Why do the majority of Democrats polled around the nation support Hillary Clinton for president?

[bigtree]

They really do seem to like her.

Despite the view from many of those Democrats who identify themselves as progressives that Sen. Clinton has betrayed Democratic principles in her votes and rhetoric, I think many of her supporters like her because they see her as an effective foil and adversary to Bush and his republicans in Congress.

It's been interesting to see folks working so hard to convince that she's some sort of closet republican. So far, that view hasn't gathered any more steam than a similar attempt by progressives in 2004 to cast John Kerry's liberal career of votes and advocacy as republican-lite.

The majority of Democratic voters just don't invest themselves in that kind of parsing and demonizing. Right now, the majority of those polled apparently believe Sen. Clinton represents them and will be an effective candidate. That same sentiment prevailed throughout John Kerry's campaign as he faced the same complaints of moderation and betrayal of progressive principals from critics in our party. Despite that campaign against him from within our party, record numbers of Democrats showed up to vote for him.

Those same criticisms this time around couldn't be more insistent and animated against the prospect of a Clinton presidency, but they have had, so far, no significant effect on that (increasing?) majority who've signed on to her camp. I think they like her.

[MannyGoldstein]

1. More Than 30% of Americans Can't Name The Vice President

or the governor of their own state.

Given this, I strongly suspect that most people don't know who the other candidates are. They probably also don't know that Mrs. Clinton was one of a minority of congressional Democrats that voted to go to war with Iraq, and that she backed permanent "free" trade with China, and so forth.

I trust that most folks will become better informed.

[redqueen]

3. Really? Do you mean AFTER they vote for her in the primary?

I don't know why they'd bother getting informed now, if they haven't bothered already.

[Dawgs]

16. If they're not informed, they're not voting in the primary.

[redqueen]

21. I wish I shared that opinion. n/t

[rudy23]

2. The key isn't her approval with Democrats--it's how many Repukes will she draw to the voting booths

That's something that isn't addressed by these polls.

Honestly, most Americans outside of these forums haven't really put too much thought into the next election. The debates haven't provided much substance, and people are still going on name recognition.

Give the people a chance to get familiar with her hawkishness, her support of NAFTA, her insurance friendly stance on healthcare, and her "lobbyists are Americans, too" approach to politics, and watch those numbers sink.

[redqueen]

4. BINGO! The repukes have lots of reasons to stay home this year

she gives lots of those 'might stay home'ers a reason to go ahead and vote... not FOR their candidate, but AGAINST her.

[aquart]

20. What logic are you using?

Republicans won't vote for her because she's really a Republican?

Well, sure. I can understand that.

[redqueen]

22. The logic is as I said above...

It gives them a reason to bother voting at all.

[rudy23]

31. Exactly--it doesn't matter how far right she swings, these people hate her and don't even know why.

So you've got an energized Republican base who wants to vote against the woman they've been trained to hate for the last 15 years, and a Democratic base who's not thrilled about voting for a lobbyist-friendly DC insider.

[NYC Liberal]

74. Ridiculous. You think those same Republicans who hate Hillary

have a chance at liking Obama? Or Edwards? Or any Democrat for that matter? Any one of the candidates we have now is going to draw Republicans to the voting booth. The difference is that with Hillary, there aren't any new attacks, no new "scandals"...because all of it was already dragged out from 1993-2000. She has already fought the very same attacks that will be leveled against her should she win the nomination, and there is only a very small chance of some surprise skeleton jumping out. People know who she is, and they know what the arguments against her are and have had a long time to digest them.

The issue is not "who draws the most Republicans to the voting booth" come November; the issue is who can best respond to those attacks that will be thrown out. Hillary is that person, plain and simple, BECAUSE they hate her so much! It is that irrational hatred that has given her the experience fighting them. And because of that, she will be able to effectively dismantle those attacks not just by debunking them with a press release, but also by using that to her advantage politically.

We (aka, the Democratic Party) have around 70 million members, the Republicans have 50-55. We have more potential voters in our party (since not all of them, obviously, vote), and potential voters who are going to be more likely to vote for OUR nominee. We just have to tap into that.

[rudy23]

76. No, I just think many would stay home unless Hillary ran--they hate her that much

Have they been passing around e-mail jokes about Edwards and Obama for the last 15 years?

Edwards and Obama are just Democrats to them (okay, a slick lawyer Democrat, and a black Democrat). The Clintons, particularly Hillary, have inspired cults of hatred for 15 years--those people can't WAIT to scream about Hillary for the next year leading up to the election. It will give them a reason to live.

[NYC Liberal]

82. I think if you look at it, the real reason for their hatred of Hillary Clinton is Bill Clinton

They hate all things Clinton. Accordingly, Bill should not have had a 65% approval rating (of the entire country, Republicans and Democrats) in January 2001, but he did. And Al Gore, Bill's vice president, should have lost handily in 2000 because of all the Republicans that would supposedly be driven to the polls for fear of 4 more years of Clinton policy...but he got 500,000 more votes nationwide than the Republican (Bush), AND only lost the electoral college by 537 (!) votes in Florida, and those were bullshit votes anyway.

This, by the way, was BEFORE Republicans plummeted to disaster thanks to one George Walker Bush. If Bill Clinton's vice president can get 500,000 more votes than the Republican in 2000, with a fairly strong Republican party...then Bill Clinton's wife (although she's obviously more than that) can most certainly win now, with a Republican party that is splintered and divided and latched to an uncontrollable foreign policy disaster and being led by a President with a 25 percent approval rating.

So I think people overestimate the amount of people who have this hatred for the Clintons, and the influence they have. Yes, there are the rabid right-wingers who loathe everything Clinton. But they aren't even close to a significant number overall.

Hillary will be attacked (as much as any Democrat will), but with her it will be the same old attacks, and therefore she will be very, very prepared when they come because she's already fought them.

[Az]

5. Its probably the same driving force as found in economics

Name recognition. In the stock market people buy stocks of companies who's name they are familiar with. This is why kids often do better than stock market analysts when picking stocks because the kids will pick names they are familiar with rather than going through all the messy math to figure out if a company is a good risk or not.

We live in the day of psychological marketing. Political campaigns are extended advertisements utilizing every trick in the marketers bag. Unfortunately the dems try to play it more above board than the reps do. But the same market forces work on dem voters as on rep voters.

This is why Fred Thompson was such a scary presence. He has massive name recognition due to his acting career. The only thing that stopped him is his own inaction.

Hilary has massive name recognition compared to the rest of the dem candidates. People are simply more comfortable with her because they are more familiar with her name and face. In general it has little to do with her positions and more to do with the psychology of familiarity.

[Kolesar]

11. Yes, I will go with "name recognition". Heck, it's only August...

...isn't the election supposed to be next year?!

[TahitiNut]

23. Yep. That's still the predominant influence, imho.

Sad.

[Breeze54]

6. Because they ask the same people, over and over and

because the M$M told them that's who they like.

OBEY!!!!!!!!!!

[ThomWV]

7. I believe if you take a look the 'majority' don't. I've never seen here with 50%+

[nadinbrzezinski]

8. This might partly explait it

I got the call from US News and World Report

Who do you support for President

John Edswards

Oh Hillary Clinton

NO, John Edwards

After that and how we know they push candidates... I'm suspicious you cannot trust the polls

Granted, might have been an innocent mistake... and oh eight years ago I would have said that

[pnwmom]

9. She has an extra factor going for her as well.

Young women -- a group that has often been underrepresented among voters -- are excited about her. She could bring a lot of young people into the electorate for the first time.

In a similar way, Obama could.

And as my twenty-something daughter said: "Clinton/Obama. How awesome would that be?"

We're lucky that we have a multitude of strong candidates.

[Kolesar]

18. I think Hillary's appeal to women voters is a bona fide "bona fide"

And that I cannot deny. As for inspiring young women...not heard too much of that up here in the "child-free bifocal demographic".

[rudy23]

32. As many women hate her as love her---I don't think that's fair, but it's the way it is

Republican women will be energized to vote against Hillary--they want a Daddy in the White House (just like the Repub men do), and they hate assertive, ambitious women.

[pnwmom]

43. Maybe the older ones, but not young ones.

Young people are already leaving the Repub party. A HRC candidacy could draw young women who have never voted before into a long-term relationship with the Democratic party.

[Madspirit]

48. NOW Endorses her

http://www.now.org/press/03-07/03-28.html

I love NOW. Still, she isn't my candidate in the primary but of course I will vote for her if she is our nominiee.

Lee

[pnwmom]

54. That's my position, too.

Although the more I see her, the more comfortable I am with her. I like several of the candidates, including her, a lot.

[Breeze54]

67. That's why I'm not a member!!

From the NOW website:

USA PATRIOT Improvement and Reauthorization Act

http://www.capwiz.com/now/issues/votes/?votenum=29&chamber=S&congress=1092

On Passage
03/02/2006
Senate Roll Call No. 29
109th Congress, 2nd Session

Passed: 89-10

Hillary Rodham Clinton --- YES!!! :puke:

Action Alert
The Senate Voted to Reauthorize the Patriot Act on March 2, 2006.
See the vote tally.
http://www.capwiz.com/now/issues/alert/?alertid=8507451

------------------------------

Women "Surge for Peace"

Omnibus Peace Bill Needs House Sponsors to "Bring Our Troops Home"

http://www.capwiz.com/now/issues/alert/?alertid=9397841&type=CO

It's time for Congress to exercise their oversight authority and pass BINDING legislation
to deal with the costly and deadly situation in Iraq. After last week's pros-and-cons
marathon in the House, they finally passed the "non-binding" resolution opposing the troop
surge by a vote of 246 to 182. Now it's time to get serious. We must urge, no demand, that
our Representatives cosponsor H.R. 508, introduced by Lynn Woolsey (D-Calif.), a
comprehensive plan to disengage from Iraq within 6 months after enactment and make
reparations for the damages that our invasion and occupation have caused to Iraq's people
and infrastructure.

Take Action NOW

NOW members and millions of others have voiced their opposition to the war and the occupation
of Iraq, both in the streets and at the ballot box.

-------------------------------

From CODE PINK (whom NOW also endorses):

http://www.listenhillary.org/article.php?list=type&type=115

August 2007

Our eighteen-month "Listen Hillary Campaign” has had an impact
on Senator Hillary Clinton’s stated position on the war—and her
voting record in the Senate.

In October 2002 she voted to give the President authorization to wage war against Iraq,
but in May 2007 she voted yes on Senator Feingold’s legislation to set a timeline for
withdrawal from Iraq and no on the war-funding bill. Feingold was defeated and the war
funding was approved, but Hillary was on the right side of history. Hilary also said at
recent Democratic debate that the one thing she would do in the first 100 days of her
administration would be to bring the troops home.

In our office we have a stack of HILLARY SUPPORTS THE WAR signs from our many Listen Hillary
protests that we can’t in good conscience use at present. But we are watching to see if her
recent statements with regard to the war are more than political calculation.

Will Hillary use her power as a United States Senator to help end the war?
Will she work to make sure that the regular military appropriations bill
and then the next supplemental bill include timelines for troop withdrawal?

For our part, we will be judging Hillary on what she does now as a senator rather than what
she claims she'll do as president. We call on Hillary to provide leadership for getting our
troops home this year. How many more U.S. military and Iraqi civilian deaths will happen
before the next president takes office?

-----------------------------------------


And yet NOW endorses HRC and Code Pink!!! How very hypocritical!! :grr:

[Madspirit]

69. It's called "complex" not "hypocritical"

I will agree that the vote on that was disturbing. So was life pre-Roe vs. Wade. Hillary is the ONLY candidate I trust with my uterus.

Lee

[Breeze54]

75. Give me a break! We had Roe V Wade before HRC came a long.

And no, IMHO, they're hypocritical.

[Madspirit]

80. She is the ONLY one I trust to not compromise on THIS issue.

Did you have to yell at me? We agree 99% of the time we run across each other on threads and yet, one thing we disagree on and I get yelled at. Wow.

Lee

[Breeze54]

86. I didn't use any capitols

except to type IMHO, which was used for emphasis.

It's not considered 'yelling' unless my whole reply had been in caps.

And I wasn't yelling anyway. You didn't make me mad.

Many Democratic men and a few R's, in both houses, support choice.

That's all I'm saying to you.

[Madspirit]

90. I would be curious

I would be curious to know the number of Republican women who support choice.
Lee

[Breeze54]

91. Maybe Sen, Snowe - R - Maine?

Maybe this site would list them without having to do research. :)

http://www.republicansforchoice.com/

[Madspirit]

94. Kaye Bailey H. used to be

I don't know what her position is now but I am going to peruse your link. Interesting link and thank-you.

Lee

[Breeze54]

95. You are quite welcome,

friend! :hug:

[Clark2008]

36. 20-somethings, maybe, but not all women voters.

Many married/divorced women think she's a wimp for putting up with Bill, to be honest.

[Madspirit]

65. A Lot Of Relationships Do Stay Together After Infidelity

Most counselors don't call it a relationship kiss of death. There are ways to work through it, if the relationship is worth it to both parties and the love still exists.

That was my public service announcement. I don't think I could handle it. ...but I might be willing to try, IF it was over and IF we got help.

Luckily, my SO and I are both very monogamous.

Lee

[zippy890]

45. Married women are starting to support her

in greater numbers, according to NPR show the other day.

indicating older but not elderly women. 35-60 demographic i'd say.

[Madspirit]

68. I'm Coming Around

...because of her pro-choice stance. Most of the men support choice too, on the Democratic side. Still, judging them from their entire records, it just seems to be an issue they are willing to flip flop on depending on which way the wind blows and how many votes it will garner. It seems a Principled Position on Hillary's side. Could be the uterus inside her. Could be something she ate, could be something eating her. I don't think she would EVER change on this issue and that is VERY important to me.

Lee

[Longhorn]

99. I love this attitude!

Keeping our options open! I haven't made up my mind except that I will support ANY of them and do not hate any of them.

:yourock: both you and your daughter! :)

[pnwmom]

115. Thank you, Longhorn!

And the same to you!

:yourock:

By the way, my mother is in Texas and she's also very excited about the field this time -- so that makes three generations. Hopefully, this is a good sign!

[Hydra]

10. I'd like to like Hillary

But I don't like her policies. I also don't like that she isn't listening to us.

I think she has what it takes to turn the Gov't upside down, inside-out and twist it sideways, which is what it's going to take to unskew it after years of various people in the system remaking it in their interest.

Assuming she can, will she?

It wouldn't be easy. Various people would probably try to assassinate her for it. They would certainly fight her every step of the way.

Given that fact, would she do the easy thing and continue the status quote?

That's too big a question for me to be supporting her on a "maybe"

[WA98296]

12. Polling...Someone is doing REAL polling?

[napi21]

13. I can tell you why I'm supporting her. Don't know about the polls.

I think she has the MOST experience dealing with the Pub attacks! God knows she's certainly endured many years of it! I think she's best able to deal with that and kick back in places where it hurts!

I'm so sick of Dems trying to play the "nice" card and losing because of it!

[emilyg]

25. Exactly.

[RaleighNCDUer]

28. And what attacks are those?

Right there, in the early days, there was the healthcare fiasco and travelgate. She folded on healthcare, and is now one of the top recipients of health insurance and big pharma money.

What were the big attacks that she's defended herself against since, say 1996?

She waltzed into her senate seat with virtually no opposition - what massive attacks did they throw at her then?

I think you're just making stuff up.

[Balbus]

35. I think Skinner answered that question best when he said:

"You are trying to read this as being a statement about policy. It's not.

She is referring to the relentless attacks that she has endured from the right-wing smear machine. And I don't think anyone here on DU -- even people who really dislike Hillary Clinton -- can deny that she was the target of one of the most intense, most relentless, and most personal sustained political attacks in recent memory. Other than her husband, who in the last decade-and-a-half has been more villified by the right wing?

So, go ahead, criticize Hillary Clinton all you like. But the facts are clear on this: She has *earned* the right to say that she stood up to the right-wing machine for 15 years."

[sandnsea]

29. List them

Show me how she fought Bush the last 6 years. On anything of substance. Go ahead. And not months and years after Feingold or Kerry or Kennedy took the lead either.

[Midlodemocrat]

40. I agree with you. I haven't decided who to support yet, but I

do believe that Hillary can deflect the RW bullshit better than anyone else.

Sad that it has come to this, isn't it? We are choosing a candidate based not necessarily on her stances on things, but how well she's fight the VRWC.

Again, I haven't made my mind up and I loved her as First Lady and I love Bubba. I may end up supporting her.

[Kolesar]

14. The resemblance to John Kerry's campaign is a war policy that smells like the republicans' ...

...war policy. Were Hillary to win the primary, her gop opponent will say "Yeah, taking Saddam out was a good idea, and we can establish order in Iraq better than any Democrat can do".

Edit: somebody own up to the "Hill's gone wild" sticky icon they put up.

[Cobalt Violet]

15. I think it's just name recognition. It's a major brand.

And nostalgia for the days of Clinton.

[GreenTea]

17. TELEVISION!

The republican owned corporate media pushing her each and every day....relentlessly. Anyone who disagrees is lying....It's there for ALL to see....shameless & disgusting....There are other very fine Dem candidates running....However, we know who the republicans, the media, the corporate DLC and the moderates want to get the nomination...It's no secret!

[marions ghost]

88. right

it's crystal clear the media, conservatives & moderates desperately want Hillary--and that right there makes me very suspicious...

[Lorien]

101. Corporate America does indeed want Hillary, or a repug

they know that the chances of a republican winning this time around are slim, so they'll go for the Dems that they have the most influence with. No doubt about it; whoever gets the nomination will be a friend of Big Business.

There's also this problem: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S3X1K93ff5I

[DURHAM D]

19. Simple really -

She is their girl.

[warren pease]

24. Because TeeeeVeeeeee told them to...

...and TV told them to because over the air and cable TV stations and networks are all owned by corporate swine who would endorse a toilet plunger if it promised to maintain the status quo.

Unfortunately, Hillary doesn't seem like she's going to become a raging, radical populist any time soon, so if a GOPer can't win (which is a fair assumption) then she's the next best thing.


wp

[Exiled in America]

26. Because the agenda setting media and its corporate masters told them to.

It's not complicated.

[goodhue]

27. name recognition

[sandrakae]

30. Because we are picking the best of 2nd best.

John Kerry would have been a great President. It is a shame the way this country nominates there candidates. God forbid we would ever elect someone actually respectful and qualified.

[DU GrovelBot]

33. ## PLEASE DONATE TO DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND! ##

==================
GROVELBOT.EXE v4.0
==================



This week is our third quarter 2007 fund drive. Democratic
Underground is a completely independent website. We depend on donations
from our members to cover our costs. Thank you so much for your support.

[hfojvt]

34. and yet, Kerry ran against the WORST PRESIDENT EVER

and seemingly lost. Record number of Republicans turned out to vote against him.

Compare 2000 to 2004

Alabama - 40.39 - 36.84 (1.1)
Alaska - 27.67 - 35.52 (in 2000 Nader took 10% of the Alaska vote, bringing the non-Bush total to 37.67%)
Az - 44.67 - 44.4 (2.98)
Ar - 45.86 - 44.55 (1.46)
Ca - 53.45 - 54.31 (Nader 3.82)
Co - 42.39 - 47.02 (5.25)
Ct - 55.91 - 54.31 (4.42)
De - 54.96 - 53.85 (2.54)
DC - 85.16 - 89.18 (5.24)
Fl - 48.84 - 47.09 (1.63)
Ga - 42.98 - 41.37 (.52)
Hi - 55.79 - 54.01 (5.88)
Id - 27.64 - 30.26 (2.45)
Il - 54.6 - 54.82 (2.19)
In - 41.01 - 39.26 (.84)
Iowa - 48.54 - 49.23 (2.23 for Nader was still a win for Gore and loss for Kerry)
Ks - 37.24 - 36.62 (3.37)
Ky - 41.37 - 39.69 (1.5)
La - 44.88 - 42.22 (1.16)
Me - 49.09 - 53.57 (5.7)
Md - 56.57 - 55.91 (2.65)
Ma - 59.8 - 61.94 - (6.42)
Mi - 51.28 - 51.23 (1.99)
Mn - 47.91 - 51.09 - (5.2)
Ms - 40.7 - 39.15 (.82)
Mo - 47.8 - 46.1 (1.63)
Mt - 33.36 - 38.56 (5.95)
Ne - 33.25 - 32.68 (3.52)
Nv - 45.98 - 47.88 (2.46)
NH - 46.8 - 46.1 (3.90)
NJ - 56.13 - 52.92 (2.97)
NM - 47.91 - 49.05 (3.55)
NY - 60.21 - 58.37 (3.58)
NC - 43.2 - 43.48 (0)
ND - 33.05 - 35.5 (3.29)
Oh - 46.46 - 48.71 (2.5)
Ok - 38.43 - 34.43 (0)
Or - 46.96 - 51.35 (5.04)
Pa - 50.16 - 50.92 (2.1)
RI - 60.99 - 59.42 (6.12)
SC - 40.91 - 40.9 (1.47)
SD - 37.56 - 38.44 (0)
Tn - 47.28 - 42.53 (.95)
Tx - 37.98 - 38.22 (2.15)
Ut - 26.34 - 26.00 (4.65)
Vt - 50.63 - 58.94 (6.92)
Va - 44.44 - 45.48 (2.17)
Wa - 50.13 - 52.82 (4.14)
WV - 45.59 - 43.2 (1.65)
Wi - 47.83 - 49.7 (3.62)
Wy - 27.7 - 29.07 (2.12)

total - 48.38 - 48.27 (2.73)

In spite of Bush's horrible record as President, and in spite of a two year 'war on Gore' by the media, Kerry/Edwards did much worse on a percentage basis than Gore - in almost every state. Why? I think because as a DLCer, Kerry bought into too many Republican talking points to campaign against them effectively. His statement that he still would have voted for the IWR made his anti-war rhetoric seem wishy-washy and insincere.

[NavyDavy]

37. maybe because they agree with her stance as is their right....

[RaleighNCDUer]

39. And what stance would that be

this week?

[NavyDavy]

41. just because you don't agree with her doesn't mean she isn't

the right person for the job.....I haven't decided who I want to win but whomever wins the primary i will support them period....I am not going to run away crying and vote for a third party.....

[RaleighNCDUer]

49. It would be easier to support her if I knew what her stances really

were.

She's against the war, but voted for it every single time.
She claims to be for unions, but was the only candidate booed at the AFL-CIO debate.
She claims to be a progressive, but is adored by the most conservative members on this board while the progressives generally mistrust her.

I think she's trying to be all things to all people.

[AnotherGreenWorld]

38. The media portray her as a radical liberal. A lot of Democrats believe it.

[Proud2BAmurkin]

42. Because they agree with her and like her better than the other candidates?

:shrug:

[ComerPerro]

44. name recognition.

[cgrindley]

46. She's going to win us the presidency that's why

none of the other dwarfs can beat Guiliani or Thompson. She is our only hope.

[nini]

47. because they miss the Bill clinton days

and want to go back to the way it was before W fucked us up one side and down the other.

[Madspirit]

50. NOW and NARAL

National Organization For Women "proudly" endorses her:

http://www.now.org/press/03-07/03-28.html


...and from NARAL:

http://www.prochoiceamerica.org/elections/statements/


Senator Hillary Clinton (D-NY)
Voting Record:
Sen. Clinton received the following scores on NARAL Pro-Choice America's Congressional Record on Choice.


2006: 100 percent
2005: 100 percent
2004: 100 percent
2003: 100 percent
2002: 100 percent
2001: Because only one choice-related vote was taken in 2001 – to confirm John Ashcroft as United States Attorney General – no numerical score was given for the year. Sen. Clinton voted pro-choice.




Lee

[RaleighNCDUer]

51. So what?

I support choice as much as anybody, but we are not a one-issue party. She has to be right about more than a single issue.

[Madspirit]

57. It Was Just a Point

...and I would not support ANY candidate who did not have 100% on THIS issue...Choice. Period. They could be the goddess warmed over, bringing our troops home in five minutes and if they did not show Pro-Choice 100%, they would not have my vote. ...and it's not "a single issue". It's MY LIFE, a woman's LIFE, a woman's RIGHT.

...but I was only adding a piece to the puzzle.

This place is such so snarky-assed it ought to be prominently placed in a Jr. High Slam Book.

Lee

[PeaceNikki]

120. I think the "so what" is that it's relevant to the question posed.

Why she has support could have a lot to do with endorsements by major organizations.

[BlooInBloo]

52. Just btw - NARAL is a mostly-worthless organization - the abortion version of AARP....

firedoglake has several posts about their betrayal of their *stated* principles - here's one:

http://www.firedoglake.com/2007/04/18/donating-to-naral-is-not-going-to-help-protect-a-womans-right-to-choice/


It doesn't really affect anything you said one way or the other - just thought I'd mention it.

:)

[Madspirit]

55. I Have Many Friends Who Work For NARAL...and they are not old

Most are in their twenties and thirties.
Lee

[BlooInBloo]

58. :) I meant "like AARP" in the sense of *in name* working for a cause...

... while in actuality *hurting* said cause.

EDIT: And obviously I'm talking about the organization over-all - not about any *specific* individual within the organization.

[Madspirit]

60. *sniff*...I don't understand Bloo. How is NARAL hurting the cause?

I'm very involved with our local chapter.

Lee

[BlooInBloo]

62. Check the link I passed you previously - Jane Hampsher, et al at firedog lake have been...

... all over them - google "firedoglake naral" for more examples.

Wonderful cause. Sketchy organization.

[BlooInBloo]

53. LOL!!! DUers will HAAATE the American public so much more if they vote for Clinton....

... than they do for voting for republicans!

:rofl:

DUers are insane.

[Madspirit]

61. ...and not a fun or good "insane"...n/t

[BlooInBloo]

73. True that! :)

[bigtree]

89. damn that voting public

if only they would tune in here instead of allowing themselves to be brainwashed by their teevee, they'd see for sure Hillary isn't the liberal they think she is.

They do want a liberal, right?

[Mythsaje]

114. Nah...voting for Republicans earns my disgust...

Voting for Hillary just earns my deep disappointment.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

56. Just a guess:

[BuyingThyme]

59. Hillary Clinton was a Young Republican at Yale.

This is my anti-Hillary post for the day.

[Madspirit]

63. ...and Laura Bush was a Eugene McCarthy Democrat? Point?...n/t

[BuyingThyme]

66. I don't see how you could miss the point.

The point is that Hillary has always had Republican tendencies.

Out of curiosity: What thoughts came to mind? Did you think I was trying to make a point about the kind of people who get into Yale?

[Madspirit]

70. No...I think her past is irrelevant

You didn't get the ..."Laura Bush used to be a Democrat" part? So inside Laura is still a Democrat? People DO change, for REAL.

Lee

[BuyingThyme]

71. Her past is the only thing that is relevant.

What is relevant to you? What she says?

[Madspirit]

72. So Laura Bush IS a Democrat. Interesting...

That far past does most certainly NOT mean a god damned thing. Jeez, at 53, I sure as hell would hate to be judged by anything I did as a KID. ...but hey...you go for it. I am glad to find out that by your reasoning Laura Bush is a Democrat. Good to know. Yay Laura.

Lee

[BuyingThyme]

104. You sure are fascinated by Laura. Here's some interesting facts about Laura:

1. She's neither president nor running for president.
2. She's not Hillary Clinton.

Now you've reached the starting line in your quest to have an honest conversation about Hillary Clinton. It's been a long trek.

[ElizabethDC]

79. Well, Ronald Reagan used to be a Democrat

we see how well that worked for us when he got to the White House . . .

[Madspirit]

81. Ya kinda have to follow the whole sub-thread

I agree with YOU. Thyme was making the point that Hillary used to be a Republican, like it matters NOW. I said...so Laura used to be a Democrat. I was actually making the same point YOU are making.

Lee

[ElizabethDC]

84. Yep, I read it all

and I'm just trying to back you up, because I think the Reagan example is a good one too.


I've seen this argument used against Hillary many times on DU, and I think it's a pretty silly one. I mean, I know *tons* of people who were conservative until they got to college, and then became and remained die-hard liberals.

[Madspirit]

87. Thank-you

I REALLY never know around here any more. <g> Sorry I got defensive.

Lee

[BuyingThyme]

105. Not Hillary. She went to college and became a Republican.

[H2O Man]

92. I used to be in Jr. High School.

I'm glad that when I applied for jobs, people didn't say, "We can't hire this guy -- he's in Jr. High School."

[Madspirit]

96. ROFL

:rofl:

You are always the greatest!

Lee

[BuyingThyme]

106. That's what usually happens when junior high kids apply for jobs.

But another fine example of nonsense aimed at avoiding honest debate.

[BuyingThyme]

103. That's for sure.

[ElizabethDC]

78. Incorrect. She was a young Republican while an undergrad at Wellesley

by the time she graduated from Wellesley, she was a Democrat (she saw the light, as so many college-aged kids do). It was after that that she went to Yale Law.

I think her initial Republican leanings were due to the environment she grew up in - once she was exposed to both sides of the debate, she made the right choice. The same thing happened to my mom when she went to college.

[BuyingThyme]

108. Well, then, you better call her publisher so they can

take that part out of her autobiography.

[ElizabethDC]

111. I've read her autobiography several times

you must have a different version than I do. Hillary was the president of the young Republicans at Wellesley, but began to question Republican party and resigned from the group. She was the student speaker at her 1969 Wellesley graduation, and she gave what was essentially an anti-Vietnam speech (in response to the Republican senator who had just spoken before her.)

Hillary was no longer a Republican by the time she got to Yale Law.

[NYC Liberal]

85. People's views evolve as they grow.

Or would you rather have another George W. Bush who refuses to change even in the face of being wrong?

[BuyingThyme]

109. George W. Bush is not running.

Why do you people come up with such weak distractions?

[NYC Liberal]

112. Never said he was.

I said Hillary's views evolved as she grew up. And I asked you if you would rather have a president LIKE George W. Bush who refused to change their views when they learn that they are wrong.

[Marr]

117. A good point.

The posted attempts at countering this fact have been pathetically weak.

[bamacrat]

64. Because they think that might mean Bill is back. n/t

[coco77]

77. Maybe some are republicons...

[Madspirit]

83. Wow...ALMOST as condescending as the ones who claim Hillary lovers really want Bill back...

Some REAL Democrats LIKE Hillary. I like Kucinich but I don't dislike Hillary and I will certainly support her if she is our nominee.
Lee

[RaleighNCDUer]

116. Can you admit to having read, here on DU, innumerable posts

saying
"And with Hillary we get a two-fer!"
"It'll be great to have Bill back in the WH"
"...and she'll have Bill right there as an advisor!"

No, I don't have links, but just scan any Hillary thread and you'll find at least one such statement.

Not all Hillary lovers just want Bill back, but you can't deny that there are some.

[Mythsaje]

93. Because they're afraid of drastic change?

She's the status quo candidate, even more so than Obama.

[bigtree]

107. that rings true

except for the characterization of that support as a fear.

I think many Americans are understandably skeptical of new ideas presented by new faces. The familiarity of Sen. Clinton could be having the effect of providing a recognizable choice. Although the competing embrace of Sen. Obama may reflect a willingness to embrace change, many of his own positions are mainstream among his peers in Congress and recognizable as well.

[Mythsaje]

113. Considering how screwed up things are now

this skepticism (or fear) is rather sad. Okay...terribly sad.

[Geek_Girl]

97. Allot of Democrats are women

and as a woman I can see the appeal of Hillary. She is a very strong candidate and an extremely skilled politician, who happens to be a woman.

[Lorien]

100. Gender bias has no place anywhere, imo

I've suffered from it in corporate America, watching my male students get paid more for doing less on the job than I did. I won't ever vote for someone based on their gender. I'm unhappy with many of Hillary's votes during her time in the senate, therefore she will not be my choice in the primary.

[Geek_Girl]

102. I know the feeling

I work in the IT field as a programmer analyst and got real tired of seeing my male co-workers make 10-20k a year more for doing allot less. I've moved around to a couple of different companies the last year. Now I'm working as a contractor which basically resulted in a 19% increase in pay. At least now if I work over time I get my hourly rate.

[Breeze54]

110. Me too! I worked in

Tech Support (male dominated) and I was treated like crap, as far as hours
and pay and in general. Always second guessed, even though I was in the top
ten, in that group, as far as ratings go. One of four women in an office of
over 100 men. I'm pretty sure I was low-balled on pay but I can't prove it.
HRC seems to be on Code Pinks' good side right now. I find that interesting
and I understand their change in protesting her. I'll be watching her to see
what she does from here on out concerning Iraq.

August 2007

LISTEN HIILLARY

http://www.listenhillary.org/article.php?list=type&type=115

Our eighteen-month "Listen Hillary Campaign” has had an impact on
Senator Hillary Clinton’s stated position on the war—and her voting
record in the Senate.

snip ->

Hilary also said at recent Democratic debate that the one thing
she would do in the first 100 days of her administration would be
to bring the troops home.

In our office we have a stack of HILLARY SUPPORTS THE WAR signs from
our many Listen Hillary protests that we can’t in good conscience use
at present. But we are watching to see if her recent statements with
regard to the war are more than political calculation.

More.....

[SoCalDem]

98. Maybe the pollsters carefully choose the areas they poll

:evilgrin:

[RedCappedBandit]

118. Ignorance regarding other candidates..

either that, or they but into garbage like "so and so isn't electable.."

[Marr]

119. First, I'm not so sure that I can accept the claim that Dems actively "support" her.

They recognize her name and the fact that she's running, thanks largely to a corporate media that's determined to push a DLC agenda for the left. A Hillary Clinton nomination represents a win/win for corporate America, as the public would be left to choose between two corporatist candidates.

As for myself, I'm staunchly against her. She's the only Democratic candidate who could lose an election at this point, since she'll motivate the right-wing's disillusioned base in a way that their own candidates are incapable of doing. Add to that her DLC nature, and it seems as if we're being asked to risk everything for a shot at gaining nothing.

The *only* positive thing I can see coming out of a Hillary Clinton presidency (and I seriously doubt she'd win anyway), is that the right wing would be driven to a rabid, frothing paranoia, and would be clamoring to reign in Executive power. I could have a pretty good time telling them they're traitors for not trusting the Commander in Chief... but that's a pretty small perk, all things considered.