I have a question for anti-Hillary DUers

[Clintonista2]

Even though you may not agree with her position, how do you feel she has run her campaign thus far?

[BOSSHOG]

1. I am not anti-any Democratic Nominee

I will be enthusiastically FOR whomever the party nomninates and will support in any way I can. My state's (Mississippi's) primary is late and irrelevant ergo my low profile in the daily dustups. I know whomever the democratic party nominates will be much better for the country then anything the pukes nominate and our nominee will bring to Washington a team of educated professionals. There are no such people in the GOP camp.

[Vincardog]

2. Like a well connected politician. Her "Inevitable" theme is getting a little lame.

Her machine is working like a well oiled machine

[CTyankee]

29. I hate to say this, but that's what it takes. I remember during the 04

campaign I heard some Dems beat up on Kerry because of all of his gaffes. While I am amazed that he didn't become president anyway, he was accused of running a bad campaign and losing the election for us, damnit!

Now that we have a candidate who runs a tight ship, we don't like that either. Sheesh. What do we want? Is competency wrong?

[Vincardog]

37. I have no problem with the way she runs her campaign. My problem is with the way

she panders to the Corporate Overlords and the Reich wing nutz.
On that note I believe HRC as a candidate would be the best thing for the REpigLICKIN party.


She is the only thing that could galvanize the GOP voters. They would turn out to reject her and she might be the only thing that can give the GOP the WH in 08.

[CTyankee]

42. OK if she panders to the corporate and right wing, how come they hate her and want

to defeat her. Aren't they Repubs themselves? I have problems with her vote on the Iraq War but the worst I could say about that is that she was more of an enabler.

Sorry, I don't get your logic. Could you explain a bit further? I want to know because I am on the fence here...

[Cha]

49. Because they don't care how much she

panders..they'll stomp all over her like they did Bill. What is it..Stockholm Syndrome?

[CTyankee]

51. I don't get the Stockholm Syndrome analogy. I thought that was when

captives begin to sympathize with their captors. Who is which in this analogy, Hillary and the RW or the RW and their "masters"?

[Cha]

52. I was refering to

Hillary.

[CTyankee]

54. But if the RW are Hillary's captors, why doesn't she just become

a Republican? I don't question that you have differences with her but the RW in this country doesn't hate her because she thinks like they do. They denounce her as some sort of Socialist for Hillary Care, for instance.

[Vincardog]

60. The Repug voters hate her. The REpigLICKIN corporate Overlords picked her

as the most likely Democratic candidate to bend over for them.
Remember NAFTA?
Remember how she enables and triangulates on every issue?
Why do you think the corporate powers are standing behind her?
Rupert Murdock gave her a fund raiser.

WE do not need a "Centrist"
We do not need a compromiser.
We Do need a PROGRESSIVE POPULIST LIBERAL.

[Deep13]

3. Hard to tell. All the polling is preliminary at best.

We will have a better idea after Iowa. It's great that she's raising money. What is not so great is who she is getting it from and what she might be promising for it.

[MGKrebs]

59. 99% from individual donations.

1% from PACs, and only about half of that from "business" PACs.

http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/summary.asp?id=N00000019&cycle=2008

Some more insight into your deductions would be helpful.

[Deep13]

67. 99% of total $ or 99% of total donations?

:shrug:

[MGKrebs]

71. 99% of dollars.

[ripple]

4. Much better than some of her supporters on DU

Full disclosure- I'm not an anti-Hillary DU'er, I just disagree with some of her supporters' tactics on DU.

As I've said before, some of her supporters here do far more to diminish my opinion of her than she could possibly do herself.

[rainy]

5. fakey! She is a fraud. She will toe the corporate line.

[jojo54]

8. That's what I'm afraid of.

And she might have gotten Bill to coach her, but IMO her attempt to be like everyone else (normal people anyway) is half-hearted. Very much unlike Bill - he was a natural.

[pstans]

6. Hated the "Let's have a Converstaion" theme when she kicked off her campaign

We don't want to have a conversation we we want action on the important issues.

[Maccagirl]

7. I don't understand the loyalists or the haters

but if you're talking about discipline and staying on message, her campaign is doing just fine...for now. I still feel the biggest positive for her is the fatigue in the center for the haters. How they can keep it up day after day, year after year is really astounding. Isn't that what really saved Bill Clinton-how over-the-top the RW was from day one and the way the MSM salivated at every scrap?

[theoldman]

9. The best way to ensure a Republican get elected is to keep

squabbling over the Democrat candidates.

[poverlay]

15. Aren't we supposed to squabble a bit during the primary? It's after that that we need to turn and

provide a united front, and I believe we will. We did it with Kerry, and I'm of the opinion that the current field of Dems is more electable and downright exciting than Kerry was.
Just keep Bob Shrum the hell away.

[CTyankee]

31. Oh yes, I think you are right. We are supposed to hash it out now and

then "come together" for the general. We might come together a little more closely, depending on what the Repubs offer up as an opponent. Hillary has effectively demolished every Repub put up against her (granted their candidates were pretty awful). What I see is a woman who learned some hard lessons over the political years and is determined not to make the mistakes she made before.

[bpeale]

10. why do you care?

and why are you asking? what's the point? to start more BS on the DU boards?

[Clintonista2]

19. Why so defensive?

If you've come here to start a flame war (as you obviousley have), you've come to the wrong place. Sorry.

[bpeale]

72. i think you want to start a flamewar over anyone who disagrees with you

[Clintonista2]

73. What is there to disagree about?

I simply asked what people think about Hillary's campaign, and you decided to attack.

[sandnsea]

11. What campaign?

Vote for me cuz I'm Hill-a-reeee!!

Bill was better than Bush and that's what people are voting for. Hillary is benefiting from a culture of low expectations.

[ieoeja]

12. Steller. She will probably be our next president further cementing this country's move to the Right.

By 1992 the country had tired of the excess rightward trend under Reagan/Bush. Record numbers of bankruptcies, the loss of family farms and infrastructure (roads, bridges, etc), the dearth of well paid blue-collar jobs left Americans feeling nostalgic for the pre-Reagan era when union jobs were booming and we went to the moon.

Gumby could have been the Democratic nominee that year against Bush and been elected to the presidency. Most people assumed the Democratic president would work to undo much of the above damage. That's why the Rightwing went absolutely batshit crazy against that president.

Instead, we got Clinton and a Third Way that cemented the country's center firmly in a position formerly considered Right.

We are in that same position this year. We could nominate Hugo Fucking Chavez for President this election and win the presidency. Will we again throw away this opportunity?

[LWolf]

13. It depends on one's perspective, I suppose.

That's a really tough question for me, personally.

Personally, I am sickened by "spin," by propaganda, by misrepresentation, by putting on a false front, by saying what people want to hear regardless of whether a candidate intends to back that up with action.

Just as I am sickened by people who become candidate supporters because he/she looks and sounds right, even if actions don't match presentation.

Others would say that all of those statements calculated to please a particular audience, or avoid being pinned down to a concrete position, or those "sounds good but lacks substance" talking points are part of "smart campaigning," In other words, the goal is to win, no matter what it takes. Truth is off the table because winning is on.

If I believed that the goal is to win at all cost, regardless of how she gets there, then she's running a great campaign.

If the goal is to present yourself honestly; to inform people as completely as possible and then respect their choice, then she's not doing nearly so well.

That's not intended as a particular slam against her in particular; that's politics as usual, and she is not the only one I could say the same thing about.

Hillary is smart, experienced, qualified, and has the potential to be an incredible leader. What loses my support is that, for me, her priorities are upside down. Political game playing comes before doing the right thing, political power comes before the needs of the people. I see that in her record in the senate, and in her campaign.

[poverlay]

14. I, myself, am actually quite pro-Hil, but I have a bit of an answer for you. I worry for her

electability. Plain and simple. She doesn't have her husbands charisma. She is cool and I think her particular dry-witted charm will win over many people. The negatives I see are the obvious ones: Support for Iraq, Bill's baggage, connections to big business(that's a biggie in my book.), and the perception of elitism. The other problem, which is a major asset(Of which she has many...)to us, is that she scares the bleeding shit out of the right, and they will likely fight all the more viciously because of it. Aside:(I hope if/when she is the nominee that she uses that against them and fights harder than Kerry ever did, yet carefully so that they look like the unreasonable ones. It'll be a fine line and how well she walks it will illustrate her readiness for the presidency...)
I do think she will win if all goes well for her, and so far she has done a fine job.

[leez34]

16. -

I don't like her at all, but man is she running a great campaign. I can't imagine a better one. In fact, the only misstep I think she made was picking that Celine Dion song.

[poverlay]

22. Why don't you like her? ... nt

[lefador]

17. Bush I, Clinton, Bush II, Clinton II.... not thanks, ugh!

Just what we need 30 years of power held by 2 dysfunctional families.

Sorry, if this country is to survive as a republic we need to make sure there is enough diversity among our political system. Next thing you know, we will end up with a hemophilic retarded president.

She is just a corporate shill... thanks but no thanks, next!

[rhiannon55]

18. Not sure about the hemophiliac part

But we already HAVE a retarded president.

Just sayin'.

[Clintonista2]

20. Like I said in my OP, how do you feel about her CAMPAIGN?

I ask this question, because as a Hillary supporter, I'm automatically biased, whether I want to be or not, in believing that she seems to be running the best *campaign*. I just wanted to see how non supporters feel about her ability to run a good campaign, even if you may not necessarily like her.

[lefador]

24. She is a political animal, ergo she has a well managed campaign...

From a subjective point she is a very good campaigner, but that is all there is to it. I don't like sodas, but I can see the merit of their marketing... for me that is all there is to Hillary: marketing. She is good at it, don't care about her politics, and frankly don't want another Clinton in the White House.

[beachmom]

21. McAuliffe is running her campaign, right?

So why is he doing a pretty good job now, while having done such a shitty job at the DNC 2000 - 2004? Why did Howard Dean have to revive so many state Dem parties which were in bankrupcy (per MadFloridian) -- why did Terry McAuliffe screw that job up so badly, and suddenly become competent? I just think it's kind of weird that things have been going rather well for the 2008 Clinton campaign, when these same people worked at the DNC or in previous campaigns to disasterous effect -- kind of like their hearts weren't in it back then?

So, yes, the campaign is being run well. Sorry, but that's too little too late. Thousands have died who didn't have to just so that the Clintons' long schemed after return to the WH could be accomplished.

I'm not backing any '08 candidate, so don't worry. I just think the Clintons better not wreck what has been built since '04, and Dean took over the DNC. This is NOT 1992 -- it's a whole new ball game.

[CTyankee]

34. I remember when Bobby Kennedy got into the 1968 campaign there were incredibly nasty

things said about him. He undermined Eugene McCarthy's "pure" campaign, he was a Kennedy (talk about dynasty!), he was a scheming, cold and calculating man who carpetbagged himself to get elected Senator from New York, and on and on.

Now Robert Kennedy is a saint. I guess because he was murdered, I don't know. His image went through a complete refurbishing.

Guess I've been around too long, but I see a certain pattern of stuff emerging here...

[Alexander]

57. Some DUers still have nasty things to say about RFK.

While all your comments are true, Kennedy and his older brother were opposed to Vietnam (unlike the Clintons), and Bobby paid attention to issues like poverty (unlike the Clintons).

From one Connecticut yankee to another, Hillary Clinton is no Bobby Kennedy.

[CTyankee]

61. Well, I don't think JFK lived long enough to prove he was opposed to the Vietnam War.

I know Schlesinger said that, and I certainly would like to believe it, but the war had not gotten underway bigtime while he was still alive. Bobby came late to the game, as it were, but he did oppose the war.

My point was that Bobby was opposed for many of the same reasons that Hillary is being opposed.

I don't have enough factual information to make the comparison you do between Hillary and Bobby. I just don't know. A lot of Bobby's power was spent in his anti-racteteering days and in advising JFK (he did an excellent job with the Cuban missile crisis). Hillary's legislative record so far has been good in terms of NY. Her vote on the Iraq war is another story. Other than Iraq, I don't see an unfavorable comparison, as you do.

My point was that Bobby was a real villain to many liberals in his day, just as Hillary is now. We really don't know how this will pan out. I can tell you this: I never thought (back in the late 60s,) that Bobby would achieve the sainthood he has been accorded today. Those who are old enough to remember like me on DU might well have been antagonistic with him (my ex husband and I differed so much on the Kennedy/McCarthy thing it was a very difficult time). I kinda like Bobby, but my ex was just adamant that he had destroyed the candidacy of the one pure candidate, Eugene McCarthy, and besides, it wasn't fair of him to come in so late in the campaign (and he was a scheming SOB for doing so).

I truly don't think Hillary has horns and a tail. I wish folks would just calm down about this. My experience and years tell me to take some deep breaths and maybe some longer views. Too much hyperventilating going on, don't you think?

[Alexander]

63. Don't believe me, believe JFK's own words.

"In the final analysis, it's their war" - JFK on Vietnam

"On October 11, 1963 Kennedy approved National Security Action Memorandum 263 which approved a possible disengagement in Vietnam by the end of 1965 and even ordered a quiet withdrawal of some military personnel by the end of that year."
- Jim Marrs, “Rule By Secrecy”

So it's not just Schlesinger saying this.

I don't think Hillary is as bad as some do. I just don't think she has the charisma that the Kennedys had, and therefore I don't think she can win.

The DLC would like you to believe we lost 1972, 1984 and 1988 because the candidates were too liberal.

In reality, none of our nominees then had any charisma whatsoever, and being a moderate didn't save Jimmy Carter from eking out a slim victory in 1976 or losing in a crushing defeat in 1980.

I oppose Hillary mainly because I want to win in 2008. I don't think she'd be a terrible president.

[CTyankee]

68. We Dems lost a huge chunk of voters in the South due to the party's

increasingly becoming more civil rights conscious and friendly. With Wallace's candidacy and appeal cut short, the Republicans found that chunk of white males (and females) in the South and courted their vote. They just took out the populism. So we have been a party in an organic restructuring for some time now. Once we became the party of civil rights, feminism, gay rights we were affirming the rights of the oppressed. It took the Republicans no time at all in demonizing the Dems new base. Saying the Dems were "too liberal" is a simplistic way of dealing with the facts. As a party we welcomed people who had been in the shadows, whose activism was greatly feared and despised. But as the rights of these groups became more and more accepted by the general public, we have learned ways to talk about the issues they raise. We do this by connecting with the average voter (whoever that is) who may have a gay son, who may be a single mom, who may be a minority. The relgious right's almost pathological obsession with blacks, feminists and gays has had its day and it's largely over.We just have to keep on affirming our values to further loosen their hold.

Sorry I wrote a treatise, here! But you get my drift...

[PATRICK]

23. Loaded question

I was not anti anyone in 2004(Joe was DOA), but I will beg off what it means that I am replying to this post and simply say she has done quite well. The rock solid nature of her campaign plans and performance are a cut above the NY campaigns. Initially I was worried that she essentially had walkovers in both her runs. As opposed to the natural fear that she only got anywhere because of her Big Dog affiliation she is so intent on earning her war way to have erased that expected complaint. Her woman's base, weakened by the overall media fraud against her these long years has more solidity, such as one would expect in other nations where women who vote eventually rallied behind a champion. It surpasses or avoids the rest of the political scene in a way surpassing other group loyalties.

Beyond that or in concert there is at least acceptance in broad Dem electoral groups that flies against the memes developed by the GOP against her going toward the popularity enjoyed by Bill(against the same adversity) which is our positive evidence of her eventual ability to succeed. No flubs. No risks. Forays into building bridges with enemies like Murdoch without getting much heat for that. There is a record of success that might soothe the cheated Dem heart. As for staff getting credit one has only to point to those trying to prop up Romney or McCain. She is not a prop of her staff much less an outright embarrassment.

The only thing she can't or won't do is risk beyond that to overcome the unfairness and opposition that will finally be a brick wall once she is nominated. All the enthusiasm and winning of minds and votes will very likely revert to the long hard slog on a worse scale than Kerry had to face, and it will be extremely set and automatic, so ingrained it will again be tempting for the campaign to try to ignore it completely. What it takes to win the nomination is only phase one and I am not sure what she has done or can do about phase two roadblocks. But that is very typical of any candidate.

None of the above is an issue in itself affecting my own primary preference. I expected her to be a strongly performing legitimate candidate and so far she has been. If we had dumb schmucks like the GOP the competitiveness wouldn't be so sparkling. So far she has been an exceptionally worthy representative of party talent and values.

[lojasmo]

25. So-so. EOM

[BlueStater]

26. She doesn't really have to do much

We've been hearing about her "inevitability" long before 2007.

Really, though, I haven't been "wowed" by her campaign. I think she's made quite a few mistakes and verbal slip-ups that would hurt any normal candidate.

[SoxFan]

27. Typical Front-runner campaign

Cautious, bland, top-heavy, lots of endorsements from people with titles.

It NH Primary terms, it reminds me of Mondale, Dukakis, Gore, Kerry, and, to a certain extent Harkin.

[BeyondGeography]

28. Very well

She is what she is (and for me that is a fundamentally unappealing human being, lacking in soul and living her whole life as a political calculation), but one has to respect Team Clinton's enormous skill at the game. This is, after all, their entire life.

The one thing that has bewildered me is her gratutious attack on the Iraqi people in an earlier debate, which she has subsequently refined down to the Iraqi government (much better, but one still recalls the initial quote from New Hampshire, and the inherent mean-spiritedness which it implied). Other than that, no slip-ups, just the raw material that the candidate herself represents.

[CTyankee]

35. I'm trying to remember what she said. Was it something along the lines of

"they need to step up in order for us to stand down"? I always thought that line flew in the face of reality and the truth. The Iraqi's did not invite us into their country to destroy it. But of course that was during the time that you couldn't say anything like that because then you didn't "support the troops." Total BS of course.

What was her exact quote, if you have a link...

[BeyondGeography]

39. Here it is

<We have given the Iraqi people the chance to have freedom, to have their own country. It is up to them to decide whether or not they're going to take that chance. And it is past time for them to demonstrate that they are willing to make the sacrifice, the compromise that is necessary to put together a unified government and provide security and stability without our young men and women in the middle of their sectarian war.>

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/27/us/politics/27debate_transcript.html?ex=1185422400&en=780259c4935e7bf9&ei=5070

[CTyankee]

44. She needs to be challenged on that remark.

It should be a question put to her at the next candidate's debate. The Iraqi "people" did not invite us in to destroy their country, as I have said. I cringe every time I see footage of our soldiers kicking in doors and terrorizing citizens trying to find "insurgents."

I'm very disappointed. She knows better, or should know better.

[BeyondGeography]

45. Like I said, the inherent mean-spiritedness is breathtaking

The Iraqi people were just props for her political skin that evening.

She doesn't dare say it anymore, so she won't be challenged. Consider it a window into the depths of her being. One can only conclude it can get very dark in there.

[CTyankee]

48. Still, I would like someone to challenge her about it.

I was deeply disturbed by Bill's unconcern in not stopping the execution of a retarded man. I wish more had been made of it. Yes, I still voted for him. It was a balancing act, I agree and it still chills me when I think about it. But of course I can't even get started thinking about what Bush has done. It boggles the mind too seriously...

[rufus dog]

30. I think -

She has run a well coordinated campaign to date. She has not yet had the need to respond to many issues other than the recent Pentagon squabble, but was very effective in her response.

[illinoisprogressive]

32. not much. don't pay attention to it. the little I have i'd say okay but, by rote

[zulchzulu]

33. Why do you refer to her as "Hillary"? That's disrespectful in my view

I'm not "anti-Hillary" or a "Hillary Hater" as the meme is bestowed by her fans for those who know she would be the best nominee for the Republicans to mobilize against and get out the vote.

The Clintons had their chance. Turn the page.

[Clintonista2]

46. Her own campaign signs say "Hillary 2008" on them, how is it disrespectful?nt

[Stuckinthebush]

69. I disagree

Hillary is how she has branded herself. It is quite appropriate. We call Bill "Bill", Rudy "Rudy", and Arnold "Arnold". We all know who we are talking about with those first names.

[baldguy]

36. I've never been a big fan of Hillary.

But she's LIGHT YEARS better than *ANY* Republican candidate AT ANY LEVEL. As far as I'm concerned, anyone with an (R) next to their name is a traitor to America.

[Ethelk2044]

38. She has been Flip Flopping as usual

[martymar64]

40. It's too early - the primary is months away

Besides, living in Texas, my vote won't count anyways. I don't like her but I don't hate her like the Rethugs do. My criticism is that her policies are way too conservative and pro-corporate for my taste. She said one good thing in that if President, she'll stop Federal harassing of medical marijuana users and providers. However, she needs to swing realllly far to the left (into Kucinich territory) to get my unvarnished support. And I don't see that happening.

[Exultant Democracy]

41. It is far to early to call, we are still in the warm up laps...

[Colobo]

43. I'm a big Obama supporter, and everyone knows that I have praised Clinton and her campaign.

I still want her to go down hard, though.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

47. With the full and enthusiastic backing of the corporate media

which is one reason why I don't trust her. They would never back someone who would actually change anything, and if you think they would, you need to wake up.

[CTyankee]

53. I don't think they have been particularly kind to HRC. I'm surprised she got such a

positive spin from them on her performance last night. They always seem to be in W's thrall, altho recently that ardor has cooled somewhat. They sure were late in coming to that conclusion...

[elizm]

50. Unimpressed by her campaign. You DID ask. nt

[laugle]

55. She's running it like

the "pro" she is!

The Clinton's know how to win and that's what count's in 2008!

[Alexander]

56. Like a well-oiled machine.

Of course, if my preferred candidate becomes president, we won't need oil in our machines.

[David Zephyr]

58. Flawless.

You asked.

[antiimperialist]

62. Bad, then good, then screwed up last night

She sounded Bush-lite.
My first choices are Obama and Edwards.

[MGKrebs]

64. It's a clinic on how to run a top notch campaign.

They roll out their programs slowly so that they get media each time.
They are able to change the subject whenever they want or is necessary because...
They have a huge "playbook" full of ideas, campaign gimmicks, PR strategies, and media bait.
They have an articulate candidate with some drama built into the bio.
They can use the last serving president at will, who is still hugely popular.
They have a very sophisticated approach to responding to challenges, honed over many years of deciding whether to respond and if so, how strongly.
They can even laugh at themselves a little bit.

[MrMickeysMom]

65. How bout a "She runs a good campaign" peom-

... You see, my hopes faded .... once she became jaded... when she traded me long ago...

for special interest money ... and insurance honey ... dripping at a constant flow.. .

Like Leahy at Gonzo's hearing ... I'm afraid I was nearing... the time when I couldn't trust her ANY MOE...

:cry:

[Imagevision]

66. Hard to tell, let's see her and Obama go at it with the gloves off, hopefully soon!

[Dawgs]

70. Well, she hasn't her any of the important questions of our time, so terribly.