish to be accused of trolling; I'm only here to learn. Be gentle with me !!

Back to Hillary: I think she's far more electable than a conservative woman would be at this point. The only thing that history shows in the modern era that goes against her politically is that senators do not get elected President. The only exception in modern times was JFK. She really needs to run for a governorship first. Your thoughts?

Thanks, Shirleemom

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

99. welcome to DU!

I am from Arkansas, and know Hillary from that time. I am worried about other positions she holds, especially in regards to health care, but I didn't want to get into all the details as the point of the thread was mysogeny.

[Tellurian]

139. No matter. Hillary IS the Front Runner for the Democratic Nomination!

from the header link:


http://www.pollingreport.com/WH08dem.htm

[libneo]

2. I sincerely hope that is not the case.

My guess is that they just want to push for their own candidates. Without tearing down Hillary, their candidates will have no chance.

[Tony Soprano]

3. No, BUT.....

there is a helluva lot of mysogyny (sp?) among the general electorate. And her negatives are so damn high. I love Hillary and revere Bill but my gut tells me that she can NOT win. Anybody old enough to remember the savagery directed at Geraldine Ferraro in 1984?

[Bitwit1234]

9. Yes

And if you don't believe that people won't vote for a woman look at the fact that in a predominately democratic state of Maryland the old boy democrats took a republican governor over a woman. My brother voted for Ehrlich knowing he was a bush type republican because he would not vote for a woman. and that's what will happen to Hillary. MEN JUST WON'T VOTE FOR HER. AND THE WOMEN THAT WON'T ARE THE JEALOUS HEN TYPE THEY WON'T VOTE EITHER.

Look at the way, for no reason, because she has done absolutely nothing to provoke them, the way people are cutting down Nancy Pelosi --she's a woman...the men have made such a damn mess of this country isn't it about time a woman had a chance to straighten it out.

I DO NOT UNDERSTAND WHY ALL THIS JEALOUSY AND DISLIKE OF HILLARY. She would make just a good a president as any man running or likely too.

[mtnsnake]

15. Hillary is tougher than Geraldine Ferraro. She's tougher than Carmella Soprano!

[Tony Soprano]

34. Tougher than Carmella???

YIKES!:rofl:

[Vektor]

90. Hahaha - look out, Tony!

:rofl:

[papau]

18. I recall war hark & rather conservative Adlai called a communist by our media - so so what?

Dean would have been a better choice and would have done better than Kerry - IMO - but the media scared us away from him.

Never again. Hillary will win if nominated. But then again so will many others if nominated.

I do not feel the media selling "strong reaction" is anything more than telling us the right wing GOP hate her guts - and Bill's - so again - so what ......

[Imagevision]

110. Gore -- Kerry, been there, done that!! --->NEXT!!! new blood!

[jeff30997]

4. Hillary is a woman ???

In that case i don't support her anymore!

[elocs]

11. While standing in a grocery store checkout line some time ago

I saw one of those tabloids on the rack, black and white like the early National Enquirer. On the front there was a picture of Hillary, saying she was a space alien. Near the bottom there was a picture of Bill looking surprised and saying, "I thought she was a lesbian!" I almost spit a gut laughing while waiting in line. I am sure the other people wondered what was so funny.

[jeff30997]

19. Hehehe...

Why do I hear the Twilight Zone theme right now?

[pop goes the weasel]

45. Musta been Weekly World News

They are a humor magazine masquerading as a tabloid. They were pretty pro-Clinton, to judge by how often Space Alien and Bat Boy were hanging around Bill and Hil for the pleasure of their company. Space Alien and Bat Boy are a lot more worried about *'s administration, and don't find him so much fun.

Dang, if Hil is a space alien, I guess the Clinton White House was just hosting one of her extraterrestial family member all along.

[AtomicKitten]

5. I too will support the Dem nominee in the general.

And I have all kinds of mixed feelings about Hillary. First and foremost I object to her IWR vote, but I also don't give a pass to those that have recanted since also making that vote. Her hard-ass policy proposals are pretty breathtaking, but IMO she's trying to gird up to play with the big boys to run for the top job. I feel a tremendous amount of residual loyalty to her because of the jihad raged against her and Bill in the 1990s. I think she's doing a good job representing the state of NY and think perhaps her calling to best serve America and to utilize best what she has to bring to the table is in the legislative body. But I also am mindful of the chorus of naysayers on the left which IMO is a deafening as on the right side of the aisle. The venom makes me queasy and the flat-out lies about her easily corrected, but I just don't know if her candidacy will be a net positive for the Democrats. I won't vote for her in the primary, but if she is chosen as the Democratic candidate in the primary by a consensus of Dem voters, I will support her in the general, as I will whomever is chosen. So sayeth me.

On edit: Obviously being a woman is the least of her problems.

[loyalsister]

6. Interesting question

I'm at the opposite end.
I would rather see a woman get into the WH based on her own record and credentials rather than on the assumption that her former president husband will have significant influence.

[JNelson6563]

7. As a girl, I can honestly say no

I just don't care for those who suck up to the reich wing.
Sorry.

[Blue_In_AK]

8. I'm a woman, and I really don't like Hillary...

I love Barbara Boxer and Nancy Pelosi, so I don't think there's any misogyny involved.

[Mythsaje]

10. I'd love to see a female President...

Just not her.

I am in no way a mysogynist.

But if it came down to it, I'd vote for her. What choice would I have? I'll never vote Repug, and if you vote Green in a Presidential race, you might as well vote Repug. Go all the way.

[ElizabethDC]

12. A lot of it is, absolutely . .

A lot of the things I hear about her, from Democrats, Republicans, and others, is that she's frighteningly ambitious and calculated. Obviously, any politician, and certainly any presidential candidate, is ambitious and somewhat calculated, but these are characteristics that are considered unattractive in a woman, and so they're used against Hillary. More than one Republican has told me, "I'm just scared of Hillary," without any specific references to policy issues, etc. The only reason they're scared of her, imo, is because she's an intelligent, powerful woman and a lot of people aren't used to that. In the long run I don't think it will matter much, but it's imperative that if she does run, she gets out there and conveys the fact that yes, she's a woman, and she's a wife and a mother, but she's also incredibly intelligent and capable. People need to be able to identify with her but also see that she possesses the skills necessary to be a leader.

[Morgana LaFey]

86. Well said. You've identified the misogynist part -- at the same time

there are those of us who don't want her to be the nominee because we genuinely don't LIKE her, and for policy reasons as well as some personality/character reasons.

[election_2004]

149. Oh, puh-lease!

Name one person in the likely field of Democratic presidential contenders who moved to a new state SOLELY for the purpose of running for Congress?

[ElizabethDC]

150. That's fine but that's not something most people I know bring up

I really think her moving to New York to run for the Senate isn't that big of a factor (it certainly isn't an issue with the New Yorkers I know.) It's not something I ever hear brought up when I have conversations about her, either negative or positive. I think that most people probably don't even know what state she's originally from.

[election_2004]

153. I don't doubt that it isn't an issue with NYers

She seems to be representing them well and has satisfied their needs, as their representative. As she should be. Fine. Then that's where she should remain.

But let's be honest here: why else would Hillary have chosen to run for a U.S. Senate seat in a state that she'd never even lived in? Could it be because it was a blue state where she suspected the race would be easy for her to win?...and because gaining such a public office would give her "credentials" to run for president in 2008?

Yep, most undoubtedly so.

Now if Hillary had moved to New York after her husband's term in the White House ended, done some NY-based work with social justice issues or another purposeful project, and then several years later run for public office representing NY...okay then, that would be different. But the fact is that she bought a house and switched her residency to NY specifically to pad her resumee for a presidential run.

Barack Obama didn't move from Hawaii to Illinois just so he could run for the Illinois state senate. Mark Warner didn't move from Connecticut to Virginia just so he could run for Governor.

[Hippo_Tron]

154. Nancy Pelosi is a powerful and intelligent woman

Yet she doesn't draw the same criticism from the left that Senator Clinton does. Senator Boxer is the same way.

[elocs]

13. Does that mean there is a touch of racism if you don't support Obama? n/t

[ruggerson]

14. If someone talks about his "electability"

and then in the next sentence promotes Gore, then absolutely. Obama's negatives are also lower than Gore's or Kerry's.

[AtomicKitten]

16. his are the lowest of all because he's a newbie

... and if he intends to run, he'd be smart to get out ahead of the GOP Wrecking Machine and not allow them to fill in the blanks.

[ruggerson]

17. I agree

which is why I'm comfortable with "newbies," as long as they have killer political instincts.

The longer one has been in public office, the less chance one has of winning the White House.

Obama is also incredibly charming, witty and self deprecating. Did you see him on Leno?

[AtomicKitten]

21. !!!

killer political instincts

INDEED!!!!!

Yes, he was delightful. He speaks with such confidence and ease. I imagine him in a debate with any of the Republicans (or any Dem for that matter) and believe he could do quite well.

[elocs]

22. Is it possible to prefer Gore to Senator Clinton and believe he is ultimately

more electable in 2008 rather than a year before the primaries even begin and not be a misogynist? Is it possible to prefer Gore to Senator Obama and believe he is ultimately more electable in 2008 rather than a year before the primaries and not be a racist? You have presented a narrow argument and I do not accept your premise. I am sure I am not alone, but that does not mean that myself or others are misogynists, or racists.

[ruggerson]

27. If someone uses Gore's supposed "electability"

as their reasoning, then they are either seriously deluded or hiding something.

Gore is a known quantity to the American public. His image is firmly fixed. He was Vice President for eight years and ran for President. There is virtually nothing he can do to change his image, because he has already been defined for the voters.

If someone says they love AL Gore, they agree with Al Gore on everything, they support Al Gore because of his incredible command of the issue, they adore Al Gore, because he won the election in 2000, then I think that's great - and rational.

If someone says they support Al Gore because he can win, that flies in the face of all empirical evidence.

[elocs]

29. I don't accept your premise.

It is narrow and unprovable. If you want to support Senator Clinton, please do. Just don't try and psychoanalyze others choices based upon your narrow and unprovable premise. Since you made it, evidently you intend to defend it to the hilt and I anticipate you will bring it up again in the coming year. Good luck with that.

[ruggerson]

31. Evidently you didn't read my OP

where I stated that she is NOT my first choice, so as of now, no I do NOT support her. And my premise is provable by scientific surveys. What evidence do you have for yours?

[RaleighNCDUer]

47. I dispute that Gore's image is firmly fixed. He has undergone

an astounding transformation in the past five years, and seeing him today is not the same as seeing the wooden policy wonk of 2000. I was a lukewarm supporter in 2000, but if he was to declare again today, I'd be more than enthusiastic. Besides, the other side has thrown everything they have at him and he's weathered it all - now, there's nothing they could do that could stick. I think he'd take it in a walk.

[ruggerson]

52. Why would we

run a candidate who has 53% of the country saying there is NO CHANCE they would ever vote for him? If we're talking pure electability, wouldn't it make sense to go with someone who's negatives are not nearly that high?

[RaleighNCDUer]

55. For one, the poll numbers are bullshit. It doesn't take into any

consideration who he might be running against, the normal inclination of the idiot vote to go with the perceived winner (I will NEVER vote for him, until next week when his poll numbers go up, because I will NEVER back a loser). And for the general public, they've not seen his transformation, which we here have seen. But get him into a campaign, and the attitudes will change.

He is no more a guaranteed loser than Hillary is the pre-destined nominee.

[ruggerson]

71. The polls are scientifically based evidence

calling them "bullshit" because you don't like the result is an unsubstantiated opinion.

I realize many DU'ers believe he has undergone a "transformation." I have yet to see that view echoed in the general public.

[RaleighNCDUer]

77. "Scientifically based"?

When, in the history of politics, has a statement of "never" been scientifically based?

A poll is a snapshot, not a movie. The same person who says "never" today may say something totally different tomorrow.

One poll is a snapshot. A series of polls may indicate a trend. Any poll that makes a statement of absolutes, like "never vote for XXX" is an emotional, ephemeral statement best used in push polling.

Scientific? don't make me laugh.

[ruggerson]

79. They are statistical analyses

Your railing against them because you don't like what they say is an example of magical, wishful thinking attempting to dismiss reality.

[davidinalameda]

75. those numbers could and probably would change

over time

that's a snapshot of the time that the poll was taken

Gore's been out of the limelight for the past several years; Hillary's been front and center for a while now and people don't like her

I for one wouldn't vote for her

[ruggerson]

83. That's supposition

these poll numbers and other similar ones are not supposition nor speculation, they are the current reality. This poll was done in November.

[MannyGoldstein]

20. She's A Republican

Oh come on. "Free" trade, both "Patriot" acts, a bankruptcy bill written by and for the credit card companies, her vicious proxy attacks on Howard Dean (who had the bad fortune to be competent and successful), her introducing legislation to criminalize flag burning, her unceasing support of the Iraq war... that's not a Democrat, whether it wears a skirt or not.

I want to vote Democratic for a Democrat.

[dionysus]

68. *ka-ching* we have the winner!

:)

[Hailtothechimp]

80. I think her Barry Goldwater, affluent suburban background...

may have stuck with her a bit more than people realize.

Had she been a man, there's no doubt in my mind she would now be in with the Rummy crowd (he's also a product of the Chicago suburbs, BTW).

[DaveinMD]

151. no she isn't n/m

[Clark2008]

23. Depends on which crowd.

I'd say that, yes, there is a touch of misogyny amongst some conservative-types who think women should stay at home and bear children - and nothing else.

But, here at DU, I think that most people fall into two categories:
1. Those who don't like her because of all her triangulation, and;
2. Those who simply don't think - because of the touch of misogyny nationwide - that she cannot win and want a fighting chance.

DUers, for the most part, aren't anti-woman.

I fall into No. 2 of that category. I'm female. I'd love to see a female president, but, with 12 years of backward Republicanism and a corporate media who doesn't deliver the stories people NEED to hear, read or see, I just don't feel a woman can win right now. Nor a black man - for the same reasons. It's sad that I feel that way, but I see it far to often in every day life.

[KingFlorez]

25. I don't think so

The problem with the Anti-Hillary crowd among Democrats, is that some have allowed the right-wing to taint their perceptions of her.

[Mythsaje]

78. Personally it's more that she was in favor

of a flag burning Amendment and holding hearings on Grand Theft Auto while the rest of us were worried about Grand Theft America. It has NOTHING to do with the RW taint.

[IntravenousDemilo]

26. No.

Barbara Boxer would make a fine President. Hillary Clinton, ehh -- not so much. Condoleezza Rice, not at all. If I were to say I didn't want Condi Rice to be president of the US, it wouldn't be because she's a woman, but because she's a lunatic-fringe, right-wing, corporatist waste of space. She falls on her own lack of merits. Likewise with Hillary Clinton, who is really too right-wing to be considered liberal; she's even to the right of our Conservative Prime Minister (Stephen Harper) on, for instance, gay marriage; while he has never favoured it, at least he's open to civil unions (the point is moot anyway because same-sex marriage is here to stay). Where does Clinton stand? Not with gay people, not in this. And Harper has stated that he intends to continue the former Liberal government's policy of non-involvement in Iraq. Does Clinton want to pull out all your troops, and I mean immediately? No. And do you think she's likely to press for Canadian-style universal healthcare if she becomes your President? Probably not. She's too far to the right, whether she's a guy or a gal.

Oh, and she really dissed Canada after 9/11 and demanded that the border be closed, claiming that the terrorists entered the US from here (untrue); we haven't really forgotten that or forgiven her. We love her husband, though -- not that he's terribly liberal either.

Besides, it's like your party hasn't learned one important lesson from the example of the Bushes -- YOU DON'T NEED NO STEENKIN' DYNASTIES!! Didn't you have a revolution to throw out the monarchy?

[marmar]

28. With some people, sure....

Just like there's some racism among the anti-Obama crowd, and some anti-Semitism among the anti-Feingold crowd and so on.
But I suspect that most people here don't like Hillary because they see her as a triangulating, pander-to-everyone DLC-type. That's certainly my reason for not wanting her as our nominee, as it is for me not wanting Biden, Vilsack or Bayh either. I could care less what her popularity rating is - she doesn't pass my litmus test on the idealistic progressive scale.

[Liberal Veteran]

30. I like Hillary Clinton, but won't support her primary bid.

And it has nothing to do with the fact that she's a woman.

It has to do with the fact that I don't think she has a snowball's chance in hell of winning.

I'll vote for her in the general election if she manages to become the democratic candidate for President, but quite honestly, I can't think of anyone that would energize the right-wing base more than Hillary Clinton at the top of the ticket.

There is a specific reason why the right wing is practically creaming their pants over the thought of Hillary being the democratic candidate.

And while I have no doubt whatsoever there is huge level of misogyny on the part of the right (along with homophobia and racism), the majority of people who don't support her on the left are very clear that they believe she could do the job well, they just don't believe that given all the baggage she carries with her, that she can actually win.

[sendero]

32. Sure..

.... whatever it takes to deflect from the fact that HRC has accomplished NOTHING of NOTE, is DIVISIVE even within her own party and certainly is well hated by 99.99% of all Republicans and a substantial portion of independents, yeah, I'm sure they're (I'm) all against her because she is a woman.

Even if it were true, which I highly doubt, so fucking what? What you are going to do, wave your magic wand and make everyone who thinks women are not suitable for president dissappear? How about those who don't want a black president? Gonna wave your magic wand and make them go away also?

What is the exacy point of your thread?

[libneo]

36. saying that Hillary is "well hated by 99.99% of all Republicans" is lying. (nt)

[Liberal Veteran]

37. Okay....you're right. It's 99.97%

:D

[libneo]

39. That is still a lie. (nt)

[Liberal Veteran]

51. Hmm....Hyperbole seems lost on you, but let's look at the REAL numbers.

According to a poll in March, among republicans 79% had an unfavorable opinion of Sen. Clinton, with 64% having a strongly unfavorable opinion of her.

Among self-identified conservatives, 84% had an unfavorable opinion of Sen. Clinton.

Happy? The vast majority of republicans do not like Hillary Clinton.

[arewenotdemo]

157. 99.98% ?

[sendero]

40. Offer some proof..

... or shut up. I know it is not a fact, but you can do better than that can't you?

[libneo]

41. If I said Bush is 12 feet tall

and you pointed out I was lying, I would just shut up. I would not ask you to tell me how exactly tall Bush is.

[sendero]

98. Like "Bush is 12 feet tall"..

... 99.99% is clearly an exaggeration that needs no explanation.

[pnwmom]

33. I think there is more than a touch, Ruggerson.

As there is in all the claims that she's a DINO, when her actual voting record puts her among the most progressive in the Senate. There seems to be a demand that a woman have a PERFECT record, while people are willing to overlook things in the men.

[thethinker]

35. The republicans want Hiliary to run

The average republican voter is a redneck immature male. They have been trying to scare them with the idea of Hillary running for a very long time. Just listen to Rush once in a while to see how they think and what they preach to their followers. The average republican male will not vote for Hillary or Obama.

They will have a much easier time rallying their troops if we are foolish enough to run a woman or a black. They are having a hard time holding the republican party together considering the mess they have made of things. Why make it easy for them?

The DLC is pushing Hillary and Obama. I wonder if they want Democrats to win.

Misogyny? I don't think that is a fair question for most of the folks posting on this board. I know I have voted for, and worked for many women and blacks in the past. I will again in the future. I think some day we will have a woman president. Hillary isn't the right person, and now is not the right time. We have too big a mess to clean up after 2008. We need a landslide election and we need a progressive FDR type to fix the country.

[Captain Hilts]

38. Not my first choice, either. But, yes, people have different expectations for women...

and some people act on them with HRC.

Sexism is still acceptable in our country in a way that racism is not.

If she's the nominee I'll work hard for her.

Clark! And I wish Feingold hadn't dropped out...

[TheFarseer]

42. I don't like her and I don't think she can win

I'll go down swinging with someone I believe in, but not a pro-outsourcing, pro-war, pandering, vote-monger. If she would quit worrying about whether Grand Theft Auto had nude scenes in it and worry about whether it's manufactured in the U.S.A., I'll consider voting for her.

[roguevalley]

43. not here. I just don't like her votes, her positioning everything she

does and the dynastic thing. I hope its okay to now want her as president without being considered mysogynistic.

[libneo]

44. Are you saying you don't like "everything she does"? Really? (nt)

[roguevalley]

58. "Are you saying you don't like "everything she does"? Really?"

There you go. putting words in my mouth. I don't like most of what she does. The things she does right, I applaud her for. But a lot of what she does is for her future. That I don't like. If I don't like it, I have the right to say that without getting crucified.

[libneo]

106. .

I was not trying to put words in your mouth. I was just asking for your clarification.

[roguevalley]

134. ok

[mentalsolstice]

46. Bigtime misogyny in the South!

Here in the south, she'll face huge (hugh?) problems! I speak from personal experience. My father encouraged me to go to law school, but when it comes to politics, he and his buddies WILL NOT vote for a woman. And I'm afraid there are a lot of men, and even more women, here that are like him.

We've had big arguments over this, with my mom and I both stomping out of the room (my dad put my mom thru college, and they both rely largely on her pension)...and my poor husband left looking like a pup left out in the rain (his mom and grandmom were both professional women), he has no problem with a president having a clitoris.

I have very mixed feelings about Hillary...I don't really support her, but I would love to see a woman in the WH (especially in my dad's lifetime).

[Tony Soprano]

48. Speaking from Red Alabama

You are totally correct!

[TexasProgresive]

49. I wouldn't vote for her nomination but

if nominated would vote for her - knowing full well she will lose. It's not so much because she's a woman but she the candidate the pukes want to run against.

[patricia92243]

50. Yes to the misogyny.

[roguevalley]

60. among some, perhaps there is mysogny. I would hope that those

who aren't for Barak Obama won't be accused of racism. Some people just know who they like for different reasons that have nothing to do with gender or race.

[SaveElmer]

53. It has become left wing dogma to hate Hillary Clinton...

It matters not that such hatred is based upon a false conventional wisdom about both her record and positions, as well as her popularity with rank and file Democrats.

Point out her progressive record and it is ignored. Point out a progressive position she has taken that would usually garner the approval of the left, and it is immedietely dismissed as a political ploy on her part to gain the favor of "the base"...you know the base...those that threaten to bolt the party whenever it doesn't take a position the approve of.

Fact is Hillary Clinton is and has always been (except her early college days), a loyal Democrat. She has advocated her whole life on children's issues, was one of the most effective First Ladies in American history, and has become a very popular and effective U.S. Senator even while serving in the monority. She is at the progressive end of the political spectrum, and is very popular with the rank and file of our Party. If she chooses to run next year...and I pray she does...she has an excellent chance not only to be the nominee of the Democratic Party, but the first woman President in American History...

[RaleighNCDUer]

59. Yeah. A great progressive.

See Farseer's post #42 above. That pretty much says it all.

She's a dem, and therefore has to have some dem positions, but she's a pure DLC pro-business corporate dem - and I think we've had enough of that for the next couple decades. I won't hold her IWR vote against her - even though you did not have to be prescient to see that * would take it and run with it as far as he could - but her refusal to stand against the war simply because she didn't want to be caught 'flip-flopping' is inexcusable.

It's perfectly possible to be a solid progressive domestically and a total idiot internationally. Just look at LBJ.

[SaveElmer]

64. Are you kidding?

This...

"I'll go down swinging with someone I believe in, but not a pro-outsourcing, pro-war, pandering, vote-monger. If she would quit worrying about whether Grand Theft Auto had nude scenes in it and worry about whether it's manufactured in the U.S.A., I'll consider voting for her."

Is what you consider an accurate recitation of her record...why don't you go do a little research for yourself rather than just accepting the mind-numbingly innacurate conventional wisdom spouted by the "Hillary haters." It is the left wing version of the Republican noise-machine...say something often enough and it is accepted as truth.

Its not hard, her record and speeches are all public information!

[RaleighNCDUer]

65. Gee, I'm a little stupid about that stuff. Think you could help me

out and give me some sources where she's come out strongly against the war, and the whole concept of a "war on terror"? How about where she'd disavowed NAFTA? Or maybe where she's supported junking DREs and supported hand counted paper ballots? Did she make a speech against CAFTA recently that I missed?

Cause I just can't seem to find those things. You love her so much, I'm sure you have the right sources.

[SaveElmer]

66. Uh...

Like I said all of her record is public information...

You obviously have not availed yourself of any of it...if it is too much trouble for you I would be glad to send you some links..

As an example I guess you didn't read her floor speech as she announced her opposition to CAFTA...too hard to find I suppose!!!

[RaleighNCDUer]

72. You're right, I did miss that. I guess I stopped listening when she

originally strongly supported it - and she then only opposed it to see it pass anyway, despite her vote. A safe vote for her, because she still gets what she wants, but pulls a few squishy left people toward her.

http://www.slate.com/id/2123636/

In the speech itself, the entire first paragraph was about why she wanted to vote for it, offering as proof the fact that she had voted for every free trade agreement to come before the senate. After that first paragraph it is basically saying, "if I vote for this I'm going to really piss off the liberal wing of the party". There is NOTHING about her vote against CAFTA that indicates that she is not exactly the same person who did previously vote for those others.

The world-bank free trade exploitation of the third world has been just as big a failure as supply side economics. It has led to the outsourcing of millions of American jobs, the gutting of the middle class and the castration of American labor. She has not repudiated it - she only, by her words, regretfully opposed CAFTA because of the extremes that this administration pushed. Those extremes are only the natural outgrowth of the concept - pursue the concept and you HAVE to reach those extremes.

Show me where I'm wrong.

[SaveElmer]

76. Have to split now...but thanks

For looking it up...

I don't mind people opposing Hillary...eveyone has the candidate they support...and everyone can find fault in those they do not prefer...I just would rather have it be on actual events than on what others tell us is the truth...

I will go over this vote, and her position on free trade...but will have to post it tomorrow...I have a whiny teenager trying to get my attention!

Have a good evening!!!

[Hippo_Tron]

156. Trade policies definitely need to go back to the drawing board

I'm a huge proponent of trade because it does benefit US consumers with lower prices but we need to emphasize fair trade policies.

I agree completely about the exploitation of the third world. Bob Rubin wouldn't give Howard Dean the time of day when he wanted to re-negotiate trade policy so that we could improve third world standards. Trade agreements need to include conditions in them that require real environmental and labor standards.

The illegal immigration problem would largely solve itself if we had forced Mexico to adopt laws that would build a stronger middle class when we signed NAFTA.

[Hailtothechimp]

81. Sorry to differ with you but ....

how does one measure the "effectiveness" of a first lady? There is no real job description, is there? Unless she's secretly running the country, like Woodrow Wilson's wife did, I can't see that a first lady can be "effective."

If you want the culture wars all over again, then go ahead and pull for Hillary. You and Dick Morris and Sean Hannity can have a Hillary party all you want. But as for me (and many others, it seems) nominating Hillary is a dead-bang loser in 2008.

[SaveElmer]

84. So I guess you would argue then ...

That Eleanor Roosevelt was not effective...?

I have no fear of what the Republicans will do as so many here are...

The Clinton electoral record is one of almost unbroken success...one I am more than happy to hitch my wagon too...

And I could give a flying F**k what Toe-Sucker Morris or Hannity say...not sure why you would compare Hillary to them...guess it just proves the point of my post!

[Hailtothechimp]

104. Hannity and Morris want Hillary so bad they can taste it.

That's what I was saying. I didn't compare them to Hillary, as you suggest I did. You want Hillary (and that's certainly your right)and they want Hillary, but for entirely different reasons.

Again, effectiveness at being a first lady is impossible to quantify. I'm not sure why you're suggesting Elanor Roosevelt was successful at something. No disrespect against her, but the first ladyship is not really a job, so how that qualifies anyone to be president is beyond me.

[SaveElmer]

105. I never claimed it did...

But it certainly speaks to her quality...

If you don't think Eleanor Roosevelt was a successful first lady I suggest picking up a biography on her...there are several good ones out there.

Hillary Clinton is quite qualified to be President...a very successful U.S. Senator entering her second term in the third most populous state in the country...

She was a very successful lawyer and advocate for children...and a very effective first lady...among many other things

All part of the same resume!

[Hailtothechimp]

145. Indulge me for a minute if you would:

How do you define "effectiveness" in a first lady? That has been my point all along. Whether she has been a good senator or not is one thing, but what does an "effective" first lady do? I honestly can't see how this helps her on the campaign trail.

I still say it's a mistake to nominate her. She'll do for the wingers what bu$h has done for us: galvanize the opposition. It's probably misogynistic on some level, but so what? These people (The Mr. Jesus people as Borat would say) will get whipped into a frenzy by the Dobsons and the Hannitys of the world. It may also happen with Gore or Obama or anybody else, but with Hillary it's guaranteed to happen. And she loses as a result.

[BrotherBuzz]

54. That will be the rupublican talking point up through...

the Democratic convention. I don't dislike Senator Clinton, she's just not on my dream ticket.

[lillilbigone]

56. NO

If you don't like Condoleeza Rice does that make you both racist and misogynistic?

Obviously not.

[bermudat]

57. Is there a touch of misogyny? No

I am a double X chromosome and I do not support her. Of course if she is on the Democratic ticket, I would vote for her before a repugnantcan. However in the years when bush first stole the election til this November, she never did anything for grassroots Democrats. Seems like she's trying to impress moderate repugs or independents. Her vote for the war makes her unelectable in my opinion.

[BikeWriter]

61. She is The Dream Candidate... of the GOP.

[Jennicut]

62. Hillary makes my skin crawl

As a woman, she bothers me on many levels. She seems so interested in her own fate and will and has stepped on those who get in her way (Al Gore, John Kerry). Is that any better than some Republicans? Would I vote for her? Yes, because she is a Democrat and I don't want another Repug administration. But be wary what you wish for with Hillary. She is part of the DLC and would she really try to shake things up? She learned too much from her heathcare debacle in the early 90's and went so far the other way. Plus, she just wants power so badly, it bothers me. And this whole Bush, Clinton, Bush, Clinton thing drives me crazy! Enough with these dysfunctional families! Can we have someone else please? And one last thing, the Quinnie polls are never that great and the ones like them are ridiculous as well. I live in CT and no one around here takes them seriously. Plus, the poll is likability, not electibility. But God knows why anyone would like Condi over some of the others on that poll. Obviously, right wing slanted, which is why my friends and I all hate the Quinnipiac polls and several ones like it. Yup, I wanna have a beer and watch some football with my president, my buddy! Or, in Condi's case go shopping for Jimmy Choos. Hell no! I want the president to be intelligent. Having a beer with someone proves nothing. Ridiculous!

[zulchzulu]

63. Enough with the Hillary crap already....

She's not going to be the nominee...she's not going to get past Super Tuesday in the primaries...whatever...

Pulling the "Misogyny Card" still ain't gonna cut it. I fully expect that to come up as an "issue" in the primaries. What an act of desperation that is.

It's like saying that if I can't stand Britney that I hate all female vocalists. Hmmm, where's that Billie Holliday CD...

Here's a hint of how the MSM would paint Hillary if she was ever the nominee:

[AtomicKitten]

67. Funny you said that.

It seems some of the pro-Kerry folks get upset when people cry, "Enough of the John Kerry crap."

Perhaps now you understand how the rest of us innocent bystanders feel at DU.

Tell you what. Maybe you can work a deal with the pro-Hillary folks and give us all a break.

Otherwise, live and let live.

[zulchzulu]

70. Hmmm...

People distorting Kerry's record is one thing. I'll stand up and state my case.

Claiming that one is possibly a sexist pig for not wanting Hillary is another ball of...eh...whatever.

:boring:

[AtomicKitten]

94. The only distortion of records

is done to puff up certain candidates (you know who) and to annihilate the rest - this time HRC.

... standard operating procedure of, well, you know, and many of us agree it certainly is seriously lame.

I didn't realize you were capable of that kind of introspection. Kudos.

[wisteria]

113. I'll second your comment. n/t

[AtomicKitten]

116. ***

You and yours have mind-numbing audacity saying "enough" of anything in light of the multitude of your over-the-top pro-Kerry homage festivals here at DU.

[zulchzulu]

117. "eviscerates all the others candidates"....Ha!

I've made opinions on certain candidate's positions if the thread asks for such a position. The poll you link to is meant to be a tad sarcastic; perhaps you don't have that filter in your comprehension. Some people "got it" while others, well, just are too serious...

The only recent assessments that might be categorized as "attacks" would be Joe Lieberman's tendencies and Hillary Rodham Clinton's unelectability. Nothing on Gore, Edwards, Clark, Dean, etc.

I think you see things that just aren't there...

As for the "tag team" illusion, it's usually just people trying to make the point that distortions are being made and have proof to back up their claim.

[AtomicKitten]

118. ***

Right, buddy, you are a prince among men as demonstrated in your latest charming, divisive endeavors here at DU:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3000225&mesg_id=3000225
and here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x2999423

And the only people that don't see the tag-team attacks waged by you folks in the pro-Kerry crowd are, in fact, you folks in the pro-Kerry crowd.

Just do yourself a favor and quit screaming "enough" particularly if you don't care to have that epic hypocrisy pointed out to you.

[zulchzulu]

125. Perhaps you also didn't get the Hagel v Hillary poll as well

Look a little closer and you see that I put Hagel's record there. The particular time on DU had people thinking that Hagel was a decent guy due to his opinions on the War/Occupation/Quagmire...

And if you look closely at that poll, you see that others started realizing that Hagel would not be the better choice of the two if the race came down to that matchup.

Was that poll divisive? Um...that's your call. You apparently have all the answers. We "tag team" folks in the "pro-Kerry crowd" are simply amused by your obvious anger issues.

[Name removed]

126. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[zulchzulu]

127. Okie dokey...

John Kerry is a Democrat. Okay?

And he may become the Democratic nominee whether you, me, or anyone else here likes it or not.

It is one thing to discuss his actual record (which many people here at DU either misstate or flat-lie about) and quite another to do what you are doing.

Your attempts at manipulation are as subtle as a sledge-hammer.

Sound familiar?

[AtomicKitten]

128. if that were only a comparable scenario

What pisses off your tribe is that I correct the BS and inflation of his record which you and yours put forth on a regular basis. I do the same for the BS floated about other candidates.

What most of us are after here is truthful information as a basis to make our decision about whom to support. We aren't interested in BS to either deride or puff-up a candidate.

And BTW according to ALL polling Kerry doesn't stand a snow ball's chance in hell of winning the nomination. Hillary on the other hand does.

[zulchzulu]

130. What's with the "your tribe" crap?

Are you a betting person?

I have a couple thousand I can bet that Hillary doesn't make it past Super Tuesday... you on?

[AtomicKitten]

133. The voters will decide who the Dem nominee is - as always.

I consider the nomination a serious matter and have better things to do with my money than to wager on it, but I'm sure you can find a taker here at DU. Good luck with all that.

[IndianaGreen]

69. It's the war, stupid!

Hillary has been on the wrong side of the most critical issue facing our country.

Had Hillary been more like Maxine Waters, she wouldn't be getting the negative reaction she does.

I hope the Hillaristas are not reduced to playing the gender card.

[hughee99]

73. I don't think these numbers help your case...

Since your talking about misogyny, it would seem based on these that voters are LESS LIKELY to vote for our last two presidential candidates (men), than to vote for Hillary (a woman). This would not seem to support the misogyny argument you're making. Perhaps people's objections to Hillary are not gender based.

[Arkana]

74. I don't like Hillary. Deal with it.

I am not misogynist, so don't you dare accuse me of it.

I don't like her mushy-middle politics, or her attempts to placate the insane religious right (people who wouldn't vote for her if she was Jesus H. Christ himself), or her greater concern for Grand Theft Auto than the theft of the 2000 and 2004 elections.

I won't work for a Hillary candidacy, and I will not vote for her in the primaries. I will actively work against her nomination.

But if she is the nominee, I will vote for her come Election Day--then cry myself to sleep knowing that because we chose such a polarizing figure for our nominee, we have doomed ourselves to four more years of Republican rule.

[OneBlueSky]

82. those numbers mean nothing . . .

until a couple of months ago, the chances of the Dems taking the House were generally slim and none . . . and ONLY none for the Senate -- no slim involved . . .

asking people who they will or won't vote for two years before an election discounts everything that will happen between now and then . . . which will be a LOT . . .

[ruggerson]

85. The Dems were leading in the generic congressional polls

for a full year prior to this election. Sure, polls can and will change, but this is the reality we are dealing with now. Anything else is just speculation.

[RaleighNCDUer]

87. Out of 15 pages of polls, you choose the one that says there is

53% "no chance" voting for Gore?

Are you showing a little prejudice of your own here?

BTW, have you ever visited that other site (FR) where the posters talk about what fun it is to get onto dem polls and vote Clinton up, because they know that we will follow where ever the polls go?

Check it out sometime.

[ruggerson]

91. The other data on those 15 pages is just as bad for Gore and Kerry

Fully 2/3's of the respondents say "no" when asked if they would like to see Al Gore or John Kerry run.

About half say they would not like to see Hillary run.

Her numbers aren't great, but Kerry and Gore's numbers are absymal.

WNBC/Marist Poll. Sept. 18-20, 2006. N=1,018 registered voters nationwide. MoE ± 3.

"Do you want to run for president in 2008 or not?"

Hillary Clinton

9/18-20/06
Yes No Unsure
46 51 3

2/13-15/06
47 51 2


Al Gore

9/18-20/06
Yes No Unsure
31 66 3

2/13-15/06
29 68 3

John Kerry

9/18-20/06
Yes No Unsure
31 63 6

2/13-15/06
35 62 3

[rinsd]

129. How exactly did freepers vote up this poll?

"Newsweek Poll conducted by Princeton Survey Research Associates International. Nov. 9-10, 2006. N=918 registered voters nationwide."

This doesn't seem to be an internet poll.

"Are you showing a little prejudice of your own here"

He probably is but before and during primary season I believe that is allowed.

This does put a bit of a damper on the "Hillary is polarizing and hated and therefor unelectable implying other candidates don't have such baggage" meme.

[roody]

88. Hillary supports the war. That nixes her for me.

[eridani]

89. There's most assuredly a touch of antiwar sentiment n/t

[threadkillaz]

93. No. It's the war stupid.

And all the idiots who voted for it.

Duped by PNAC.


We weren't.


Career politicians suck.

[MadHound]

96. Stop it, just stop it.

Just because there is some vocal dissent towards Hillary doens't mean that opposition is misogynist. The fact that you are stooping to the level of hurling such accusations just goes to show how partisan you are in this matter.

Your insinuations should be beneath any decent liberal person, but hey, here we are :puke:

[Zodiak]

111. I agree

One can blast away at a candidate all they want, but smearing other DUers with the misogyny label is beyond the pale.

Want to promote Hillary? Then put together a list of her record that suports the idea that she would be a good choice. Choosing the smear first leads me to believe there is precious little record to brag about.

Of course, I do my own homework. I think Hillary is ok (not good, just ok...she votes with the progressives about 60% of the time). She is about in the middle of the Democratic party as far as her votes go, but her continuing support for the Iraq war puts her at odds with her party and a majority of Americans.

And her coziness with the DLC makes me extremely wary. A good comprimise for her would be to divest hwerself of that organization and perhaps she would get more grassroots support for her nomination. Obama did it, so it is not exactly unprecedented.

[Warren Stupidity]

100. Actually for me it is her political posturing that turns me off.

I don't care about the polls right now. Senator Clinton is an opportunist of the worst sort. I sincerely hope she does not win the nomination. I will certainly vote against her in my state's primary. I will work my ass off to get her elected if she is our candidate. Misogyny has nothing to do with my opposition to Clinton, as race has nothing to do with my opposition to Obama.

[Irreverend IX]

101. No.

Field a halfway liberal female candidate and we'll talk.

[OnionPatch]

102. I don't think in my case, it is.

I really don't want Hillary. And it's not because she's a woman. The reasons are similar to those already mentioned. If Barbara Boxer were to run, I'd be in seventh Heaven. I can think of many women I would love to see run for president, and I am a woman myself, so I don't think misogyny is the reason I don't like Hillary. It's the anti-flag-burning and her supporting the outsourcing of jobs that irks me.

That said, Yes, I will support her if she is the nominee because the other choice is going to be voting Republican and I don't do that. Ever.

[leesa]

103. No. DLCogyny

She has lost her soul.

[ms liberty]

107. For one thing, all these polls are MEANINGLESS right now...

Polls putting one 'potential' candidate ahead of another right now is really just meaningless chum, thrown into the water to keeps the sharks circling. The only people who are paying attention are those of us who are political junkies, the press, who are always circling for the most sensationalistic headline grabbing stories, and the potential candidates and their lackeys, who are busy jockeying for position in the pack.

We're ONE MONTH from the mid-term election. The general public could give a flying shit who's going to run for POTUS. They're thinking about the real-life bullshit they're dealing with every day - like their jobs, their finances, their kids, their parents, etc. Any discussion about the 08 election comes dead last to them.

As one of those 'political junkies' I have an opinion, I have a choice of someone that I very much wish to run. Someone I'd work for 24/7/365 to win in 08.

It's not Hillary. I'm not enamoured with her position on many issues. I'm not enamoured with her performance so far as Senator - and yes, I have been paying attention.

It has NOTHING to do with her gender. I'd love to be able to vote for a woman in 08. If Barbara Boxer, or one of a number of other women were to run, I'd support them in a heartbeat.

I do have doubts that she can win - not because she's a woman, but because she and Bill have been demonized by the RW since 1991. Her name alone will bring out to the polls every RW nutjob that the GOP's created since people first heard the name Clinton. They say 'Clinton!' - and it's Pavlov's dog. It's one of the very few guarantees they've got, and they'll play it for all it's worth. Additionally, she has not done anything to endear her to a sizeable chunk of Democrats, most of whom form the base of the party. In fact, she seems to have tried to alienate them/us/me instead.

All of that said, if she becomes the nominee, I will vote for her. It will be with some regret, because I don't think she's the best choice, but it will be a (D) vote.

[GeorgeGist]

108. How thrilling to know...

So she sucks less...in popularity contests.

[Le Taz Hot]

109. But of course.

I don't like Obama, therefore I'm a racist (actual accusation). Wouldn't "I-don't-like-Hillary-therefore-I'm-a-misogynist" automatically follow? :eyes:

Stay tuned for the primaries, boys and girls, where posts like this become de riguer (sp?).

[wisteria]

112. This poll has been played for all it is worth- which is actually nothing.

Polls come and go and are based on many variables, so right now, they are of used only to those wanted to prove inaccurate claims and political pundits looking for something to bullsh*t about.

[FreeStateDemocrat]

114. No, but if you want to bring gender into the choice, it should be Barbare Boxer, a real Democrat

[slackmaster]

115. Obviously the problem is misandry in the anti-Gore and anti-Kerry crowds

:argh:

[longship]

119. No misogyny here.

I just don't like her. I don't give a damn about the rest of her attributes as long as she maintains her current stance on Iraq which is completely and totally insane. Plus, there's the Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton issue.

As far as supporting her if she somehow managed to get the nomination, I would hate it, but I suppose I would end up voting for her. Working for her? That might be another issue. My heart wouldn't be in it.

Bottom line? Can't we find somebody else? As far as I'm concerned she's the bottom of the heap.

[Jade Fox]

120. Absolutely. Not a Hilary fan here, but

the misogyny in Hilary Haters, at least those on the Right, is unmistakable.

[marlakay]

121. Polls are only a small percentage of the people

And if you believe that means everyone will do it your wrong!!!! WE WON THE CONGRESS AND THE SENATE....did the polls say we would win the senate???? No one even believed that.

Alot of republicans are upset about global warming and starting to speak out. I think Gore would win no matter what these stupid polls say!

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

122. Absolutely.

Just like the anti-semitic Lieberman-haters, and the anti-american Bush haters.

:eyes:

[wisteria]

123. As a woman, I resent the suggesting you are implying.

I would love to see a woman become president- just not H. Clinton. I don't think she is unique, the most qualified or a true leader. And, IMO, she wants the position for the wrong reasons.

[ElizabethDC]

124. I don't think we're saying that all people who don't like Hillary are misogynistic

there are obviously people who legitimately dislike her for reasons that have nothing to do with gender. However, I think there are a lot of people out there whose view of her as a politician is distorted by the fact that she's a woman.

[wisteria]

148. Yes, to a point, but this also gives her some advatages too. n/t

[Zhade]

131. In some people, sure.

Me, I just hate her corporatist center-right stances.

[IronLionZion]

132. riiiiight, especially since I'll support ANY OTHER WOMAN!!!

I want a woman (or minority) president or VP. But I want one who represents me and can win. Find me the most fiscally and socially responsible, pro-freedom, anti-Iraq war, woman who can win and I'll crawl on broken glass to put her in the white house.

I'm bursting with excitement that the distinguished gentlelady from California will be Madam Speaker of the House.

For the record, I will still support Hillary should she win the Dem nom.

[Milo_Bloom]

135. My Mom won't vote for Hillary

She is and always has been a straight dem voter. However, because of Hillary's votes on the war and several other issues, as well as certain confirmation votes, she will not vote for her for any office under any circumstances.

In the senate race, she decided to cast no vote rather than vote for Hillary. Similarly My Dad, a more recent convert to the democratic party, wouldn't vote for her either.

They aren't alone in this I am sure. I would probably hold my nose and vote for her if she wins the nom, although to be honest, there are certain people who could become 3rd party candidates who could probably siphon my vote away if I thought they had a legitimate chance of winning.

[MH1]

137. Wow, that is some twisted logic.

"Hillary is far more electable than either Gore or Kerry." therefore anyone who opposes her is a misogynist ?!?

"Hillary is far more electable than either Gore or Kerry." because of a newsweek poll?

We are supposed to choose who we want for President based on electability?

Oh, and for Kerry supporters, many of us didn't despise Hillary or speak against her until she showed her true colors last month. Any supporter of another candidate who was paying attention last month might note that she will probably do the same to their candidate when she gets the chance. And, she has hired operatives that are not above helping to create the chance. (See: Carville, Matalin.)

There are probably a half dozen accomplished women, at least, that I can think of that I would like to see in reach of the Presidency. Hillary will never be one of them.

Edit to remove the most gratuitous of the bashing. I hate to bash other Dems. But Hillary deserves some for throwing Kerry under the bus.

[PATRICK]

143. unless the issue is resolved

WHY she is not good enough(regardless of sex) she may become the nominee. There are particular things going against her that do NOT effect the primary base significantly enough to write her off. The rabid anti-Clinton crowd and the tabloid, MSM machine guns are effectively aimed at her and no one else, but do not effect Dem primaries so much. The progressives she has turned off completely might not even dent her chances. Her organizational legacy is huge, her senatorial record admirable, her own base fairly solid and she has not lost before(Gore, Kerry). Ordinary voters with some political sense shy away from people who have lost just because. Hillary is given the aura of the Elysian Clinton years. She has crafted her career so far almost precisely to win herself a solid centrist primary base that no one else has, especially among women.

Far from misogyny being a handicap, despite having certain negatives among some Dem women, she does have and woos a core based on women who make up a vast amount of the activist campaign workers.

I would like to see another standard bearer for her core, the party and women in general, but we have to recognize that Hillary is running on a lot more than mere name recognition and frontrunner mystique.

Progressive issues, talent and campaigning(or governing) ability issues, win-ability issues with the fair and unfair strong negatives are something that may not stop her winning the primaries and the nomination. The MSM for that period will GLADLY boost her as a "winner" at every opportunity for various reasons- and that will take on a virtual media stampede that may even get her the presidency despite the Wurlitzer putting on the brakes to sabotage the fall campaign.

So all these issues confuse and distract and actually help her as no other flawed candidate has been helped before.

Precisely why and simply is she to be opposed as a first choice for anyone? That has to be more apparent across the board, especially among the typical primary voter base which is atypically progressive enough in many states to rally behind another candidate IF the situation is clearer.

I think the main thing is not to rerun the past mistakes and appeasement of the Clinton years for the hope of regaining the material benefits and relative sanity of that interregnum. We do NOT need another corporate welfare interregnum surrendering most of the advantages of hard-won battles for democracy and pro-people legislation, and giving the scoundrels a getaway and breathing space for yet ANOTHER old gang comeback. And trying to repeat is the WORST thing to attempt because not only is that a pipe-dream as things change drastically, but the other side already has a book on how to handle it next time- in spades.

[NoodleBoy]

138. I am against Hillary Clinton for President

but would love to see strong women like Janet Napolitano or Kathleen Sebelius run for President. they're both extremely capable (more so than, perhaps... someone), and I think they'd be ready to run for President NOW.

however, their profiles aren't nearly high enough for them to mount a bid. maybe after a couple terms in the Senate or something, then it would be. But I would probably wet myself if they did run, and I'd run screaming from the Clark or Richardson camp to support my Governor (Napolitano) for President.

[AntiFascist]

140. This is why we need investigations and impeachment proceedings...

once the vast majority of Americans begin to see just how corrupt the current administration is, then they may be more likely to vote for Gore or Kerry.

[WinkyDink]

141. I'm an old broad, and I don't want her as my nominee. NO WAY will SHE

be the woman to make history.
IMHO, of course.

[election_2004]

146. Speaking for myself....

As a male who opposes a presidential run by Hillary, I also oppose the idea of Kerry and Gore running in 2008.

And for a General Election presidential race, I'd fully support Kathleen Sebelius, Barbara Boxer, Blanche Lincoln, Debbie Stabenow, or Janet Napolitano in a heartbeat.

In fact, I wish Jennifer Granholm could run...but her Canadian birth precludes her from running, plus she's been saddled down with cleaning up the right-wing mess in Michigan.

[LWolf]

147. Not here.

As a woman, I don't base my choices on hatred of women.

I will not vote for Hillary because of her positions on issues. It has nothing to do with her gender.

I notice that DU is ready to play the race card with Obama today as well as the sexist card with Hillary.

It's still '06, and the gloves are off.

[Hippo_Tron]

155. Poll anti-Hillary crowd on whether they'd support Barbara Boxer in '08

The results would pretty much nullify your theory.