Help ME With This! Is Hillary REALLY the GOP's Favorite Democrat?

[KoKo]

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/CrisisPapers/114

Hillary Clinton: The GOP's Favorite Democrat
Posted by CrisisPapers in Editorials & Other Articles
Tue Aug 07th 2007, 10:41 AM
| Ernest Partridge |

Officials at Rupert Murdoch's News Corporation have contributed to Hillary Clinton's campaign, and Murdoch himself has held fund-raisers in her behalf. Lawyers at Kenneth Starr's law firm, Kirkland and Ellis, have donated more to Clinton than they have to all of the Republican candidates combined. In addition, Bloomberg.com reports that "Large US (law) firms ... are giving thousands more to Democratic hopefuls than Republicans. Top Wall Street investment banks and hedge funds are also giving more to Democrats." We can assume that most of these donations are going to the front-runners, Clinton and Obama. And finally, Hillary Clinton's appearance last week at the Yearly Kos, was cut short by her appearance at a fund-raiser at the estate of billionaire, Ron Perlman.

Hillary Clinton appears to be the favorite Democrat of Republican haves and have-mores.

Why is this so?

The oxymoronic "conventional wisdom" in the mainstream media would have us believe that these Republicans, assuming a near-inevitable Democratic victory in 2008, are backing the most likely, and, to them, the most tolerable, Democratic candidate.

I have a different take on it. The Republicans, far from conceding the next election, believe that they may have a plausible shot at winning. But to do so, the Democrats must nominate the weakest and most vulnerable candidate.

And Hillary is the one. How so?

There are many compelling reasons why the front-running Democratic hopeful is also the most vulnerable.


There are many compelling reasons why the front-running Democratic hopeful is also the most vulnerable:

* Most significantly, among the general voting population Hillary Clinton has the highest disapproval ratings of all the Democratic candidates - in fact, according to a June Mason-Dixon poll, she is the only candidate of either party of whom a majority (52%) have said that they would not consider voting. In addition, 42% reported an unfavorable opinion of Clinton, compared to 39% favorable; the only candidate with a net negative rating. These are devastating statistics which are unlikely to change significantly, since the public is by now well acquainted with Clinton. One would assume that such statistics would disqualify a candidate. However, the establishment Democrats who support Hillary are unperturbed.

* Next, "the woman thing." Though the mainstream media has scrupulously avoided the topic, the fact that Clinton is the first woman in US history likely to be the presidential nominee of a major party must be a serious obstacle to her election. This is regrettable, and I sincerely wish that it were not so. But there it is, and the Democratic party will ignore this reality at its peril. And if Clinton selects Barack Hussein Obama as her running-mate, with the first black candidate on a national ticket the "blue" populist resurgence in the South will be stopped in its tracks and the Democrats will lose every electoral vote in the South. Jim Crow, while muted, still lives. Also regrettable, but true.

* If Clinton were to be elected and serve two full terms, at the end of her administration in 2016, two families would then have occupied the White House for twenty-eight years. Many Americans are extremely put-off by the very idea of dynasties and royal families. I know that I am. Millions of voters, I suspect, would go to the polls in November, 2008 with this thought foremost on their minds: "this dynasty business must end, and end now."

* Hillary Clinton is widely perceived to be a political "weathervane" who adapts her positions and talking points to shifts in public opinion. Most of the public has had quite enough of "focus-group politics," and yearns for a politician who acts and speaks clearly with conviction and on principle. In the eighties, voters would say of Ronald Reagan, "I may disagree with him, but I know where he stands." And then they would vote for him. Pop quiz: state in twenty-five words or less, the guiding principles of Clinton's politics. See what I mean? The failure of the Democratic Congress to exhibit courage and clarity of its convictions, and its unwillingness to act decisively has resulted in its dismal public approval ratings - lower, even than those of George Bush. The public will not look kindly upon similar behavior by the Democratic presidential candidate.

* Clinton and her managers apparently believe that the winning votes are to be found in a presumed "center" between establishment (e.g., Congressional) Democrats and the Republicans. Thus they have swallowed the kool-aid served up by the GOP-lite Democratic Leadership Council and the beltway pundits. In fact, as poll after poll testifies, overwhelming public opinion concerning Iraq, the "war on terror," the rule of law, economic justice, health care, minimum wage, public education, government regulation of commerce, environmental protection, campaign finance reform, etc. is "outside" and to the left of both parties. The failure of the "official" Democrats to recognize the public mind, accounts in large part for the public contempt for the Democratic Congress.

* While the mainstream media and the Republicans have been uncommonly gentle with Clinton - one might say suspiciously gentle - when the conventions are over and the campaign begins, the GOP and the media attacks will be brutal. And Clinton will be an especially vulnerable target. As we well know by now, GOP campaign themes have no necessary grounding in fact - witness Al Gore and "inventing the internet," and John Kerry's encounter with the "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth." Hillary Clinton can be expected to be overwhelmed by a barrage of malicious rumors and innuendos.

While Hillary Clinton is clearly not the people's choice (cf. The Mason-Dixon poll above), she is most assuredly the media's choice. Democratic candidates such as Dennis Kucinich and Bill Richardson, whose views on Iraq, economic justice, and health care most closely coincide with public opinion, are relegated to "the second tier" - not serious contenders. And who decides this allocation? Not the public - there have been no primaries yet. Of course, the media decides. Early poll numbers largely reflect "name recognition." And the media repeatedly prints and broadcasts the names that are "recognized."
AND MORE..........

READ ABOUT THE REASONS HERE AT.........


http://journals.democraticunderground.com/CrisisPapers/114

[liberalnurse]

1. I seriously doubt it.

She has the most efficiently stocked political arsenal between both Parties. Have "we Democrats" pick a favorite GOP Candidate? I have yet to hear which one.....The repugs are preparing for Hillary only because it is highly likely that she will be the Democratic Nominee. The GOP has seen her work the field, prepare for this Campaign over the past 2 years for sure. I even watched it occur here in Ohio. Just look at the endorsements for Hillary and you will know she has not left on electoral vote within her reach go unaccounted.

[Jackpine Radical]

4. Dems don't get to pick Repug candidates. Only the other way around.

They own the press, not us.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

11. At my law firm we have a women's diversity group

The reason it exists is because, in 2007, there is STILL sexism in the U.S., in the boardroom, at the office, at home, and everywhere, and women are paid a fraction of what men are, for the same job, same hours, and same performance. Studies have shown that the more highly educated and the higher the social status of the individual, the less sexist he is

So let's think for a moment. If up there where there's less sexism, there's STILL sexism enough to require a women's diversity group to find novel ways of avoiding sexism at the workplace, do you really think there's less sexism among the lower socioeconomic classes? I think not.

Every night, everywhere, Republicans are getting down on their fat knees, wearing the same diapers they use when they visit their prostitutes, and begging God that the Dems select a woman or a black to run for presidential office.

Now, do I want to run an experiment to see if a woman will win the presidency in this highly sexist country, and risk a Republican being elected again? You know the answer to that.

[KoKo]

15. They are still "at it" with that Corporate Diversity Training? " Sheesh.. after Bushies

it sort of rings hollow. Just a boondoggle to get some money from some failing Bushie Department of Government that has left over funds for things like this when in fact the "Cow has Left the Barn."

One look at Michelle Malken or Annie Coulter shows what "Diversity Training" allows folks to accept.

OMG!... And ...at one time it was a good program.

Could we add Condi Rice to the list? Diversity training is to cull out the females and gays who might be identified for a Bush Crime Family CULLING OUT! Out the DOOR ...no Health Care or Pension will follow you...because you PARTICIPATED IN A PROGRAM THAT's AGAINST THE DICTATORSHIP....THERE IS NO DIVERSITY IN AMERICA...WE ARE ALL LOCK STEP WITH THE CHIMPEROR...IF YOU SHOW UP YOU GO TO THE GULAG!!!!

:puke:

[Sarah Ibarruri]

17. Huh? What does that have to do with Bush? ?

[KoKo]

20. Sorry...I was too Subtle........just think about it.....

[surfermaw]

84. The question is Hillary the only Dem that rep ar helping, I think not.

[aquart]

2. I have a bridge to sell you. Cheap. A fixer-upper.

[IndianaGreen]

3. Yes!

Any other questions?

[Jackpine Radical]

5. What's not to like about Hillary?

She's on both sides of the war, she has a proven track record on health care reform, Wall Street & Murdoch love her--I mean, when's the last time a Dem could count on an editorial endorsement from the Wall Street Urinal?

[Deja Q]

8. And since my future isn't going to be in programming, why should I care about the H1B problem anyway

You might have a point... pros vs cons.

Time will tell.

It always does.

[MADem]

29. Perception has become your reality--but her corporate stances aren't so simple

From ON THE ISSUES:

Enough with corporate welfare; enough with golden parachutes. (Jun 2007)
Close lobbyists' revolving door; end no-bid contracts. (Jun 2007)
Corporate elite treat working-class America as invisible. (Apr 2007)
Companies get rewarded with hard-working people left hanging. (Mar 2007)
Corporate lawyer at Rose Law while Bill was Attorney General. (Jan 2007)
Voted YES on repealing tax subsidy for companies which move US jobs offshore. (Mar 2005)
Voted YES on restricting rules on personal bankruptcy. (Jul 2001)
Rated 35% by the US COC, indicating a mixed business voting record. (Dec 2003)

...End tax breaks for outsourcing jobs. (Jun 2007)
Globalization should not substitute for humanization. (Jun 1999)
Supports MFN for China, despite concerns over human rights. (Oct 2000)
Voting Record
Voted against CAFTA despite Bill Clinton's pushing NAFTA. (Oct 2005)
Voted YES on free trade agreement with Oman. (Jun 2006)
Voted NO on implementing CAFTA for Central America free-trade. (Jul 2005)
Voted YES on establishing free trade between US & Singapore. (Jul 2003)
Voted YES on establishing free trade between the US and Chile. (Jul 2003)
Voted NO on extending free trade to Andean nations. (May 2002)
Voted YES on granting normal trade relations status to Vietnam. (Oct 2001)
Voted YES on removing common goods from national security export rules. (Sep 2001)
Rated 17% by CATO, indicating a pro-fair trade voting record. (Dec 2002)

...Stand up for unions; organize for fair wages. (Jun 2007)
Get tough with China and bring jobs back home. (Feb 2007)
Minimum wage should be tied to congressional salaries. (Jun 2006)
The working poor deserve a living wage. (Oct 1999)
America can afford to raise the minimum wage. (Sep 1999)
Voted YES on restricting employer interference in union organizing. (Jun 2007)
Voted YES on increasing minimum wage to $7.25. (Feb 2007)
Voted YES on raising the minimum wage to $7.25 rather than $6.25. (Mar 2005)
Voted NO on repealing Clinton's ergonomic rules on repetitive stress. (Mar 2001)
Protect overtime pay protections. (Jun 2003)
Rated 85% by the AFL-CIO, indicating a pro-union voting record. (Dec 2003)

[creeksneakers2]

36. I'm wondering about some of the recent stuff

Allowing the government to negotiate lower prices for prescription drugs.

Taking student loan subsidies away from banks and big lenders and giving them to the students.

Utilities required to use 15% renewable energy by 2020.

$16 billion in new taxes for oil companies.

Raise tax on hedge fund manager compensation from 15% to 35%.

Fuel standard increases for the auto industry.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

6. They have been talking about her as if she is the nominee for at least two

years.

She is their dream opponent.

[Deja Q]

7. I thought she was just some bozo who wanted to push choiceless commie health care on everybody...

The Repubs want THAT?!! :crazy:

[Jackpine Radical]

10. Don't worry. She'll screw it up at least as badly as she did last time.

The big Health Industry $$$ behind her will see to that.

[illinoisprogressive]

9. recommended this is outstanding.

[Major Hogwash]

12. Ask Chris Matthews - he's been asking her to run for President for 3 years.

And he's a conservative who voted for Bush in 2000.

[creeksneakers2]

34. Matthews launched a RW kook fringe smear job on Hillary

tonight. Some guy named Robert "Buzz" Patterson was on. He's a wholesaler of right wing kook lies about the Clintons. He's an author of kind of kook books sold on Newsmax that are so far out its unbelievable that anybody would even bother to check their veracity. Among other things said about Hillary tonight were: She's a socialist;
She wants to destroy the military; While first lady she forbade enlisted persons at the White House from wearing uniforms because she hated the military so much. Why would Matthews let somebody like Patterson on his show?

The press sees Hillary not as a candidate but as a celebrity. They cover Hillary the way they cover Paris Hilton. Matthews will say he loves her one minute and that he hates her the next, just so long as he can talk about Hillary. She's good for ratings.

I don't see any positive coverage anywhere about Hillary that could be avoided. Every move Hillary makes is described as a cunning attempt to gain some political advantage. Nobody ever casts her as a serious candidate who wants to make America better.

[Major Hogwash]

13. Ask Tim Russert - he's been asking her to run for President for 3 years.

He interviewed her in 2004 on his program "Meet the Press" and asked her 3 times - not just once, not just twice, but 3 times in a row - if she was going to run for President that year.

The same guy, who as the NBC News Chief Editor, was partying with Rumsfeld at General Franks' house the night that Saddam Hussein was captured!!

Yeah, there's no bias there, sure sure.

[creeksneakers2]

39. Everybody asked Hillary if she was running for president in 2004

They were all hoping that if Hillary let something slip, they'd be at the center of big news.

The,"Is Hillary running for president?" story didn't benefit Hillary. It fed into their caricature of her always scheming for the presidency from the beginning.

[pansypoo53219]

14. of course she is

in supporting her now, she can be our nominee and the republikkkans will actually have a chance in 08'.

[OHdem10]

16. For thinking Republicans and there are some

it is not unreasonable to see HRC as a Democrat they
could find acceptable. Her centrist credentials are
reassuring to them.

For some of the Republican Base, Fundies and arch-conservatives
--these are Clinton Haters. These are the one"s who rally
to keep her from being President.

[MADem]

18. Wow, what "concern!!!" I haven't seen such broad acting since silent films!!!

The same old tired arguments, served up in a new wrapping!!!

This is as good as the "Oh, I LOOOOOVE Barack Obama, BUT....." posts. Or the "Isn't Edwards GREAT, except...." essays.

ON THE ISSUES tells you everything you need to know about all the candidates. Quotes, stances, ratings on specific issues. Forgive the expression, but 'no spin' either:

http://www.ontheissues.org/Senate/Hillary_Clinton.htm

They've got rankings for almost all the major players. Beats rehashing the same speculative bullshit and rightwing lies that are inserted into media reports over and over again--only to be served up, in wide-eyed fashion, here.



Hillary Clinton is a Hard Core Liberal


Now, that doesn't sound like The GOP's 'favorite' candidate to me.....sounds like their worst nightmare. But hey, if you make the nonthinkers BELIEVE something, they won't bother to check those facts.

Awww, a few "highlights" for perusual, for those who won't click the link:

Voted NO on confirming Samuel Alito as Supreme Court Justice. (Jan 2006)
Voted NO on confirming John Roberts for Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. (Sep 2005)
Rated 17% by CATO, indicating a pro-fair trade voting record. (Dec 2002)
Rated 100% by APHA, indicating a pro-public health record. (Dec 2003)
Rated 100% by SANE, indicating a pro-peace voting record. (Dec 2003)
Rated 85% by the AFL-CIO, indicating a pro-union voting record. (Dec 2003)
Rated 100% by the ARA, indicating a pro-senior voting record. (Dec 2003)

[OHdem10]

19. Every night on Fox News , Hilary is usually given

positive coverage and her Centrist Credentials are emphasized.

I am not criticizing HRC, I am simply stating my observations.

[MADem]

24. Rupert Murdoch likes to be on winning teams. He really doesn't give a shit if you are

a Democrat or a Republican, a Liberal or a Conservative.

He's either pushing her because he thinks she's the winning horse in this race, OR he's playing a game where he's riling the base of the GOP candidate he thinks will go the distance.

He just likes to be a player. The Old Fool....

Go look at her record. I wasn't the one who called her a HARD CORE liberal. OTI did...

[JPettus]

61. It wouldn't surprise me if the GOP wants her to run

But not because she is the "weakest" candidate. Far from it. She is simply the one candidate that talk radio can use to energize their base to try to get out the vote.

Let's face it, everywhere conservatives look right now is bad news.

Iraq
Justice Dept scandal
Wiretapping/Surveillance investigation
Irregularities and illegal conduct by Republicans
Republicans as sexual predators

And when they look at their own candidates, they aren't excited. Who do they vote for? Guliani, the three times adulterer who is hated by the public services and heroes of 9/11? Romney, the Mormon? (you know THAT plays well with the evangelical base). Heck, even Fred Thompson, who will get the men's votes but not the women ("what an ego!")?

Their chances don't lie in getting good candidates for themselves, but by polarizing the voters against the Democratic candidate. With Obama, there isn't as much there but they can play on his relative inexperience. With Hillary, they have a target that their own base positively despises, and their only hope of not losing everything in the 2008 general election is to get as many of those people out to vote for the Republican candidate as they can.

I still say more people turn out to vote AGAINST someone or something than they do FOR someone or something. Its why it's harder to energize your own base when things are going well.

So, if Hillary gets the nomination, and right now it looks like she will, though there is plenty of time for her to fall to the wayside, expect her candidacy to energize both parties.

Dems will want a candidate that can win, and Hillary gets support from moderates, some liberals, people of color and especially from women.

Republicans will try to get their base excited to go vote to keep Clinton from being back in the White House (though their longer range plans should be to give up on 2008 at this time, get Clinton in and turn on the hate radio again to try to get another Republican takeover in 2010).

Right now, Bush is hurting their party so bad it's still going to be tough for them to get their base out to vote, even if Clinton is the candidate.

[KoKo]

22. Her voting record on issues we EXPECT her to vote Democratic Base

on...aren't the questions, though. Did you read the post from Earnest Partridge? He raises some interesting questions beyond the "snips" that I could post...

Many Dems have some good votes on issues we expect them to. BUT...what about the VOTES on those ZINGERS like FISA and Military Commissions Act and GOING TO WAR?

That's where they give away the money that could FUND what they Talk about and what goes into thier voting record.

:shrug: just saying.......

BTW...I know Hillary didn' vote yes on FISA...it's the rhetoric and NAFTA and what's behind the fact that she didn't come out and CONDEMN the FISA VOTE? Is it because the "Blue Dog Dems" in the House were the ones to "take the rap?"

[MADem]

No it isn't. Her voting record is to the LEFT of Democrats who get praised here to the skies.

Just sayin...

Jack Murtha is way to the right of Clinton, and he doesn't catch any of the shit she does. Hell, I haven't seen a single person besides me note his views on choice, or guns. "Phased redeployment to the periphery" somehow inoculated him. Or maybe his gender did that. I'm not really sure.

You've bought the spin, hook, line and sinker.

:shrug:

[KoKo]

32. Can we separate her from Bill's policies, though?

Would she be in bed with Rubin Economics and beholden to Wall St. Big Business. Would she ever come out for Fairness Doctrine so that we have some Media Fairness where our voices "out here can be heard." With the coziness with Murdoch ...would she do it?

Does she agree with the Unitary Presidency? She might not like it under Bush...but would we Dems even want those powers under a Dem President?

Where does she DISAGREE with BUSH Policies...I don't hear her saying anything about that. I don't hear Passion to ROLL BACK the BUSH "Unitary P-Resident," "Voting ACCURACY with Paper Ballots," "Workers Rights" over the Corporate CEO's Golden Parachutes and Stock Options in the Millions (and Billions in some cases), "Credit Card Interest Reform" that would roll back Interest Rate to something like 8% instead of MAFIA/Loan SHARK rates that Biden got put in because he works for MBNA (bought out now) but Delaware is the HOME of CREDIT CARD Registration.

What about NAFTA and CHINESE GOODS IMPORTED THAT ARE TAINTED? So much..that NEVER GETS TALKED ABOUT in these so-called DEBATES!

What about "NATION BUILDING" the Bush Doctrine to spread FREEDOM & DEMOCRACY...American Style all over the Globe with our Tax Dollars?

What about Re-building our Roads, Bridges and Levee's?

What about NEW ORLEANS and those in DANGER OF WEATHER DISASTERS as the CLIMATE CHANGES?

[MADem]

35. You know, people tend to marry people whose world view is similar to theirs.

If that's suddenly a crime, oh well.

That OTI site says a lot about her views on workers. She gets the up-check from the AFLCIO.

There's also notations on her views towards jobs and China. She's not happy with China. She wants those jobs back home.

Read the whole site, click on the links, follow them through to the sources, read her words.

And do it for Edwards, Obama, Biden, Richardson and the rest.

Stop listening to and passing on bullshit, planted "opinion" pieces from agenda-laden axe grinders. It's unfair to all the candidates, not just her, and it cheapens debate.

And no one wants to be seen as easily led, so question everything.

By their own words and views, and votes, which for all of them, evolve, we shall know them.

[RufusTFirefly]

27. Sorry, but the data are seriously flawed in this

It says she Opposes the death penalty. She is in Favor of the death penalty.
It says she Opposes "three strikes." She is in Favor of "three strikes."
It also gives her a rating of Strongly Favors on same-sex domestic partnership benefits, which strictly speaking is true, although she opposes gay marriage and only recently flip-flopped on the Defense of Marriage Act.

Those mistakes should knock her right back into Lieberman Land on the political compass.

UPON EDIT: And so is are my subject-verb agreement

[MADem]

31. You don't know how to use the website. You have to click on the links.

She got a Plus TWO on the Death Penalty topic because she advocates DNA testing. She got a PLUS TWO on Three Strikes as well.

Require DNA testing for all federal executions.
Clinton sponsored the Innocence Protection Act:
Title: To reduce the risk that innocent persons may be executed.

Summary: Authorizes a person convicted of a Federal crime to apply for DNA testing to support a claim that the person did not commit:

the Federal crime of which the person was convicted; or

any other offense that a sentencing authority may have relied upon when it sentenced the person with respect to such crime.

Prohibits a State from denying an application for DNA testing made by a prisoner in State custody who is under sentence of death if specified conditions apply.

Provides grants to prosecutors for DNA testing programs.

Establishes the National Commission on Capital Representation.

Withholds funds from States not complying with standards for capital representation.

Provides for capital defense incentive grants and resource grants.

Increases compensation in Federal cases, and sets forth provisions regarding compensation in State cases, where an individual is unjustly sentenced to death.

Adds a certification requirement in Federal death penalty prosecutions.

Expresses the sense of Congress regarding the execution of juvenile offenders and the mentally retarded.

...............................................................

Strongly Support means you believe: 'Three Strikes' laws put dangerous repeat offenders where they belong - behind bars, for life. Mandatory sentencing and strict enforcement make sure that judges don't let off criminals too easily.
Support means you believe: Keep 'Three Strikes' laws on the books because they seem to be effective, but consider ways to deal with special circumstances so we can avoid horror stories of inappropriate imprisonment.
Oppose means you believe: Strict enforcement of pre-determined sentencing threatens civil rights and should be used cautiously. Police, courts and prisons should focus on effective enforcement rather than strict enforcement.
Strongly Oppose means you believe: Judicial discretion should not be diminished by formulaic sentencing like 'Three Strikes.' Let judges and juries decide what penalties to apply in each case.

This OTI site delves into NUANCE and actual views, not sound-bite bullshit and GOP talking points.

[RufusTFirefly]

38. Flawed

(My boldface)

Oppose means you believe: The death penalty has been unfairly implemented, especially along racial and class lines. And the mistakes that are made cannot be rectified, so capital punishment should be banned.

Wrong! Supporting DNA testing does not qualify as opposing the death penalty, even according to the site's standards.

It also says she Strongly Favors (Supports) the contention that the Patriot Act Harms Civil Liberties.

Strongly Support means you believe: The Patriot Act is unpatriotic. The terrorists are winning because they have forced us to limit our Constitutional civil rights. We should not give up our liberties in exchange for security, because if we do we will end up with neither.

BWAHAHA! Who voted for the PATRIOT ACT and then voted again to reauthorize it? Her evil twin??

And, of course, the most audacious pronouncement is that she Strongly Favors "U.S. out of Iraq." Like Hell she does. She says it is "Bush's war," which conveniently lets her off the hook for voting to give a sociopath free rein in the Middle East. And when the Iraqi parliament fails to pass the piece of legislative blackmail known as the hydrocarbon law, she'll no doubt say it's they're fault that we have to keep occupying Iraq.

[MADem]

41. No shit, WRONG. You STOPPED reading when you thought your point was made.

It's not a HEADLINE website. Ya gotta READ it. All of it. Especially the explanations. It looks at candidates on a continuum, with nuance and explanation.....not as soundbites.

How do you decide between "Support" and "Strongly Support" when you agree with both the descriptions above? (Or between "Oppose" and "Strongly Oppose"). The strong positions are generally based on matters of PRINCIPLES where the regular support and oppose positions are based on PRACTICAL matters. If you answer "No Opinion," this question is not counted in the VoteMatch answers for any candidate. If you give a general answer of Support vs. Oppose, VoteMatch can more accurately match a candidate with your stand. Don't worry so much about getting the strength of your answer exactly refined, or to think too hard about the exact wording of the question -- like candidates!
Strongly Support means you believe in the principle of equivalent punishment for the taking of a life.
Support means you believe in practical benefits like deterrence, or removal from society.
Oppose means you believe practical reforms are needed to ensure fair implementation and zero mistakes.
Strongly Oppose means you believe that the principle of the state taking a life is wrong.

Oooooops...! Now, on to the Patriot Act:

How do you decide between "Support" and "Strongly Support" when you agree with both the descriptions above? (Or between "Oppose" and "Strongly Oppose"). The strong positions are generally based on matters of PRINCIPLES where the regular support and oppose positions are based on PRACTICAL matters. If you answer "No Opinion," this question is not counted in the VoteMatch answers for any candidate. If you give a general answer of Support vs. Oppose, VoteMatch can more accurately match a candidate with your stand. Don't worry so much about getting the strength of your answer exactly refined, or to think too hard about the exact wording of the question -- like candidates!
Strongly Support means you believe in the principle that the Patriot Act violates constitutional rights.
Support means you believe that for practical reasons, the patriot Act goes too far.
Oppose means you believe that for practical reasons, the Patriot Act is necessary, but might be amended over time as needed.
Strongly Oppose means you believe in the principle of a strong Presidency as the best means to fight the War on Terror.

As Maxwell Smart sez, ya missed it by THAT MUCH....but you're apparently vested in a concept of "cartoon candidates" who have no ability to see issues in all their complexity.

Cardboard cutouts are way easier to tilt at, I guess.

[Cameron27]

51. Thank you.

I don't know how many times I've asked what people were basing their opinions that Clinton was a centrist on, because I've actually read through her voting record and it proves the opposite. Good job again MADem.

[nolabels]

67. I would take somebody with half of that record

The acrimonious hell bent is what goes on here at D.U., I have issues with all of them but any of them are better than what is on the other side of the aisle. I would believe that some are trying to steer that certain somebody known as aka HRC with all they can though. There are some here that predicted this is what will be happening and giving credence and credit to them for being correct is how we learn. In todays predictable of the unpredictable those with experience handing out the keys to what will happen before what happens gets there has something kind of exciting about it. It's that place in life where you say that living in denial will not make it and one must consider as many points of view as possible.

Some of us might be taking note but we are also probably taking it with a grain of salt

Watch out for brier patches and stones in your path and good luck to you and your candidate (i think)

[MADem]

70. I don't have a candidate yet--unless Gore hops in.

I'd do the same "reality check" if it were Edwards or Obama being unfairly smeared. I actually am interested in the real views of the candidates, their thought processes, how their views have matured and evolved over time--not, as I said elsewhere, 'cartoon' or 'cardboard cutout' portrayals.

It's very immature, the 'rah-rah' cheerleading for one favored soul, accompanied by the excoriation of other candidates. None of them are horrible, certainly, and any of them would be better than the best the GOP can put up. So to see this childish sniping here is just, well, tiresome. I'm just too goddamned old to suffer that horseshit in silence!

[nolabels]

74. Me too, no candidate and the 'rah-rah' is a big turn off

Thanks for sticking up for people that all of us really don't know that much about. You might know a lot about some or all of them but some others (maybe me) don't really know that much about them or have been fed a lot of B.S. What i have found is everybody has an agenda and it doesn't matter who it is, they all have them.

There are people some would consider on the left and they often have ideas they haven't been thought all the way through but to think that people over on the right have ideas that they have thought through is also a mistake.

A good set of ideas that might have been used, tried or at least thought through along with some good salesmanship is what is needed to get people excited about new directions we might want to travel. I am waiting for that kind of agenda to jump out so i can jump on, as of yet i haven't seen it either

[zulchzulu]

21. RNC operatives have had strategy meetings about this very subject

I work with someone who has high RNC/GOP credentials from experience running Republican campaigns over the years and having worked in positions as communications director for a couple of Republican governors. He goes to RNC batcave meetings in DC and elsewhere. He also hates the way the GOP embraces the Religious Right and can be characterized as a Goldwater Republican or a slightly-right-leaning moderate.

He has told me that the RNC wants Senator Clinton as the nominee to run against for exactly the reason you cite in the OP. He knows that her candidacy would awaken the Republican base like no other candidate could and that races that the GOP are pretty much leaving for dead would then be energized by a large Republican turnout. This is a lot more of an incentive than the gay marriage, flag burning and immigration non-passing resolutions in the past. This is the Big Bonanza. A Gift that will keep giving and giving. He also can't believe the Democrats would be that stupid to fall right into the trap. Add that a Clinton nomination also would be divisive with the Democratic Party and you have a Republican victory plan.

I believe him and anyone who thinks otherwise is not fully understanding the ramifications. All you need to do is see how much Murdoch wants her as the horse in the race. If anyone thinks Murdoch wants her to win, they are woefully ignorant of reality.

Of course, some of the knuckleheads and paid Clinton parrots on this board will catcall that I "hate Hillary". That is nonsense. I want the Democrats to handily win the White House and keep the GOP home on Election Day. Period.

[MADem]

26. I'm undecided unless Gore gets in, and I have to say I think a lot of this shit about Clinton

has more to do with the "Wimmin Hater's Club" and studied ignorance. Her stances on issues are not as people here portray them. And that's willful, I think.

'HARD CORE liberal' ain't a tighty rightie. And I'll believe OTI before I believe 'opinion' pieces that are heavy on opinion and light on fact. And this doesn't just apply to Clinton, but all the candidates who are the targets of carefully-crafted hit pieces.

[KoKo]

37. Hey.... I can understand what you say....

Really.... And, I'm hoping for Gore, also. But, understand that many of us might be more comfortable (if Gore doesn't come in) with what we KNEW from Clinton years than with Biden/Dodd/Obama/ or others that we just aren't sure of. After the Bush YEARS... we would rather be with the known problems than taking on new ones that we aren't sure of... :shrug:

I just hope Gore comes in. He's not a savior...and has his flaws...but, folks could feel some level of comfort with him...and he's been outside DC..and hopefully has learned a few things.

[KoKo]

33. ...that's pretty frightening...to see that kind of manipulation..

sad....that ideals are lost in calculation and spin and vote splicing. :-(

[sampsonblk]

44. Same guys who were sure the war was going to be great-nt

[PADemD]

23. Second Favorite

After Joe Lieberman

[Uncle Joe]

25. I believe it's a combination of both reasons, plus one.

1. Many Republicans believe, they can beat her.

2. Were she to be elected, she would be among the most corporate or Republican friendly of the candidates.

3. Payback to Bill for setting the political stage by giving the Republican friendly corporate media ammunition on a silver platter, ie; The Lewinsky Scandal to be used against Al Gore; the primary champion and staunch supporter of the Internet. This environment only made it easier for the corporate media to trash and slander Al Gore and thereby brain wash the American People in to believing Gore was the untrustworthy one and that Bush would "restore honor and integrity" back to the White House. The same corporate media; that would go on to out one of our own covert CIA agents and brain wash approximately 70+% of the American People in to believing Saddam Hussein was behind 9/11 and send us to a war with Iraq based on lies.

The corporate media's motivation was simple, they wanted to retain their monopoly on information, and the resultant benefit of influence, power and money, so as the Internet grew in strength, they saw this as a threat to all they hold dear. Thus keeping the person who empowered the American People to go around them for their information out of the White House was of paramount importance to the media. I call this the *back door approach to power.

*See Big Brother television program for examples of this strategy.

[AtomicKitten]

28. somebody get me the GOP's phone number and I'll ask

[iamjoy]

30. Zero Credibility

Anyone who refers to the fine senator from Illinois as "Barack Hussein Obama" has no credibility with me. Don't tell me that's just his middle name. Anyone using that is doing so for a reason. I notice they are not referring to the other candidates as "Hillary Rodham Clinton" or "John Reid Edwards" and so forth.

So, why do they use Obama's middle name?

[David Zephyr]

40. I doubt it. Bill Clinton whipped them twice. Hillary whipped them twice.

Bill Clinton took out an incumbent Republican president in 1992 and beat another GOP war hero in 1996.

Hillary, moved to New York, and waxed the floor with GOP's star, Rick Lazlo in 2000. She then went on to win a landslide in 2006 in a state that GOP's expert, Dick Morris, swore would never, never elect her.

I doubt that she's the GOP's favorite Democrat.

The honor of being "the Republican's favorite Democrat" squarely belongs to Joe Lieberman.

[KoKo]

48. Partridge has some interesting points in his post though....

when you have time to read it. :hi:

[wyldwolf]

49. post 43

[mitchtv]

42. Still undecided, but for Gore

I won't trash Hillary, as I might end up voting for the nominee, who she just might well be.Right now I waver between Gravel, edwards, and Kucinich.

[wyldwolf]

43. Sloppy research, fabrications, and truthiness.

Officials at Rupert Murdoch's News Corporation have contributed to Hillary Clinton's campaign

And they have to Obama's campaign and Chris Dodd's campaign. In 2004, News Corp gave generously to Howard Dean's campaign.

...and Murdoch himself has held fund-raisers in her behalf.

Yes, for her New York Senate campaign. News Corp. is based in New York. She is the Senator of most News Corp. employees. The piece in the OP is deceptive - trying to make it seem as though News Corp had a presidential fundraiser. Further, his son, James Murdoch has contributed to Democrats including Al Gore and Chuck Schumer.

Lawyers at Kenneth Starr's law firm, Kirkland and Ellis, have donated more to Clinton than they have to all of the Republican candidates combined.

William Singer of Kirkland and Ellis have donate thousands to Democrats and Democratic organizations. Other than Clinton, I'll throw some names at you: Biden, McCaskill, Lautenberg, Gillibrand, Duckworth, Ford, Jr., Durbin, Casey, Byrd, Bingaman, Kennedy, Stabenow, Conrad, Carper, Cantwell, the DSCC and the DCCC.

http://www.campaignmoney.com/political/contributions/william-singer.asp?cycle=06

In addition, Bloomberg.com reports that "Large US (law) firms ... are giving thousands more to Democratic hopefuls than Republicans. Top Wall Street investment banks and hedge funds are also giving more to Democrats."

Edwards leads in contributions from law firms. Obama leads in contributions from Wall Street.

Hillary Clinton's appearance last week at the Yearly Kos, was cut short by her appearance at a fund-raiser at the estate of billionaire, Ron Perlman.

Actually, it's Ronald Perelman, and he has given considerably more to Democrats than Republicans. Other than $1,000 to a Republican house race and $15,000 to the RNC, he has contributed approx. $50,000 to Democrats. It's hard to make the case he's a Republican based on his donations.

So the whole "Clinton is the Republican's favorite" based on donations has been pretty much shot to hell.

How about the other stuff?

* Most significantly, among the general voting population Hillary Clinton has the highest disapproval ratings of all the Democratic candidates - in fact, according to a June Mason-Dixon poll, she is the only candidate of either party of whom a majority (52%) have said that they would not consider voting. In addition, 42% reported an unfavorable opinion of Clinton, compared to 39% favorable; the only candidate with a net negative rating. These are devastating statistics which are unlikely to change significantly, since the public is by now well acquainted with Clinton. One would assume that such statistics would disqualify a candidate. However, the establishment Democrats who support Hillary are unperturbed.

In the most recent polls, her disapproval ratings have declined while Obama's have risen. The Mason Dixon poll was an outlier. NO OTHER POLL has shown what it did - before or since. Further, other polls released the same week showed Clinton leading the GOP frontrunners in head to head match-ups.

* Next, "the woman thing." Though the mainstream media has scrupulously avoided the topic, the fact that Clinton is the first woman in US history likely to be the presidential nominee of a major party must be a serious obstacle to her election. This is regrettable, and I sincerely wish that it were not so. But there it is, and the Democratic party will ignore this reality at its peril. And if Clinton selects Barack Hussein Obama as her running-mate, with the first black candidate on a national ticket the "blue" populist resurgence in the South will be stopped in its tracks and the Democrats will lose every electoral vote in the South. Jim Crow, while muted, still lives. Also regrettable, but true.

Replace "the woman thing" with "the black thing."

* If Clinton were to be elected and serve two full terms, at the end of her administration in 2016, two families would then have occupied the White House for twenty-eight years. Many Americans are extremely put-off by the very idea of dynasties and royal families. I know that I am. Millions of voters, I suspect, would go to the polls in November, 2008 with this thought foremost on their minds: "this dynasty business must end, and end now."

Again, a recent poll disputes this and there is no evidence to support the above contention.

And to be completely honest, not much more you've written is grounded in reality. Winning votes in general elections ARE found in the political center. Sorry. It's a fact. We won in 2006 because independents came back towards our side, we won in '92 because Clinton appealed to independents, and we've lost everything in between based partially on independent swing voters cringing at the thought of Democrats.

Clinton is the ONLY candidate uniquely suited to battle the rightwing smear machine. Obama? Get real. He'll run his general like his primary and stand like a deer in the headlights when the GOP starts slicing him up.

Sorry. Your entire piece is filled with fabrications and leftwing truthiness.

[cd3dem]

57. some people have enough money to give to both parties

I have heard of a lot of people who give to both sides... if they have the money it is not a big deal to them... they do so because they want a good campaign...

[DemBones DemBones]

45. Of course, the GOP has been salivating about running against her for years.

They know a lot of people, including Democrats, will vote against her or not vote, no matter who the GOP nominee is.

[wyldwolf]

47. any stats to back that up?

[KoKo]

50. Look at what happened to Clinton the minute he got into Office...Have you read

"Hunting of the President" by Joe Conason and Gene Lyons?

Before Monica the RW was on the attack against Bill. Do you think that Hillary somehow made peace with them? And, Bill signed Nafta and Bombed Iraq and did all kinds of stuff that the GOP should have LOVED him for...but look at what they threw at him. Remember..some still think that Hillary "did in Vince Foster" who was their personal friend and lawyer. All this stuff dredged up again?

Who knows what's going on with all that in her psyche. :shrug:

[wyldwolf]

59. no, there are NO stats to back up what was claimed... let me remind you of it

"They know a lot of people, including Democrats, will vote against her or not vote, no matter who the GOP nominee is."

NO evidence Clinton is unique among Democrats in this respect. ZERO. NADA.

[DemBones DemBones]

58. Yes, there are stats, just Google "Hillary Clinton negatives." nt

[wyldwolf]

60. No, there are NO stats to beck up what you claimed... here, I'll remind you of what you said:

"They know a lot of people, including Democrats, will vote against her or not vote, no matter who the GOP nominee is."

NO evidence Clinton is unique among Democrats in this respect. ZERO. NADA.

[eggman67]

46. Hilary = Mondale II (n/t)

[MADem]

75. That's actually a recommendation. Mondale was so honest, he was incapable of lying.

Why he lost?

Well, the old "I'm not gonna bullshit you, I WILL raise your taxes" might have had something to do with it....

[eggman67]

78. Well I kinda meant the results

not the character.

[flyarm]

52. all my repub friends say they would gladly vote for Gore..and they hate Hillary..for

no other reason than hate..:shrug: :shrug:

these are no neo cons..just basic rethugs..but they despise Hillary..and can't tell you why..

none of my dem friends want Hillary..none

and i belong to 6 dems clubs and run a nation wide internet group and no one wants Hillary..because they do not believe she can win..and they know how dangerous it is for us to lose!

I have not come across anyone that is supporting Hillary..and i am an elected delegate for one of the two states i live in.
But in Neither state do i see anyone wanting hillary and i am very involved with dems in both states.

maybe i am not seeing what others are but i am getting feedback that ..isn't against hillary but no one is for her.

I have no one i am supporting yet..so i have no horses in the race..i never pick a candidate this early ..never..

..but i see it more like the media is shoving her down our throat and that i despise.

I had last weekend a dear friend who is a rethug ..said he went to a fund raiser for Guiliani..and i rolled my eyes and said whyyyyyyy...and he then said ..well ..i will jump if Al Gore gets into the race..he said he has never supported a Dem but he would jump on board with Gore in a heart beat...this is a very wealthy business man in NY..but he said with this current field he does not support any of them.

just my 2 cents...

fly

[dugggy]

82. These are the same people who said HRC could not win in NY senate race

[bvar22]

53. If the Democrats nominate

a conservative Pro-War candidate (Hillary), a strong 3rd Party Populist run is inevitable. Hillary has such HIGH negatives inside the Democratic Party that a 3rd Party will slice off a good percentage of Liberal votes from the Democrats. This will practically guarantee a Republican win.
This WILL happen if Hillary is the nominee.

None of the Polls about Hillary's lead are valid.
None of these polls consider the impact of a Populist 3rd Party.

[whirlygigspin]

54. will Hillary save the republican party?

yup, Hillary is what the republicans are hoping and praying for, sad but true.

[ShortnFiery]

55. Let's hope not.

Hope springs eternal. :hi:

[cd3dem]

56. and the dems are hoping Jeb steps up to the plate

in 2008

[Perry Logan]

62. Republics get down on their gnarly little knees every night, praying Hillary doesn't get nominated.

Don't forget your winger psychology: if they say they want Hillary, you can bet your life they don't want Hillary.

[Dragonbreathp9d]

63. I think she is one of the most beatable, just cause of her name

repugs hate her, I mean REALLY hate her. they'll turn out more if she is the nominee just to vote against her - but thats just my two cents

[beastieboy]

64. OK, why is this essay worth the electrons it's printed on?

Why don;t I write a bullshit essay and post it on DU like it's from a real source. pathetic.

[Lil Missy]

65. No, they'd rather the nomination go to someone they can beat.

[New Earth]

66. I believe it

100%

[elizm]

68. Absolutely. No question. n/t

[wyldwolf]

69. 18 recs for a Rush Limbaugh-type piece. Ditto Ditto!

[MADem]

71. Interesting, that. NT

[bvar22]

76. Thanks. I forgot to recommend!

All better now.
:patriot:

[Hawkowl]

72. Hillary would be robbed

This is the reason I think she is THE favorite dem candidate of the uber wealthy rethuglican elite. The election would be within stealing by the rethuglican vote suppression machine. In 2004 I believe the exit polls differed by the actual counted votes by 7-10%. So Bush managed to steal about 10% of the vote in critical states such as Ohio, Florida, and Missouri. Hillary is so hated be the right, and has such high negatives even amongst her own party members, that she would most certainly fall in the 50-56% range of popular vote. Not to mention that sexism is indeed alive in this country and bigots will wake up from their stupor and roll off their couches to vote against a woman.

I believe that that is what the rethuglicans, headed by Rove and assisted by the criminal Gonzales are planning for. They figure with the massive caging headed up by their political hack U.S. attorneys, coupled with Diabolical voting machines, that the theft will be in the bag.

Now I prefer other dem candidates at the moment. But whoever is the nominee, we most all close ranks and do whatever it takes to mount the most massive voter turnout this country has EVER seen or we are all doomed. And I do mean doomed in every sense of the word.

[RBInMaine]

83. The R's WANT her to be nominated, BUT they better be careful.

Right now the R's do want Hillary to be the nominee because they think that she will energize their base and that she offers the best chance for them to win in '08. BUT, and many R's will quietly admit this, they need to tread carefully. Right now I'm with Edwards as he seems less risky in the general election, but I also like Hillary and her favorables are improving across the board as are her head-to-heads with the top R's. (She ties or beats all of them right now.) Hillary's train will be very hard to stop if she wins two of the first three primaries. She obviously has huge name recognition as well as a juggernaut of a money and political organizational machine. She is running a solid campaign now, has done well in the debates, and, of course, has Bill on her side. (He's one of the best campaigners in history!) Her challenges are ones of personality, history/"baggage," and gender. They are big challenges, but in this change election environment they are by no means insurmountable. Should she be nominated, her main goals must be to keep the party base highly energized and excited about her, and to convince a solid majority of Independents that they can feel comfortable with her, especially Independent men a majority of whom are by no means with her now. If with her admittedly crackerjack campaign team she is able to this, she will can and most likely would win the general election. She is certainly a tough fighter. But make no mistake, the R's will make the Willy Horton and Swift Boat ads look like a tiptoe through the tulips with her as their opponent. She needs not only to fight back, but will need to fight FORWARD. But, she must also be careful and not look like the "wicked witch/bitch" that the R's will make her out to be and which is already the kind of persona that can turn people off to her. She will have to run a TOUGH but VERY smart campaign. Hillary went into New York and kicked ass, and the R's know it. Don't count her out by any means, but we also MUST NOT ANNOINT HER. She is indeed RISKY in the general election, and this next one is one that we can not afford to lose! It is a long time to the primary elections. We better all be VERY careful in whom we nominate. Right now I think Edwards does the best in the general election, but YES, we must accept the final primary results and rally VERY STRONGLY around whomever the D candidate is and do both the most massive GOTV campaign and PERSUASION campaign this nation has EVER seen NO MATTER who is nominated. WE NEED TO DRIVE A STAKE INTO THE HEART OF THE REPUBLICAN PRESIDENTIAL AND CONGRESSIONAL CAMPAIGNS TO INCREASE OUR CONGRESSIONAL MAJORITIES AS WELL AS
RE-CAPTURE THE PRESIDENCY SO THAT WE CAN REALLY CHANGE THIS COUNTRY!!!!!!!

[obnoxiousdrunk]

73. Bullshit Alert !!

[sofa king]

77. Of course it's true.

The right-wing slime machine has invested fifteen years of slander and innuendo in Hillary Clinton, to the point where a significant proportion of this country can't tell you a single one of her political positions accurately, but still hates her and will be motivated to go to the polls simply to vote against her.

And don't underestimate the power of the GOP to pick their opponent, with a now unlimited supply of cash lifted out of the federal government's coffers and the ability to listen in on every electronic communication made by the Democrats.

I personally am more interested in other Democratic candidates right now, but a small part of me desperately wants to see Hillary win and return America to peace and prosperity, just so I can laugh in the face of every Hillary-hater I know. That will be years' worth of face-laughing.

[AnnieBW]

79. They want her to win

so that they can unleash all of the rehashed crap from the '90s at her. I didn't see Bill Richardson, Barack Obama, or John Edwards "voodoo dolls" on sale at Books-A-Million the other day. I saw HRC voodoo dolls along with the * ones. They still have this irrational hatred of "Hitlery" left over. The RW-nuts would rather obsess about Vince Foster's death than think about the 3000+ American soldiers who have died in Iraq.

Believe me, as a feminist graduate of an all-women's college, I'm ecstatic that a woman is a front-runner in the Presidential race. I'm just not happy that it's HRC. I think that she's a very good Senator and would make a good President. But I'm pulling for Richardson or Obama (unless Gore gets in) because I'm tired of dynasties, and don't want to hear regurgitated Bill/Hillary jokes for 8 more years.

[Like It Is]

80. The Republicans want Hillary as their opponent.

Their second choice is Obama. Why do you think they gave them all that money?

[surfermaw]

85. Winning post, money going to both front runners

Republicans want to make sure it is not Edwards they have to face, that is my thoughts,

[Rowdyboy]

81. Many conservative white southern men are TERRIFIED of her which makes me more likely

to give her serious consideration. Anyone my bigoted brethren loathe must have something to offer me.