Is Hillary too polarizing?

[XemaSab]

:shrug:

And if she's polarizing, will it matter? Will it cost us the election? (Assuming she's the nominee)

[TwilightZone]

1. Aren't most politicians polarizing?

Isn't that the basis of our current political system?

The politicians who are polarizing most certainly outnumber those who are not.

[William769]

2. Nope.

[Atman]

3. She's too POLL-arising.

How many times have we done this same poll?

.

[XemaSab]

4. Fine.

:eyes:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=105x6968911#6969174

[Atman]

12. WTF?

I'm not a Lounge denizen, sorry. You're attempt at humor, or whatever that was, was lost on me.

My point is simply that we get at least one "Hillary is too polarizing" thread a week. I've posted a couple, too, but not in a long, long time. I think the question is a silly exercise. OF COURSE she's polarizing, as you'll find by the fact that lots of people will vote NO and lots will vote YES. What is the point? You don't offer a solution, you're only setting up a forum for flaming and, ironically, more polarization.

Personally, Hillary Clinton is way down on my list for president, but I will back her if it comes to that. Which it will...another thing I've posted about umpteen times. It's all a fucking sham. Our candidate will be chosen for us, and we have precious little to do with the process (unless, of course, you have an extra hundred thou in your checking account and are prepared to mail it to her).

.

[Steve_in_California]

5. America is maturing in its political attitudes.

Hillary is far too polarizing and has too much baggage to win the general election. Close elections may be exciting, but they don't make for the best of circumstances after the smoke clears.

[Fearless]

10. America and maturing political attitudes... hahaha

:rofl: :wtf:

[AtomicKitten]

6. Let's do the math on "polarizing."

1) The GOP is salivating at another shot at a Clinton. Check.
2) A growing body in the Democratic Party actively opposes her candidacy. Check.

[wyldwolf]

14. Let's do the math on your math on "polarizing."

1) The GOP is salivating at another shot at a Clinton.

Math is a science of absolutes. There is no evidence to prove your statement above so it hardly qualifies as "math."

2) A growing body in the Democratic Party actively opposes her candidacy.

Wrong. Her poll numbers increase weekly and her positives are rising. Evidence indicates the opposite of what you just stated.

[AtomicKitten]

15. my analysis is correct

[wyldwolf]

17. sure it is. In your mind.

[AtomicKitten]

19. Truth is tough to digest sometimes, eh?

The worst part is I really believe she could lose.

[wyldwolf]

21. truth requires substantial evidence beyond your imagination.

[AtomicKitten]

23. One merely has to open their eyes and ears.

[wyldwolf]

25. ..to what? The ramblings of clueless "progressives?"

[AtomicKitten]

28. Name-calling, although amusingly inaccurate, doesn't augment your case.

And certainly doesn't dispel these truisms:

1) The GOP is salivating at another shot at a Clinton. Check.
2) A growing body in the Democratic Party actively opposes her candidacy. Check.

[wyldwolf]

30. mis-representing me doesn't augment yours... Let's review

1) The GOP is salivating at another shot at a Clinton.

Math is a science of absolutes. There is no evidence to prove your statement above so it hardly qualifies as "math."

2) A growing body in the Democratic Party actively opposes her candidacy.

Wrong. Her poll numbers increase weekly and her positives are rising. Evidence indicates the opposite of what you just stated.

[AtomicKitten]

32. having trouble dealing?

1) "Let's do the math" is a euphemism. 'kay? No exact science is required to know that the GOP has minions who will respond in Pavlovian fashion to the already-in-stock assault on deck for your candidate. And while it is true the GOP will be ugly to any one of the candidates, the GOP has a special level of ugly for the Clintons. That's a fact and has been a fact for the past two decades. Your denial of that in particular is ludicrous.

2) A growing number of those on the left side aisle ARE actively opposing her candidacy. I see letters like the following in my paper every single day. Turn a blind eye to it if you like, but be sure to assign to yourself some of the unsavory epithets you carelessly lob for the level of lame required to turn a blind eye to it.

Hillary's folly.

Editor - I read in The Chronicle "Black state lawmakers split on Obama" (Sept. 19). As an independent voter, why do I care about this? Well, the Democratic Party will allow me as an independent to vote in their primary next February. As of today I will vote for Sen. Barack Obama or Bill Richardson, because in my opinion, Sen. Hillary Clinton is the best chance the Democrats have to lose the 2008 presidential general election.

If she is their nominee, hatred of her will motivate Republican conservatives to vote and work to elect the Republican candidate, whoever he is.

At the same time, Clinton is the most likely to drive a third party candidate from her left to enter the race. The growing number of independent voters includes disaffected Republicans and they, too, would be more inclined to vote Republican if Clinton is the Democratic candidate.

Even though I strongly feel that the U.S. will be best served if a Democrat, not a Republican, is elected President in 2008, I will vote for a third-party candidate, even if it means the Republican candidate is elected. I won't be alone in doing so.

JIM DICARLO San Francisco
Hillary's folly
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/09/23/EDAOS8IAS.DTL&hw=9%2F23%2F07+letter+to+editor&sn=003&sc=234

[wyldwolf]

34. having trouble with reality?

1) The GOP is salivating at another shot at a Clinton.

Math is a science of absolutes. There is no evidence to prove your statement above so it hardly qualifies as "math."

2) A growing body in the Democratic Party actively opposes her candidacy.

Wrong. Her poll numbers increase weekly and her positives are rising. Evidence indicates the opposite of what you just stated.

[AtomicKitten]

36. best of luck on your denial of some hard, cold HRC facts

Underplaying and flat-out denial of problems plaguing an HRC candidacy is the epitome of lame, but knock yourself out.

"If we don't believe in freedom of expression for people we despise, we don't believe in it at all."

* Noam Chomsky

[wyldwolf]

38. yes, "cold hard facts" definitely has a different definition on DU than it does in reality

[AtomicKitten]

40. denial of problems plaguing an HRC candidacy is NOT reality

And your attempts to shut off debate punctuated with name-calling is worse.

[wyldwolf]

42. inventing "math" is a denial of it, though, as you've clearly done.

[AtomicKitten]

44. you are clearly spinning your wheels now

[wyldwolf]

46. you clearly don't know the difference between fantasy and reality

[William769]

16. Her math has always been fuzzy, but then again when your blinded by hatred

I'm surprised, it's just fuzzy.

[wyldwolf]

18. not always. She used to be quite rational.

[AtomicKitten]

22. If supporting Hillary is rational --

I gladly accept whatever nasty epithet you toss up as subterfuge because I understand it's difficult for you to comprehend the fact that Hillary simply isn't the best candidate.

[wyldwolf]

26. no, see, rational is understanding that statements require "facts" to be considered true.

You have clearly forgotten that.

[AtomicKitten]

27. try a sip of water digesting the truth -- it might go down better

1) The GOP is salivating at another shot at a Clinton. Check.
2) A growing body in the Democratic Party actively opposes her candidacy. Check.

[wyldwolf]

31. Thank you. The water was good. So here's your truth...

1) The GOP is salivating at another shot at a Clinton.

Math is a science of absolutes. There is no evidence to prove your statement above so it hardly qualifies as "math."

2) A growing body in the Democratic Party actively opposes her candidacy.

Wrong. Her poll numbers increase weekly and her positives are rising. Evidence indicates the opposite of what you just stated.

[AtomicKitten]

33. See #32 for an easier-to-understand truth (for you strident types)

You're welcome.

[wyldwolf]

35. see #34 for a step by step introduction to reality

[AtomicKitten]

37. Consider my putting you straight on this tough love.

You're welcome.

[wyldwolf]

39. Factually challenged tough love. No thanks.

[AtomicKitten]

41. Your analysis is flawed because you are in denial.

And punctuating it with strident name-calling doesn't make your point. I know it's tough for you to acknowledge some problems with an HRC candidacy, but that's your problem. This is an open forum for discussion, not an HRC campaign headquarters.

[wyldwolf]

43. with no evidence to support your claims, denial better describes you

[AtomicKitten]

45. and you are spinning your wheels ...

[wyldwolf]

47. ...and you've fallen down the rabbit hole.

[AtomicKitten]

20. I don't now nor ever have harbored hatred for Hillary.

In fact, the irony of your misguided statement is that I used to get my ass kicked for about the past two years for defending her.

[redqueen]

24. If anyone doesn't prefer Hillary, it is assumed to be only due to "blind hate"

I don't know how or why that meme got started... but I do have my suspicions. ;)

[AtomicKitten]

29. It's just another red herring in the primary wars.

I guess some folks can't accept the idea that others don't support their candidate of choice for solid reasons.

[still_one]

49. The ONLY reason I will vote straight Democratic in 2008 is the Supreme Court

After 2008, unless the Democratic party is cleaned from the inside out, I will be going third party, and I don't mean Nader

[still_one]

7. I am not voting on this, but the results speak volumes

[shaniqua6392]

8. I have a feeling she will be the nominee

and then she will win the White House.

[ronnykmarshall]

11. How DARE you!

How DARE you speak something so, so, POSITIVE about the evil hell-cat HILLARY!!!

:sarcasm:

[shaniqua6392]

13. LOL! I guess I am ready for the Dems to take over this mess and

have the power to effect change. Sen. Clinton is most likely the one. I don't really care which Dem it is. I hope for an overwhelming majority in the House and Senate too. I am ready to kick some ass starting in January 2009!! I am going to back whoever is willing to kick that ass. The Dems are going to save the day. I am just positive about that. The disasters of George W. Bush will just be a bad memory soon. The history books will not be kind to him. Dems will increase their power because things will only get better for all Americans and they will see what a mistake was made by electing Bushitler. America always pulls itself out of tribulation. I just have faith in my country.

[gateley]

9. Your current poll results are 50/50. Interesting. nt

[dtotire]

48. We Could Lose The Election

Check the state-by-state polls from Survey USA. Giuliani outpolls her in several states that could be battleground. She is only slightly ahead in other states that should be safe. We would do better with someone else.