OK, here's my case against Hillary...

[TreasonousBastard]

and it has nothing to do with electability, although that's always in the background.

Frankly, I think she'd be a perfectly fine President, better than pretty anything the Republicans have to offer at this point and, it goes without saying, a vast improvement over the present occupant. She's intelligent, competant, unflappable, pragmatic, and her experience in Washington goes all the way back to her role in Watergate. And it would be interesting to see what an ex-President as "First Husband" would do with the role. Can't see him being "Mr. Thatcher."

But, here's the problem...

We're in trouble. Big trouble. This superpower thing we've been living with for years is becoming more of a burden than an asset. As a nation, we're floundering around without much of a purpose or even a good self-identity any more. Deep down, everyone knows that when you're Number One you're a target, and there are a lot of #2's out there trying harder and catching up. In some ways, many are surpassing us. Peak oil, trade deficits, income disparities, environmental disasters... Name your favorite personal crusade.

So, what we need, as much as a decent manager, is an inspiration. Some of you may remember the kind of inspiration that Kennedy gave us back in the early 60's. Was JFK a great President? Not so hot in my book-- he almost got us into nuclear war with the Soviets and who knows what his economic and foreign policies would have wrought if he'd lived longer. But, he gave us hope and identity, and we didn't get into nuclear war with the Soviets after all.

That's what we need now (except for that nuclear war thing, of course). Not someone who will bring back the past and pick at the scabs, reviving the constant bickering that's been going on, but someone who we all can rally around, and let the professional partisans and doomsayers out there rot in their own little personal hells. By the time the next President gets sworn in, we'll have had 16 years of this nonsense that has accomplished little, if anything.

If Hillary can inspire us, right on! But, I don't think that's in the cards. If she wins, it's at least four more years of the crap we had to go through with her husband in the White House-- half of Congress doing nothing but throwing banana peels under her feet and the country getting more and more pissed off at the spectacle.

Nope. New broom, new blood, and a new direction for the country.

Who is that new blood? We got good choices-- go for it.

[Captain Hilts]

1. There are a lot of women and girls who find the idea of a woman in the Oval Office inspiring.

I know of little girls following the race just because of that.

Clinton's still, at best, my fourth preference in the primaries, but don't discount what a lot of women are thinking. That's why Clinton gets more votes than polling points.

[mahina]

2. Not this Democrat woman...

or my Code Pink buddies. I haven't even met a single Hillary supporter.

[papau]

5. Just about every women seems a Hillary supporter - as seen in the 75% polling amongst Dem women n/t

n/t

[mahina]

8. I guess they didn't call Hawaii.

nt

[JNelson6563]

10. Nor Michigan

;-)

[ChairmanAgnostic]

16. Nor Illinois

:) :)

[peacebird]

24. Nor Virginia

[Jai4WKC08]

31. Not Kansas either (and we like our woman governor just fine)

[flpoljunkie]

12. Nor Florida.

[papau]

13. Visit Tampa Bay/Clearwater and meet the ladies in Florida that I have met! n/t

n/t

[ElizabethDC]

26. Yep, I'm from the Tampa area

me and a lot of my family and friends love Hillary.

[Forkboy]

30. Alright...she leads in all women except those in the actual 50 states.

:)

[Captain Hilts]

33. DU is not representative of the Democratic Party as a whole. nt

[Forkboy]

38. Exactly

Which is why I'm sure you'll agree that the people claiming that they know a bunch of people who would vote for Hillary are equally non representative of the Democratic Party as a whole.

[Captain Hilts]

40. Our friendships and aquaintances are very 'self-selecting'. nt

[Tellurian]

64. ...

:kick:

[ms liberty]

53. I grew up in Tampa...

and live in NC, and I really don't want Hillary to be the nominee, although I'll vote for her if she is.

(Leto High School, c/o 77 here)

[Nedsdag]

20. Not me!

n/t

[Blue_In_AK]

36. Me and my Democratic daughters are not Hillary supporters. n/t

[Pirate Smile]

45. Do you have a link for that stat, papau? That seems waaayyy too high.

I know there is a gender gap with more woman then men supporting Hillary but 75%?

[Pachamama]

54. Guess I must know all the 25% of those polled...Actually, I'd say for me its 75% of the women I know

don't want Hillary....It's been a fascinating thing to watch really. I live in a community that is pretty affluent and the women very politically active in democratic circles. At dinner parties, the big stir is how the vast majority don't support Hillary and are torn between Obama and Edwards.

And I think the recent numbers shown with the donations to Obama vs. Hillary show that.

[durrrty libby]

9. I'm in the medical field and more than 75% of my co-workers

are for Hillary.

So my experience is very different than yours

[Alamom]

Same here. I'm seeing a lot of women and men who will support HRC. n/t

[durrrty libby]

19. I interact with many youngish college educated males

It was surprising to me, their enthusiastic support for HRC

My theory is that young men raised by strong independent women,

may have something to do with their confidence in her

[earthlover]

43. wouldn't a heart beating that fast be...

fibrillation?

[durrrty libby]

56. "wouldn't a heart beating that fast be...fibrillation?"

no dufus....that would be irregular, and unsynchronized contractions


:freak: :hangover: :spank:

[iconocrastic]

47. You mean men who never had a father figure, they like Hillary?

Ouch.

[durrrty libby]

57. Having a strong woman in one's life does not mean there is no father figure

What an idiotic assumption

:dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce:

[bvar22]

58. Certainly, women in the Medical Insurance

and Health Management orgainzations should support Hillary.
They should FEAR someone like Kucinich or anyone who supports single payer Universal HealthCare.

[Carolina]

29. Not this Democratic woman

either or any of her activist Democratic female friends!

[Captain Hilts]

32. Correction: DemocratIC woman. nt

[Hepburn]

55. Ditto....

...female here and I do not support Hillary. I just do not trust her because she seems to say what she needs to say politically way too much and way too often. I am a senior citizen and way back when ~~ in the 60s ~~ I remember the feeling of not trusting the "establishment." Hillary brings back that same feeling I had way back when. She is one of "them" and not one of us, IMO.

[peacebird]

3. great - let's vote for "novelty" - the FIRST woman or whatever instead of substance...

Not directing this at you, MookieWilson - just in general. Americans are frequently all too happy to pick a pres based on physical appearance, or whether they look like the more fun to go drink a beer with instead of taking a long, sober look at qualifications, beliefs, and ideas.

:wtf:

[papau]

6. I agree - I want specifics on policy and I want management ability - and its early

to see either, I realize, but so far there is little of either being shown by any candidate.

"Leadership" is what Bush claimed to have - inspiration as a moral Christian is what Bush claimed to have - ability to end the bickering in Washington is what Bush claimed to have - well I want specific policy this time since Bush used nice sounding generalities to sell himself - and later we found words and phrases meant the opposite of what we thought they meant - clean air means dirty air, etc.

[Captain Hilts]

22. I was in polling 8 years, so I know this is all too true. nt

[Lydia Leftcoast]

27. Not this Democratic woman or her mother or any of her friends

:shrug:

[ClassWarrior]

35. I hear what you're saying, even if most DU women disagree...

Last summer I was manning a county Dem party booth at a popular (non-political) event, and many, many women who identify as Dems but aren't really involved in politics expressed their excitement for Sen. Clinton's candidacy.

And I hear you about the kids, too. A preteen girl I know supported Carol Mosely-Braun in 2004 because "she's the lady who's running."

NGU.

[rasputin1952]

42. Mosely-Braun & Clark were the only two that had class and dignity...

The rest were wallboards.

[Joe Chi Minh]

51. That's why a lot of British women voted for Thatcher. A friend of the

her sisters she was not! Or anybody else, except the sharks our MSM are pleased to call "fat cats", even while they're feigning outrage at their barbaric plundering of companies and their employees.

Off-topic, I know, but this euphemistic "framing" of the discourse by our MSM really riles me. If an MSM journalist used the term, "shark", instead of "fat cat", I don't think they'd keeep their job very long.

[Telly Savalas]

62. I find it inspiring too.

Lamentably, Senator Boxer isn't running.

[Uben]

4. at least four more years of the crap we had to go through

I'll take that crap "hand over fist" rather than more of the "crap" we've gone through the last seven years! That "crap" you speak of happened to bring us some of the most prosperouos and peaceful times in American history! Bring on the "crap"!

[flobee1]

7. good point

Ther will never be the "perfect candidate" but any of the Dems are better than what is in office now
I dont see anyone running now that is not open to new ideas when the old ideas dont work.




I dont have the sense of desparation, urgency or forboding doom that I felt when Bush was trying to get elected. I dont have that feeling that one of the contenders must be stopped before they do something stupid, as I did in 2000 and 2004:)

[mtnsnake]

11. I think Hillary would do a great job. As far as inspiration, no one can inspire like Obama can

I posted about him a long time ago how with his inspirational skills he really fits the ticket of being the kind of person who can heal this divided nation that we are right now.

[Captain Hilts]

37. I could vote for him with enthusiasm. We have a great crop to choose from. nt

[bling bling]

63. Ha ha ha. Look what I found.

I posted about him a long time ago too and I went searching for it for fun. It's fun to read what people were saying about him at that time. I don't think too many people back then would have predicted that he'd actually be going for it in 2008. I don't think I honestly thought he would do it either.

I have to point out that I wrote that post *right* after we lost in 2004 and everybody was a freaking enraged mess and everyone was lashing out all over the place so Skinner created a special forum for everyone to vent. I can't remember what it was called...but it wasn't GDP at that time.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=1310470&mesg_id=1310470

Reading that thread from when I felt so angry and hopeless makes me stop and appreciate that so many Americans besides myself now have their hopes and sights set on a new direction that they see represented in Obama. It gives me hope that all has not been lost to the right-wing wacko's (after Bush was re-elected I was feeling pretty scared of this country....).

[Tellurian]

14. The OP's Title is "My case against Hillary."

I've read it twice and see nothing written that indicates support of the Title.

So, my question is- What Is The Case Against Hillary?
As far as I can see, none exists.

[earthlover]

46. oh yeah...none exists...

Hillary is the perfect candidate. No case against her is possible. Pardon me while I puke. None exists.... yeah, right....

I know some Repubicans who thought the same way about Bush. Do we have to face a new crop of Democrats who, like the Bush lemmings, think their inspired leader, is beyond criticism?

There IS a case against Hillary. She won't win in November. That is one. She is a Republican in Democratic clothing...two. She supported the IWR for three. She, more than any Democratic candidate, is beholden to the establishment. Even if she were elected, she could not unite our country and we would face four more years of divisiveness.

I have to marvel at the worship that Hillary supporters/worshippers exhibit. Is she a woman or a God?

[donco]

15. I have a hard time finding the difference

between the likely Republican opponent Rudy Giuliani and Miss Clinton.

[Tellurian]

17. The differences are obvious...no?

Clinton is a woman and a democrat, represents Peace and Prosperity.
Guiliani is a man and a republican, represents a continuation of more of the Bush policys.

[jgraz]

48. Hillary represents peace? Where do you get that from?

She's only slightly to the left of Lieberman on the war. She plans to continue the occupation if she's elected. Where does the peace come in?

[skipos]

21. I dislike the idea of HRC as our nominee as much as the next person but

there is a pretty big difference. Rudy LOVES the Iraq War and LOVES Bush's foreign policy.

"Thank God the George Bush is our president."
- Rudy Giuliani

[Captain Hilts]

34. Open the newspaper - and your mind. nt

[wyldwolf]

18. OK, here's my case against your case against Hillary

and it has nothing to do with electability, although that's always in the background.

Sure it does. But your interpretation of electability and mine are different. Mine is based on whether a candidate, by words and actions, can appeal to the largest amount of voters. Yours is defined as whether a candidate can appeal to a narrow slice of the electorate, namely, the leftwing of the Democratic party.

But, here's the problem...

We're in trouble. Big trouble. This superpower thing we've been living with for years is becoming more of a burden than an asset. As a nation, we're floundering around without much of a purpose or even a good self-identity any more. Deep down, everyone knows that when you're Number One you're a target, and there are a lot of #2's out there trying harder and catching up. In some ways, many are surpassing us. Peak oil, trade deficits, income disparities, environmental disasters... Name your favorite personal crusade.

Interesting analysis there. Are you suggesting the next president purposely take steps to weaken us? To turn us back from our "superpower" status? To make us NOT #1 anymore? Seems that the Clintons showed quite conclusively in the 90s that we could be #1, the superpower, with a purpose. Dayton Accords, anyone? Kosovo?

So, what we need, as much as a decent manager, is an inspiration. Some of you may remember the kind of inspiration that Kennedy gave us back in the early 60's. Was JFK a great President? Not so hot in my book-- he almost got us into nuclear war with the Soviets and who knows what his economic and foreign policies would have wrought if he'd lived longer. But, he gave us hope and identity, and we didn't get into nuclear war with the Soviets after all.

Seems to me everytime the left calls for an inspiration, that candidate goes down in flames. McGovern, Nader, Dean... This is because they only ever "inspire," again, a narrow slice of the electorate. Pragmatism rules the day. Always.

Certainly JFK was an inspiring leader but he was opposed in his presidential run by that same narrow slice of the electorate, namely, the leftwing of the Democratic party. And thank God he did what he did or else we'd have nukes staring us down from Cuba.

... what we (don't) need now (is) someone who will bring back the past and pick at the scabs, reviving the constant bickering that's been going on, but someone who we all can rally around, and let the professional partisans and doomsayers out there rot in their own little personal hells. By the time the next President gets sworn in, we'll have had 16 years of this nonsense that has accomplished little, if anything.

You are naive if you think there is a Democrat alive or dead that won't "bring back the past and pick at the scabs, reviving the constant bickering that's been going on." Do you think the GOP is going to forget the constant attacks on them from the left these past 8 years? Simply put, there isn't such a Democrat that we can all rally around. By the time the next President gets sworn in, the same nonsense that has been going on since the advent of American political parties will begin again. Did you really think the partisan bickering started 16 years ago?

[TreasonousBastard]

23. I don't know where you...

got my definition of "electibility" from, since I didn't give one. For the record, it's the same as yours. And I didn't mention the left wing of the Democratic Party at all.

But, also just for the record, I took special notice of that little fiasco in Connecticut last year when just enough left-leaning Democrats chose Lamont, ignoring the rest of the Democrats, Independants, and some Republicans who promptly reinstalled a pissed-off Lieberman who then had even less loyalty to the party. There's a lesson there somewhere.

Overall, yes, Clinton did do a good job of maintaining our international status. I have no doubt Clinton II would attempt to undo what the present occupant has screwed up, but we are entering an entirely new world here. It is now clear that our trillion dollar military budget and wordwide system of bases really doesn't accomplish much when, say, South America is thumbing its collective nose at us, rubbing it in that our overt efforts in Iraq are even less productive than our covert efforts in Colombia. And that's not even beginning to address the emergence of China and India adding to the economic competition from Europe, Japan, and Korea just as Peak Oil seems to be showing up and we are going bankrupt.

When I call for "inspiration," I'm not looking for someone tilting at windmills or a self-described savior. The present occupant managed to get into office largely because enough people believed his bullshit about being a "uniter." The real uniter is someone the electorate will gravitate around without being reminded.

And, yes, the opposition will always be there and there will always be political battles to be fought. That's the messy way it works in a democracy. But, why refight the same old battles with the same old players?

[wyldwolf]

25. it was an easy call

If you're not the "must appeal to the leftwing, must elect someone insprirational, tilt at windmills" type, you're definitely speaking their language.

[Tellurian]

28. because..

"But, why refight the same old battles with the same old players?"

The same old players will be there no matter who is elected. They stand unseen in the shadows. They, who dictate the pnac plan, they, who pull the strings of the puppet government, namely Bush, the figurehead, and Cheney, the enforcer. They, who dictate to the Federal Reserve. They, who dictate our Foreign policy.

my dear poster, whoever is elected will be standing against a legion of like minded thinkers bent on world domination. Dare I say, we send a freshman to do the work of a seasoned warrior? I've seen the wakeful memes, "new blood", "fresh face", "healer". Are any of those adjectives enough to fight the Battle for Survival?

Perhaps you are speaking in terms of the Primary election. Would it be wise to be so short sighted, rather than thinking in term of the endgame? Please advise- as I am not entirely sure of your mandates.

[Alamom]

49. Your second paragraph warrants a thread of it's own.

whoever is elected will be standing against a legion of like minded thinkers bent on world domination. Dare I say, we send a freshman to do the work of a seasoned warrior? I've seen the wakeful memes, "new blood", "fresh face", "healer". Are any of those adjectives enough to fight the Battle for Survival?

[Tellurian]

61. Thanks, Alamom..

I'll save it for after the holiday weekend..

[TreasonousBastard]

59. Feh! We know the "permanent government" isn't going away...

and anyone who's going to be a player in DC has to deal with them. It's not just PNAC, the Bilderbergers, Illuminati, career CIA types, Carlyle, or any of the other legendary cabals we love to hate and fear, but there always have been powerful currents in history guided by both powerful players and the vagueries of chance.

The tinfoil crowd still insists JFK was killed because he crossed them, and they might just be right this time.

So, Hillary knows how to work with them, just as Bill did, but without the charisma to "feel our pain." That's such a good thing? Eight years of relative peace and prosperity was kinda nice, but nothing substantial was done that survived the next eight years of legnedary ineptitude.

Now, if Hillary convinced me that not only does she know everything, but she actually believes in something, that would be nice.

Yeah, yeah, I know... we could end up with another Carter if we look too far for that new broom. Great guy, but ineffective as President. Or another Reagan, who made us all feel good, but didn't really do squat but set us up for humongous debt.

[Tellurian]

60. Why not?

Ridding the country of "the permanent government" should be plank one setting the foundation for an insurmountable Democratic platform. The Republicans have always been their own worst enemies. Give them enough time, they always self destruct. I've never known a republican failing to implode. And what is most pitiful, they are the worst crybabies when it happens. (please don't hurt me!) And the most vicious after you help them, never an iota of gratitude ever enters their mind. For all we know, they may collectively be born minus a single cell called 'conscience' unless reminded by external influences, they never give "gratitude" another thought.

Given time and self inflated over confidence feeling invincible in numbers, Republicans fail to see what we see. Self-serving, egotistical, opportunists sucking the life blood out of the working middle class while adrift on their island of hypocrisy.

"So, Hillary knows how to work with them, just as Bill did, but without the charisma to "feel our pain." That's such a good thing? Eight years of relative peace and prosperity was kinda nice, but nothing substantial was done that survived the next eight years of legendary ineptitude.

Now, if Hillary convinced me that not only does she know everything, but she actually believes in something, that would be nice."

As to the above paragraph, I don't see any similarity between Hillary's style and Bills.
As far as her success working with republicans, I haven't see it first hand, so I can't say. You tell me.

Just about everything Bill Clinton built in his 8 yrs in office is now totally dismantled and gone. Are you blaming the Clintons for this? I don't believe anyone knows everything.**non sequitur.

Now, to your veiled question..."something she actually believes in" - She believes in herself. (why would I have confidence in helping Hillary get elected if I didn't think she had the confidence in herself of being an effective president?) She believes she's capable of restoring our country to it's former glory because she's seen the country in a state of disarray before, courtesy of the previous Bush Administration. Together, she and her husband with their combined experience, (and I believe it will come to those words at the tail end of the campaign, which is not a worry) can bring this country back from the brink of destruction inflicted on America's **FAMILYS, due to the disastrous 8 yr reign of a Republican administration.

**The key word here is: FAMILY* it's the common denominator of every living human in America. That word should be her Primary Campaign Theme. The people are aching to hear that word used loud and clear as the voice of Democrats reuniting the Nation in Democracy and Family.

[marlakay]

39. Vote for a woman?

My husband said to me yesterday, don't you want to vote for a woman? I said yes a woman I like but Hillary is not it. I would vote for Nancy P. for pres. And Elizabeth edwards if she wasn't sick.

[Captain Hilts]

41. Yes, in 2004 I would have voted for Elizabeth over Kerry, and Bush [of course].

She was the real surprise of that campaign.

[rasputin1952]

44. I agree we need a manager that is inspirational...When JFK took the

reigns, it was a "brave new world", there was discord on the horizon, but most of the country saw the light on the hill, we saw what we could be if we aspired to a goal.

Kennedy had his faults, as did LBJ, but Johnson tried desperately to work in Civil Rights while micromanaging a distant and unpopular civil war. Funny, but I saw a thing on Johnson the other day, and I saw him in a different light than I did all those years ago, he cared about the country, about poverty, Civil Rights and the infrastructure. He could certainly be an asshole, but he had a vision too.

As for Hillary, I don't think she's electable for several reasons:

1. Baggage, TONS of it

2. Expectations are high for the first female pres, while I think she could handle this, once again, baggage, and like you said half of congress throwing banana peels at her feet.

3. People are not going to vote in another bush, nor will they vote in another Clinton, I think the days of "relationship" presidents is finally over.

4. We DO need inspiration, we are a people that loves inspiration, if we fail at the attempt, we feel great while trying to get to where we want to be. Hillary is just not that inspiring to me. I think Tipper Gore and Elizabeth Edwards on the female side of things are far more inspiring...they have warm embracing smiles, they enjoy their lives; w/Hillary I feel uninspired and cold.

Whomever the next president is, he/she should not be elected to be the "first" of whatever, he/she should be elected because they have a record of accomplishment that will wash away the years of failure of the present administration.

[vssmith]

50. My problem with Hillary is,

like many others here, her vote for the war. I understand why she voted that way--she felt that as a woman seeking the presidency she need to appear strong. Real strength is doing the right thing no matter the consequences. There are many strong ladies in our country, she just doesn't happen to be one of them.

[mmonk]

52. No candidate is perfect. I don't look at them as rock stars.

In Hillary's case, her albatross to me is the DLC and the people she has surrounded herself with. My trust has been shattered too much to go in that direction. We need a different America, one that leads, not bullies, one that respects civil liberties, not a growing security state, one that is a participant in the world, not a country that seeks to own it at any cost. We need a democracy that works for everyone, not just the monied interests. I'm not looking for anything radical, just one that won't keep drifting right when we're pretty much as far as to the right as we ever need to go. No need to compromise anymore, especially in the area of rights and humanity. I'm not convinced she is one that leads us into that direction. Plus, of course, I don't think she'd win the general election.