Hey Hillary lovers!!

[againes654]

Other than, "she is the most electable", and "she is leading in the polls" why should I vote for her? I never see compelling reasons to vote for her, just the two mentioned above. I want real reasons. How is she going to help this country move forward?

[cgrindley]

1. I guess you shouldn't, just vote for Edwards or Kucinich (nt)

[Cha]

90. Because, hillary won't move the

country forward?

[Jackpine Radical]

2. Uh, she'll provide continuity with the Bush Admin policies. No radical or upsetting

changes of course--but she'll do it better. She won't threaten the health of the economy by annoying the health insurance industry. Ummm, she has a charming laugh.

[againes654]

4. Charming laugh

:rofl:

[bahrbearian]

13. She is still developing that laugh for Halloween

[aquart]

34. Petty. Pathetically petty.

Not one positive word about YOUR anonymous candidate. Only personal slurs. How...Republican.

[bahrbearian]

40. Bwaahahaha, your funny, "only personal slurs. How, republican"

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[Evergreen Emerald]

15. I wonder why people continue to say these things that are obvious lies?

[againes654]

17. So that is your best argument?

You can't give me any good reasons?

[Evergreen Emerald]

19. in kind my dear

[againes654]

26. So you have no valid argument for Hillary?

Can you prove that those are "lies"?

[Lerkfish]

27. again, you see the pattern

attack the questioner, avoid discussion of the content of the question.

[Evergreen Emerald]

28. actually, you misunderstood. I was not responding to the poster who

asked the question. As you can see by my post, I was responding to Jack Pine Radical who without any proof, or back up, or any justification for his argument, indicating that Clinton is
Just-Like-Bush.

I am so tired of the vitriol on this website against Clinton. She is a Senator who has spent her life serving the public. Her views, and her goals are commendable, not condemnable.

[againes654]

30. but yet you provide no

proof as to why she isn't bush-like. Just because she has "spent her life serving the public"? Sounds familar..."can't call Petrayus, Betray Us because of his years of service to the millitary".

[Evergreen Emerald]

44. why should I? What proof has he provided that she is Just-Like-Bush?

[againes654]

47. Well you called him a liar

so I would think that you would love to prove that, but alas, you can't.

[Evergreen Emerald]

48. umm? who did I call a liar?

[Lerkfish]

31. no, I understood perfectly. see my post #21

you're following a predictable pattern.

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

76. self delete.

MKJ

[Windy]

50. On foreign policy matters, she clearly is...

On domestic issues, less so.

Domestically, I don't have an issue with her. On foreign policy matters and dealing with the Iraq war and the greater middle east, I don't think she has learned a damn thing. She is too worried about appeasing the republicans. She won't admit that IWR was a mistake AND voted for Lieberman/Kyl.

she has an aversion to talking to Iran, Syria, et al. Not good for this country.

I challenge each of you that support Hillary to travel abroad and find out what the citizens of other countries feel about the foreign policy of the US over the last several years. I've been to France, England, Ireland and Italy since this fiasco started. The general consensus is that our failure to use dipolmatic measures and negotiate which had been the US's strong suit in the past and what gained the respect of other nations is absent. We are perceived as war mongers. If the US can't change that view, we will not get any help from other countries in resolving the world mess that bush has created. Hillary's brand of foreign policy is not the answer which again, seems to deviate from strong diplomatic action, is not that answer!

[againes654]

33. Yes I do

what is so ironic especially in this case is that is SO bush like.

[Evergreen Emerald]

43. go ahead. Continue your vitrolic attack

I am a liberal--not "bush like." I was responding IN KIND.

[Lerkfish]

51. well, but can you get PAST that and talk about this issue of her stand on Iran and Iraq

and how they differ, if they do, from current adminisration positions?

[Windy]

49. They and frankly their candidate act in lock step with those they allegedly oppose

Avoid, obfuscate... never really answer the question... the lemmings will follow and make the excuses for them...

Worked for the Bush campaign so why not?

[liberalnurse]

78. Here is an excellent outline for you....

Compliments of a great DU member:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=334&topic_id=249

Education

Wellesley College where she majored in political science.
Yale Law School, where she served on the Board of Editors of the Yale Review of Law and Social Action.

Political Activist Experience

Pragmatic Liberal

Always fascinated by radicalism, she wrote her senior thesis on a great radical organizer of poor people, Saul Alinsky of Chicago. Though when she was offered a job by Alinsky, after she wrote about him, and she turned him down--because she didn't think he was effective enough. She said to her boyfriend at that timebe in politics you have to win. And it didn't look to her like Alinsky was winning enough of his battles. She came to question his methodology and concluded in her thesis that larger government programs and funding were needed, not just community action at the grass roots.

She was the commencement speaker at Wellesley in 1969, chosen by her fellow students--there had never been a student commencement speaker there before. The scheduled speaker was Sen. Edward Brooke of Massachusetts, who Hillary had campaigned for, a Republican, the first black to be a member of the U.S. Senate in a hundred years. In his remarks he was patronizing, Hillary thought. He seemed to defend the Nixon administration's conduct of the war, and didn't mention the wrenching events of 68. When he finished, Hillary got up and extemporaneously excoriated him. As a result of that speech, she was featured in Life magazine as exemplary of this new generation of student leaders. They ran a picture of her in pedal pushers and her Coke-bottle glasses. That article made her well known in the student movement in the U.S.

She monitored the Black Panther trial in New Haven. She monitored the trial to see if there were any abuses of the rights of the Panthers on trial, and helped schedule the monitors. Her reports were turned over to the ACLU.

1971 Senator Walter Mondale's subcommittee on migrant workers, researching migrant problems in housing, sanitation, health and education.

Political Campaign Experience

1964 In high school, volunteered for Republican candidate Barry Goldwater.
1968 New Hampshire, Eugene McCarthy primary challenge to LBJ.
1972 Campaigned in the western states for 1972 Democratic presidential candidate George McGovern
1976 Jimmy Carter Presidential race, served as an Indiana campaign coordinator.

The Clinton Campaigns (Bill Clinton has stated Hillary played pivotal roles in his campaigns)

1974 Bill Clinton's Congressional race (L)
1976 Bill Clinton's Attorney General race (W)
1978 Bill Clinton's Governor's Race (W)
1980 Bill Clinton's Governor's Race (L)
1982 Bill Clinton's Governor's Race (W)
1992 Bill Clinton's Presidential Race (W)
1996 Bill Clinton's Presidential Race (W)
2000 Hillary Clinton's Senate Campaign (W)
2006 Hillary Clinton's Senate Campaign (W)

Legal Experience

1969 Truehaft, Walker and Bernstein in Oakland, one of the most liberal law firms in the country. They defended the Panthers.
1970 Yale University - city legal services, provided free legal advice for the poor.
1971 Staff attorney, Children's Defense Fund in Cambridge, Massachusetts
1971 Carnegie Council on Children, legal consultant.
1974 Impeachment Inquiry staff in Washington, D.C., advising the House Committee on the Judiciary during the Watergate scandal.
1974 University of Arkansas, Fayetteville School of Law - One of only two female faculty members.
1976 Rose Law Firm. In 1979, she became the first woman to be made a full partner.
1976 Worked pro bono on child advocacy.
1978 Jimmy Carter appoints Clinton to the board of the Legal Services Corporation.

She was twice named by the National Law Journal as one of the 100 most influential lawyers in America, in 1988 and in 1991.

First Lady of Arkansas

1979 Chaired the Rural Health Advisory Committee
1979 Introduced the Arkansas' Home Instruction Program for Preschool Youth, a program that helps parents work with their children in preschool preparedness and literacy.
1982 - 1992 Chaired the Arkansas Educational Standards Committee

She was named Arkansas Woman of the Year in 1983 and Arkansas Mother of the Year in 1984.

Clinton had co-founded the Arkansas Advocates for Children and Families in 1977.

Served on the boards of the Arkansas Children's Hospital Legal Services (1988-1992)and the Children's Defense Fund (as chair, 1986-1992)

Corporate board of directors of TCBY (1985-1992),Wal-Mart Stores (1986-1992), and Lafarge (1990-1992)

First Lady of the United States of America


"She's very smart ... people rightly give her credit for having been a participant in the Clinton administration and for doing some heavy lifting on issues." Barack Obama, speaking of Hillary Clinton's White House experience and contradicting Obama supporters - The Daily Show with Jon Stewart 8/22/07


When asked about his wife's role in his administration in August of 2000, President Bill Clinton said "She basically had an unprecedented level of activity in her present position over the last eight years.''

1993 First to bring a serious universal healthcare plan to be considered by the US Congress
1997 Helped develope the Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997

The First Lady led the effor on the Foster Care Independence bill, to help older, unadopted children transition to adulthood. She also hosted numerous White House conferences that related to children's health, including early childhood development (1997) and school violence (1999). She lent her support to programs ranging from "Prescription for Reading," in which pediatricians provided free books for new mothers to read to their infants as their brains were rapidly developing, to nationwide immunization against childhood illnesses. She also supported an annual drive to encourage older women to seek a mammography to prevent breast cancer, coverage of the cost being provided by Medicare.

Hillary Clinton was the only First Lady to keep an office in the West Wing among those of the president's senior staff. While her familiarity with the intricate political issues and decisions faced by the President, she openly discussed his work with him, yet stated that ultimately she was but one of several individuals he consulted before making a decision. They were known to disagree. Regarding his 1993 passage of welfare reform, the First Lady had reservations about federally supported childcare and Medicaid. When issues that she was working on were under discussion at the morning senior staff meetings, the First Lady often attended. Aides kept her informed of all pending legislation and oftentimes sought her reaction to issues as a way of gauging the President's potential response. Weighing in on his Cabinet appointments and knowing many of the individuals he named, she had working relationships with many of them.

She persuaded Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin to convene a meeting of corporate CEOs for their advice on how companies could be persuaded to adopt better child care measures for working families.

With Attorney General Janet Reno, the First Lady helped to create the Department of Justice's Violence Against Women office. One of her closest Cabinet allies was Secretary of State Madeleine Albright. Following her international trips, Hillary Clinton wrote a report of her observations for Albright. A primary effort they shared was globally advocating gender equity in economics, employment, health care and education.

During her trips to Africa (1997), Asia (1995), South America (1995, 1997) and the Central European former Soviet satellite nations (1997, 1998), Hillary Clinton emphasized "a civil society," of human rights as a road to democracy and capitalism.

The First Lady was also one of the few international figures at the time who spoke out against the treatment of Afghani women by Islamist fundamentalist Taliban that had seized control of Afghanistan.

One of the programs she helped create was Vital Voices, a U.S.-sponsored initiative to promote the participation of international women in their nation's political process. One result of the group's meetings, in Northern Ireland, was drawing together women leaders of various political factions that supported the Good Friday peace agreement that brought peace to that nation long at civil war.

Hillary Clinton was also an active supporter of the United States Agency for International Development (USAID), often awarding its micro-loans to small enterprises begun by women in developing nations that aided the economic growth in their impoverished communities. Certainly one of her more important speeches as First Lady addressing the need for equal rights for women was international in scope and created controversy in the nation where it was made: the September 1995 United Nations Fourth World Conference on Women in Beijing, China.

Senator From New York

After the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, Hillary worked with her colleagues to secure the funds New York needed to recover and rebuild. She fought to provide compensation to the families of the victims, grants for hard-hit small businesses, and health care for front line workers at Ground Zero.

She is the first New Yorker ever to serve on the Senate Armed Services Committee.

She has introduced legislation to tie Congressional salary increases to an increase in the minimum wage.

She helped pass legislation that encouraged investment to create jobs in struggling communities through the Renewal Communities program.

She has championed legislation to bring broadband Internet access to rural America.

She worked to strengthen the Children's Health Insurance Program, which increased coverage for children in low income and working families.

She authored legislation that has been enacted to improve quality and lower the cost of prescription drugs and to protect our food supply from bioterrorism.

She sponsored legislation to increase America's commitment to fighting the global HIV/AIDS crisis.

She's working for expanded use of information technology in the health care system to decrease administrative costs, lower premiums, and reduce medical errors.

She's worked to ensure the safety of prescription drugs for children, with legislation now included in the Best Pharmaceuticals for Children Act, and her legislation to help schools address environmental hazards. She has also proposed expanding access to child care.

She has passed legislation that will bring more qualified teachers into classrooms and more outstanding principals to lead our schools.

Hillary is one of the original cosponsors of the Prevention First Act to increase access to family planning. Her fight with the Bush Administration ensured that Plan B, an emergency contraceptive, will be available to millions of American women and will reduce the need for abortions.

She introduced the Count Every Vote Act of 2005 to ensure better protection of votes and to ensure that every vote is counted.

Senate Armed Services Committee

Subcommittees:

* Airland
* Emerging Threats and Capabilities
* Readiness and Management Support

Senate Committee on Environment & Public Works

Subcommittees:

* Subcommittee on Superfund and Environmental Health (Chair)
* Subcommittee Clean Air and Nuclear Safety
* Subcommittee on Transportation and Infrastructure

Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor & Pensions

Subcommittees:

* Children and Families
* Employment & Workplace Safety




Sources:

Wikipedia
Firstladies.org
Alternet
hillaryclinton.com

[Lucinda]

92. But she's just Bill's wife right?

;)

[aquart]

25. Slime is so becoming to the slimer.

[blm]

69. I feel the same way you do.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dk1k0nUWEQg


And find it abhorrent that any Democrat would be slimed by one who calls themself a Democrat. I certainly would not trust that person in the future when they proved how willing they are to lie.

[Lerkfish]

3. honestly, it should boil down to comparing what issues are important to you, and see

which candidate most closely aligns with your principles.

Since I"m against illegal war, the corporate takeover of america, outsourcing our jobs overseas, evaporation of civil liberties, return of Habeas Corpus and the ending of torture and rendition...

Clinton is against me or at least not actively for me on these issues. Since these are the ones that matter to me, unless she becomes suddenly different one morning, I can't support her.

Right now, the most compatible with my principles is Kucinich, but I"m a realist and realize it will probably come down to the top three.
Among that group, the one least egregious against my principles is Edwards, but a lot can still happen.

I reject out of hand the notion that BEFORE the primary I must get behind someone ELSE"S favorite candidate, when they don't fit my principles.

[againes654]

5. Kucinich is my man

and I will do everything I can to help him. Since some people are SO convienced that Hillary is going to get the nomination (I am not convienced of that) I just wanted to hear real reasons to consider voting for her in the GE (if she gets that far). As things stand right now, I won't vote for her no matter what election. I am sick of hearing how electable she is.

[Lerkfish]

10. the problem with "electable" is that it sidesteps any policy discussion and presumes

an unknowable. As an argument, its lame, and intellectually dishonest.
INstead of discussing WHY she votes as she does or what her overall platform is, since they know they can't defend that adequately against progressives, they resort to "she'll be elected because she's electable" that circular justification may work for smaller minds than mine, but I'm more skeptical.

[Name removed]

14. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

21. Deleted message

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

[Adelante]

36. Clinton supporters are not alone in that behavior among supporter groups on DU

It happens several times a day that threads are hijacked in the manner you describe, but some supporters in all of the candidate groups follow that pattern, and to a tee, unfortunately.

[againes654]

39. I would have to disagree with you on that

I can give you several VALID reasons to vote for Kucinich.

[Adelante]

56. Who said you couldn't?

There are supporters in every group, as well, who can and do give valid reasons for their support of their candidate.

So, I don't think we disagree.

[Lerkfish]

53. that would be equally unfortunate

the difference, perhaps, is I don't see a lot of whining "Obama bashers" or "Edwards basher" complaint threads, or at least, not as many.

I"ll keep an eye out, though.

[Danieljay]

38. Don't forget "Hillbots put you on ignore, bury head in sand, and assume everyone supports Hillary...

...because the media says so.

blech.

[aquart]

20. Good. Stay that way.

"Electable" is the worst possible argument. It basically gives away your vote to some hypothetical other who is somehow more important than you or me. Never vote on that basis.

[Lerkfish]

24. no problem, I'm a hardwired skeptic. I'm not their target demographic

they depend on people who don't kick the tires.

[blm]

6. Because she stuck her neck out for Dems and led opposition to Bush the last 6 years.

Didn't you notice?

[Jackpine Radical]

9. Damn. I missed that.

I must have been busy with other things that afternoon.

[Lerkfish]

11. Hmmm. we must have been busy the same afternoon.

[antigop]

12. Did I miss something? n/t

[aquart]

23. So the only woman you'll vote for is Joan of Arc?

Whatever happened to her?

[blm]

46. Nope - but I'm not going to pretend she is a leader for the CITIZENRY on a Dem forum

where there should be no reason or motivation for us to lie to protect those who wouldn't lift a finger to protect the citizenry from BushInc's fascist agenda.


http://consortiumnews.com/2006/111106.html

Of course, every one of us has a choice how we choose to preserve what democracy we can, and I chose to not pretend that fascism can be a good thing as long as they use softer imagery to sell it.

[acmavm]

7. If you enjoy this country being run for the benefit of corporate America,

then by all means vote for Hils.

[MrMickeysMom]

8. ....... Well, I guess it's....

...... cricket............

.......................cricket.............

...............................cricket..................

:shrug:

[Bitwit1234]

16. Isn't if odd only the one candidates supporters post hate and bash

You don't see any of the Hillary supporters bashing Obama, Edwards Kunich gee wonder why. You don't see Edwards or Kunich supportes bashing Hillary. Maybe it is because they have class and the other "candidates" supporters don't....

[aquart]

18. Don't. You don't like her in the primary? DO NOT VOTE FOR HER.

Nobody has to give you arguments. You have a brain. Use it. VOTE YOUR CHOICE. That's what the primary is for. It is NOT about what anybody else thinks. ONLY YOU. That's how you'll find out who's electable. By electing that person to be the Democratic candidate.

However, once the Democratic voters have spoken, you then need to think about the differences between the two parties. About oversight, about justices, about pollution, healthcare, toxic food and toys. And decide whether the Democrat or the Republican will do better at that.

BECAUSE NOT ONE OF OUR CANDIDATES IS THE MESSIAH. If you are not prepared to respect the majority decision of your fellow Democrats, you need to rethink your commitments. I don't love Obama. If he's the candidate, I will vote for him. My family will vote for him. I won't even throw up doing it. I know he's an intelligent man, if, IMHO, green. I'm not expecting a candidate I will never disagree with.

Also, it might help to remember, NOT ONE OF OUR CANDIDATES IS SATAN. It is simply appalling to hear the crap that is being dished up here.

[againes654]

22. I have made up my mind for the primaries

I just wanted to get some REAL reasons to support her in the GE (if she gets the nomination).

I have 2 major issues this election. Healthcare, and the war(s).

I want a president that can fix the health care crisis (to the best of their abilities), not cater to the insurance companies.
I want a president that will end the Iraq war/occupation, and one that will not start another senseless war.

As far as I can tell Hillary is pretty far from me concerning these issues.

[aquart]

32. So far as I know, only Kucinich is for single payer universal healthcare.

Everyone else is offering a hodgepodge of patches that will still make the insurance companies rich.

The Republicans, of course, are offering NOTHING.

So what are you going to do if Kucinich doesn't win? Aside from paying close attention to everyone you send to Congress?

As for the war, none of the real contenders are willing to close their options and they're right. They shouldn't.

But all of this is moot, actually. Global warming is now irreversible. Lloyd's of London finally believes we will be hit with a hurricane so deadly it will destroy insurance companies. And, very likely, our entire social service infrastructure. Which will force us to bring the troops home, finally (ain't that a plus?). Nothing we are planning now has any relevance to our future. AND NO ONE WHO WANTS TO GET ELECTED CAN SAY THAT.

So who do you think is best equipped to keep us sane when the climate hits the fan? Any Republican? Or any Democrat? THAT's your choice.

[againes654]

37. I honestly don't know what to do if Kucinich doesn't get the nomination

Unlike many here, this is the first presidential election where I have actually paid attention to the issues instead of who had a D behind their name. I am still pretty young (29) and don't remember as much history as many here. I have strong moral convictions, and at this point, I am not comfortable voting for a candidate that I feel will continue many of the policies of the bush administration. That being said, I don't want a GOP president either.

A note should be made that I live in Texas, and it is a very red state. My one little vote (or lack there of) won't really make much of a difference one way or the other. I realize that alot of people here like to start flame wars over their respective candidates. It may appear that is what I have done, but I really was looking for valid reasons to vote for her.

As of today, I will vote for Kucinich in the primaries, but if Hillary is the nomination, I really don't know what to do. I am leaning towards not voting at all or writing in Kucinich.

[aquart]

68. What to do if Kucinich doesn't get the nomination?

GET REAL. Behave like an adult instead of a spoiled brat and examine your best options. You do not throw up your hands and crawl under a desk sucking your thumb. This country is in desperate desperate trouble and WE WILL NOT GET EVERYTHING WE WANT. WE MAY NOT GET ANYTHING WE WANT. WHY? Because this is a democracy and majority rules. Sometimes the majority doesn't want what we want. Even if it should. SO WE MAKE THE BEST DEAL WE CAN. This government was set up to work ONLY BY COMPROMISE. Ask the Republicans what they got by being uncompromising.

And you think long and hard about the Supreme Court because you are younger than I am and Roberts is going to be fucking up your life long after I'm dead.

And that red state argument is a pile of pasture pastry. How dare you talk as if your vote doesn't matter. People died to get that vote for you. You bloody well use it.

[avrdream]

85. Hear, hear!

"And you think long and hard about the Supreme Court because you are younger than I am and Roberts is going to be fucking up your life long after I'm dead."

HUGE reason to vote Democrat, regardless of who the nominee is.

We all have different reasons for supporting our candidates. Another poster wrote it much more brilliantly than I can but essentially you support the candidate who you feels supports MOST of your beliefs. Ultimately, you hope that candidate is the nominee.

If my candidate isn't the nominee, I, for one, will definitely get behind the Dem because the make-up of SCOTUS has such a huge effect on the rest of our lives! It's called long-term thinking.

[golddigger]

35. So what are you trying to say?

That you would vote for a repuke, a third party candidate, or just stay home?

Hillary's not my first or second choice, but if she wins the nomination she'll have my full support!

I would rather slit my wrist than see another repuke as president...EOM!

:banghead:

[Lerkfish]

55. oh, right I forgot to add that to my pattern: the strawman of you must be republican to question

Clinton...again, that sidesteps discussion of the issues entirely.

thanks, I"d forgotten about that dodge.

[golddigger]

67. I am not saying you can't....

question a democratic candidate during the primaries. I too have a lot of issues with Hillary.

I apologize if you weren't talking about the G.E.!

But, if you are talking about the General Election I stand by my last reply.

No matter what my issues are with Hillary.:crazy:

[Lerkfish]

71. no, sorry, I misread your post. However, your exact post is being used for the primary

discussions by Clinton supporters, because as we know, her being the nominee is a foregone conclusion....in their minds, anyways.

[Nimrod2005]

29. She is actually the least electable.....nt

[Kelly Rupert]

41. Too bad that none--exactly 0--of the head-to-head polls agree with you.

[againes654]

42. Well that is a valid reason

I know that she is leading in the polls. Do you have any other arguments?

[Kelly Rupert]

45. I'm not voting for HIllary in the primaries.

Pointing out that an argument against her is false is not the same as supporting her.

[cascadiance]

72. Thanks for the very "Bush like" response of continuing to deny reality and have the MSM echo you...

http://blog.lib.umn.edu/oster017/smartpolitics/2007/09/john_edwards_fares_best_in_hea_1.html

[rinsd]

86. The polling you linked to shows her beating all of the GOPers in IA.

Much like other national heat polling shows her beating all of the GOP.

How that makes one the "least electable" involves some Newspeak leaving out the relevant information that she is in fact electable!

[cascadiance]

87. Umm... It shows LESS risk for either Obama or Edwards in the polling there...

She only has single digit leads over all of their major contenders. Between Edwards and Obama there is only ONE single digit lead against these same Rethugs. All of the others are in double digits. This flies in the face of the earlier claim that there were ZERO polls that showed other candidates did better than she did against the Republicans. Of course you continue to ignore this. It's all about:

[rinsd]

88. Again the term least electable is misleading.

It would make sense if she were losing to other Gopers but she isn't.

Basically Obama and Edwards have more room for error.

"This flies in the face of the earlier claim that there were ZERO polls that showed other candidates did better than she did against the Republicans."

Except again the claim was zero polls show her as the least electable.

She polls better then those outside of the big 3 in head to heads.

"Of course you continue to ignore this."

Who's ignoring what? You expect me to throw up my hands and say oh well might as well be an Edwards/Obama supporter because he does 5 pts better than Hillary against Mitt?

She's not my candidate because of her poll numbers.

Its nice that all the big 3 are beating the GOP with Richardson not far behind.

[Imagevision]

52. Hillary stated recently that she'll have the troops out of Iraq by the end of 2013...

and how long did it take to get them there to begin with?

[Lerkfish]

54. To me, that sounds like she is in concurrence with Bush's "South Korea" decades-long permanence

2013 would be ten years from invasion, 9 years from "Mission Accomplished".
There are 14 permanent military bases there and the largest most expensive (and expansive) "Ambassdor office" in history.
If we stay there another 5 years, we'll be there forever or until we're forced out.

the 2013 number is especially heinous, because its intentional to never withdraw troops IN THE FIRST TERM, instead holding that over the heads of the country as extortion to elect her (or whoever) to two terms before our presence can be withdrawn. That's worse than setting a timetable, that's setting a timed threat.

[emilyg]

60. And what did Obama say????

[Lerkfish]

62. the same thing?

whoever says it, its the wrong direction for America

[itsrobert]

57. K&R

Where's the Beef? There is no there there.

[Froward69]

58. She simply will not win the GE.

Why cant HRC supporters Understand that.

[emilyg]

61. Lend me your crystal ball.

[emilyg]

59. Supreme Court. Health care.

[Lerkfish]

64. Her health care plan is not a workable solution

it depends on funneling huge sums to insurance companies, PAID by citizens. there is some tax break for lower income, but they have to get the insurance first. That's not solving the problem, IMHO.
On the Supreme Court, what is she proposing, exactly? Unless she intends to start assasinating judges, its a lifetime appt. and all the current "bad" justices are the younger ones: Alito, Scalia, Thomas. The older, more susceptible to retirement are the ones already on the more liberal side. Even if those retire, she's only going to replace a liberal judge with a liberal judge, which will not affect the makeup of the court at all.

can you elaborate more on those two issues?

[cascadiance]

73. So tell me how she would be better about keeping corporatist nominees out of SCOTUS?

That would do NOTHING to overcome the "court clerk activism" of corporate personhood that governs the current supreme court?

THAT is an issue I want fixed by the next president in their nominees. Hillary seems least likely to fix that amongst all of the Democratic Contenders. Any reason I should feel differently on that?

And DON'T give me that she's better than Republicans on this issue. We're talking the primary now! Republicans aren't running in the Democratic Primary!

[jgraz]

81. Good reasons to vote for a Democrat, but not for Hillary

I doubt Hill will be nominating the kind of firebrand liberals we need to counter the troglodytes on the court. And her healthcare plan simply stinks.

[Honeycombe8]

63. I'm not a Hillary lover. But I can point to the reasons she's on my short list.

First, she is an accomplished politician. Savvy, articulate, quick thinking on her feet, nimble, can sidestep (usu.) bad questions. This is what it takes to win. All the proper positions on issues and all the good intentions don't mean a hill o'beans unless you can actually WIN. I believe it takes a good politician to win.

This is no small qualification. You know how the Repubs are. They will come at the nominee with all the underhanded tricks they have. Ads that "imply" things and outright state awful things. One-line gimmicks at debates. Debaters who have the answers piped in to them via electronics (like Bush had during one debate against Kerry, remember?).

The Dem nominee will need to be an experienced, savvy politician and outstanding debater. Hillary, whether folks like it or not, has proven that she is these things.

Second is name recognition and hearkening back to happier times. Let's face it....many voters don't keep up with politics. They vote the party or a name they know. HRC will help with these voters.

Third...why she's on my short list with a few others is that she's not wacky or out in "left field" (pardon the pun). She's a mainstream kind of person. She speaks in regular lingo, in a regular tone of voice, she doesn't say what to many middle Americans are outrageous things (like, "Bush should be impeached!"). While some Dems like those things, they don't appeal to the average Dem or American, IMO. They care about THEIR jobs, THEIR wages, THEIR healthcare, THE war, etc. They're not interested in a wacko who wants to impeach the last sitting President or doesn't care about the tax rate on the average person, etc.

Fourth...her husband. Let's face it. He is a huge advantage, even in the general election.

Fifth...I like the idea of having someone other than a white male as President. Hillary and Obama fit this bill.

There are downsides to her, which is why I have not decided that she's the one to support. But you asked only about the positives.

[cascadiance]

75. I guess someone here is trying... I'll respond

On each of your five reasons:

1) Saavy, articulate, and quick thinking:

This is tact. It is not a reason. And it is an opinion about tact. Many of us feel the same way about the candidates we support as well. It is not something though that makes me WANT to vote for her that separates her from others. Some Republicans can say the same thing about themselves too. I'm not interested in voting for them just because they are "tactful" politicians. It is more of a job requirement thing, but not a reason to hire.

2) Name recognition and hearkening (harkening?) back to happier times:

Many Republicans have name recognition, and many will claim they provide visions of "happier times" too. Does that mean they are responsible for those times, or that we should necessarily remember them "fondly" from those times for their names? I think this is pretty weak too. Certainly not a convincing argument to me and I don't think to many voters. There are just as many voters that view her name recognition negatively as those that do positively.

3) She's not "wacky or in left field":

This is basically saying that we shouldn't vote for someone who echoes who the corporate media "labels" in their own way as being bad or "fringe". It isn't answering WHY those issues are bad. You ARE right that these people care about their jobs, their wages, their healthcare, the war, etc. But what you provide here doesn't provide how she would be better at providing for those than the other candidates. In fact, many of those so-called "wacky or left field" others that you mention do have plans for dealing with these issues that many of us would argue are MORE constructive than what she appears to offer in those areas in dealing with those issues. Try again.

4) Her husband.

We're asking why we should vote for HER! Are you suggesting that this is a way for Bill to have a "third term" and use her as a proxy for himself? And there are many things that many of us are starting to question of what he's given us that arguably have contributed to the mess we're in now (NAFTA, GATT, Telecomm Act, Welfare "reform", etc.).

5) Someone other than a white male as a president.

If you vote that way, you could vote for Condi and not have to choose between Hillary and Obama! Why won't you do that? Oh, I know there are issues about what Condi would do as president. PRECISELY OUR CONCERNS! Their race or gender is nice to have a breakthrough, but the primary issue first is what they are going to do for this country's people.

[Honeycombe8]

89. Response

1. No, political savvy is a REASON, not a tact. It is something you have, not learn, although it can be polished with experience. It is one of my reasons to have her on my short list.

2. It is "hearken" (although "harken" is a variation). Whether you think that is a weak reason or not, it is a statistical fact that people tend to vote for those whose names they recognize. I did not say it was a strong reason for me. But it is A reason. One which is to her advantage in the general election.

3. You said my third reason is "This is basically saying that we shouldn't vote for someone who echoes who the corporate media "labels" in their own way as being bad or "fringe"." No. You are trying to restate my third reason to fit your argument. This is not what I said at all. What I said was...she hasn't typically said what to the average American are outrageous things (like Gravel, for instance) or pushed plans that are considered way outside the norm for Mr./Ms. Average American. This is not a huge plus. But it means there is not a negative for that, like there is for some of the other candidates (on both sides).

4. You seem to misunderstand my list of reasons, to begin with. I am stating reasons that I think she is more likely to win in a general election. I am not, and have never, voted purely for someone with whom I agree on every issue. I vote for my main issues, AS WELL AS for whether I think the candidate has a decent shot at winning. Otherwise, I view it as throwing my vote away or making a political statement. Bill Clinton is advantageous to Hillary. That is a fact. That is not my opinion. You can argue with me all day about it, but it won't change that fact. I'm not saying that is a huge factor, but it is a factor.

5. My fifth reason was a personal one. Stop being silly by saying I should vote for Condi Rice. My reason is that, quite simply, if there are several excellent candidates that I think have a decent shot at winning in the GE, and two are non-white males, I tend to think that, well, it would be a good thing to have a little diversity in the executive branch. Someone who brings a slightly different perspective on things. Mind you...I'm speaking about candidates that I've already determined are desirable and electable. Nothin' wrong with a little diversity, now is there? You and others may not want it. That is your choice.

BTW...I am white, so I didn't mention the fifth reason because I'm a minority.

[cascadiance]

93. My response...

1. OK, I'll accept that political saavy is a reason for you, but it still IS describing tact, not any kind of position or other thing that tells me what she's going to do that makes her a better candidate than the others. As I said earlier, someone can be tactfully saavy, etc. and still be someone I want to avoid voting for. I really expect most of those that are running to have political saavy or they wouldn't be where they are today. I think to say that she's head over heals more politically saavy over the rest of the field is your subjective opinion, and isn't something that I or others can evaluate independently and come to the same conclusion that you have. For me, political saavy is something that many people have, and not something that by itself makes me want to vote for someone.

2. Like I said earlier, name recognition can help or hurt you. I won't disagree that she has name recognition, but as many have noted, name recognition can actually be said to hurt her just as much as it can help her. In some respects it is better to be an unknown at this stage, as there is a lot more room to get a lot more positive support as one gets better known through the course of the campaign. I think that worked for Jimmy Carter after his win in Iowa after which he became better known in the 76 campaign. It will be hard for Hillary to counter the negative images that she has already. Those sorts of opinions don't change much. I still don't see this being a significant advantage over everyone else. And it yet again doesn't tell me WHAT she will do that I want to have happen that is better than the other candidates.

3. I will agree that Gravel has got a few crazy ideas. I don't support him ever since I heard him speak of those on Mike Malloy's show a few months back. But, I don't hear any other constructive criticism of any of the other candidates on how their ideas are more "wacky" than hers are. As I note, I think many of them like Kucinich and Edwards say things that far more indicate to me that they are willing to correct the problems with corporate corruption in Washington than I've heard from her. Please tell me how that isn't so. I certainly don't think those sorts of ideas are "wacky" or "left field". You need to be more specific about what her views are and how they are better as once again I'm not hearing WHAT Hillary will do that I want to have happen that is better than the other candidates.

4. I think we are already seeing that in head-to-head polls that Edwards and Obama do even better against the Republicans than she would, so in my book trying to handicap the general election and whether she would do better than the others is still just a crap shoot, and the numbers don't show that she has a significant advantage. Saying that her husband will make a difference I think is a red herring at this point. It may for some in a positive way, but it will also affect others in a negative away. Once again, this doesn't have us hear WHAT Hillary will do that is better than the other candidates.

5. I know you won't vote for Condi, as I won't either. But to just use someone's race as a way of rationalizing that they are someone we should have over other people challenging for a job without thinking of WHAT they will do as a qualification is not a good reason. That's why we have people like Condi Rice, Alberto Gonzales, Clarence Thomas, etc. Because people put them in without thinking about what they were REALLY going to do and instead just point to their race or sex as a reason to vote them in.

Basically you still have given me NO substantive reasons of why I think she will do a better job with WHAT she plans to do than the other candidates. The only thing I've heard is that she will be less "wacky and out in left field" than the others. I'm sorry, but that's just not descriptive enough.

What you are saying works well perhaps for breaking down who might win a horse race, but that's not what we're trying to look at here.

[Honeycombe8]

94. Quit attacking me for trying to answer the poster's question. Just answer the poster's question.

You will not change my mind OR my list.

I do not HAVE to create a list for ANY candidate that meets with your criteria.

I have listed the reasons why she is on my short list. That is that. You and others have to live with it.

I am NOT a Kucinich supporter (which I suspect you are), first and foremost because he cannot win. It is a criteria for me that the candidate be able to win. That is one of the reasons Hillary is on my short list. Whether it is substantive enough for you doesn't mean a hill o'beans to me.

They're ALL democrats. They're ALL more pro-environment than the Republicans. So in that respect, they're ALL better than the Republicans. My main issue is the environment and energy independence (they're connected). ALL the Dems are okay on that issue. NONE of them are as strong on that issue as I'd like, which is one reason why I DON'T YET HAVE A CANDIDATE TO SUPPORT. I will end up voting for the least harmful out of the basket of choices.

As I said...I am not a Hillary supporter. So bash someone else for awhile, please. You will find plenty of Hillary supporters in the forum. (I will make a note of who you support, so that I will be sure NOT to vote for that candidate, if this is the type of person that candidate attracts. Or at least, it will go in the negative column.)

[cascadiance]

96. Please... I'm not ATTACKING anyone. I'm just wanting definition...

I and many others here who support Kucinich, Edwards, Gore, or perhaps others too are doing so because they see them take principled stands on issues and I think many of us perceive they are doing it because they perceive that the PEOPLE want them to do so, and they also want to do so.

I actually am more of an Edwards supporter now than a Kucinich supporter, and it is because I'm pragmatic in knowing that Edwards is more likely to close the gap than Kucinich. There are maybe a few issues that Kucinich is a little different from me more than I'd like too, but I do like his spunk, his consistency of his views, and his dedication to try to do what he perceives is right. I think Edwards is doing more of that now too each day, which is why I've become a supporter of his too. If Gore were to get in the race, I'd completely rethink things and would support him. I support Kucinich being in the race, even if I don't vote for him, because much like the times earlier when Jesse Jackson ran in earlier presidential elections when he had no real hope of winning, candidates like these make sure that the other candidates deal with and answer to the important and substantive issues of the day. It is certainly more important now with the kind of lame mainstream media we have that won't prompt discussion of those issues on their own.

In short, I need more than just style. I need SUBSTANCE. And I still have seen NO substantive reasons to support Hillary from any of you supporters here. Most of the reasons given (as I noted in the analysis) are style or personality other characteristics that are akin to style.

I think it's WAY to early to vote for someone just because you think they can "win" or someone else can "not win". The corrupt media is trying to fill you with those kind of "bet sheets" to affect your feelings on this, and I think many of it still isn't to be trusted at this point. As noted, the other top two candidates are actually polling better than Hillary does against the Republican candidates in many polls, so for me to pick her over them, I don't see the reason. "Being able to win" is NOT a reason as there is no basis for it at this point as a distinguishing factor.

I'm glad that you are looking at the environment. It is one thing that I think is VERY important too. However, I feel that a lot of how to solve that is to get rid of the corporate control over our government that has gotten so much in the way of doing true environmental protection, etc. that is needed. This is true of both parties. And that is again a reason why I want to get rid of corporate governance that we now have which is governed by profit that afflicts members of both parties. I don't want to get rid of corporations. I'm not a communist. But I don't want to see their profit dictate everything in our lives.

I'm not on an attack dog rampage here or anything like that. If someone can give me a good reasoned explanation on how Hillary will solve what I perceive this fundamental issue that really addresses many others, I'm all ears. I however don't see it, and I see her as more of a part of the problem at this point than the solution. I think the original poster here is asking for the same thing. Substantive reasons (policy-wise, not "we can win with so and so"-wise) of why we should support someone like Hillary.

I think a lot of what might be perceived as "anger" directed at some of those supporting Hillary here isn't so much anger as it is frustration, in that we feel that it is SO important that we want to nominate someone that will DO THE RIGHT THING when getting in to office to fix the massive mess that's there now. And the country, probably more than any other time is more willing to take a bigger risk with a bigger change, whether that person is perceived as more liberal or not, if they feel those changes are going to make a big difference in fixing what's wrong right now and make their lives better. That's why so many of the candidates can beat the Republicans, and moreso than in past elections, the "vote pragmatic" over voting "substance" isn't as big of a reason as it has been in the past.

[jcrew2001]

65. Because Bill Clinton deserves a 3rd term

she is nothing without Bill

[rinsd]

66. Here are links to her websites.

Feel free to go over her positions and see what you agree with.

Her campaign wbesite - http://www.hillaryclinton.com/

Her Senate website - http://clinton.senate.gov/

Also here is a link to Project Vote Smart on her positions, interest group ratings etc.

http://www.vote-smart.org/bio.php?can_id=55463

[cascadiance]

74. That's a lazy response, and one that might not turn up any answers for a lot of work...

OP is asking those of YOU who support Clinton to provide your reasons why we should do so and why you do.

I'm hearing crickets...

Anything besides a "horse race" oddsmaker sheet?

[rinsd]

82. Yeah giving a person resources to research and make up their own mind

What a lazy bastard I am...sheesh.

[ileus]

70. She's the best Clinton running, the worlds #1 Democrat.

[bvar22]

77. Job Security and Prosperity...

...for the CEOs of the Insurance Corps, HMOs, Pharmeceutical Industry, and Armaments Manufacturers.

*Mandatory FOR PROFIT Health Insurance will PAY OFF BIG TIME for upper management of the FOR PROFIT HealthCare Industry. From Middle Management on down, tough luck. Your jobs are going to India or H1B Visa "auction" winners if Hillary is given the Oval Office.

*Continuing the War/Occupation PERMANENTLY will use up a lot of bullets. CEOs of the Armamants Industry and MIC will be in HIGH Clover under a Hillary administration.

*If you have relatives in Israel, or plan on retiring there, AND you believe that killing as many Arabs and Persians as possible makes Israel safer, well then Hillary is your girl.

Other than that, I don't see any other reason for voting for Hillary over any of the other Democratic candidates.

[jgraz]

83. Don't forget all those Indian software engineers who will benefit

Sigh...if only they could vote...

[cutlassmama]

79. because she's a woman n/t

[jgraz]

80. Hmm...did we mention she is the most electable and she is leading in the polls?

We did? Then I got nothin.

[zulchzulu]

84. It would be easier for kids in class

When a kid isn't paying attention in class and the teacher asks him or her who is President, he or she has a fifty/fifty percent chance of getting the answer right. It would go something like this:

Teacher:
Maggie... who is President of the United States?

Maggie:
(putting down mobile phone)
Bush! I mean Clinton! I mean...

Teacher:
Excellent! Excellent!

It could help kids get through a tense moment in class.

:sarcasm:

[Greyhound]

91. I hope you're not holding your breath waiting for a substantive answer.

I've been looking for about a year and so far, nada. The closest I've come to an answer is something along the line of, "She will suck much less than shrub, we promise".

[jcrew2001]

95. she is married to bill clinton

nt

[Perry Logan]

97. My only reason is that the anti-Hillarites are so snarky.

I'm sure Hillary's critics--both republican and Democrat--glean her more votes than anything else.