My biggest concern about HRC - NOT a bashing post

[NoBorders]

I don't think Clinton is racist, and I don't think she's horrible, or that she's more or less in the pocket of corporate america than other candidates. I think she would, relatively speaking, be a good president. Of course one can argue these points ad infinitum, and there are substantive arguments that favor one candidate over another on such things. But on the whole, I don't think one candidate is vastly, unequivocally superior to the others on many of these issues.

I happen to support Barack Obama. For a variety of reasons, he's the first presidential candidate that I've ever actually gotten excited about. But that's not my point here.

My biggest concern with Clinton--and the focus of this post--is about her electability, and my concern comes from both anecdotal information and the polls. I realize this has been brought up before, and I would agree that her negative image largely comes from the media, but of course your average jane/joe voter probably won't take that into consideration.

Some recent polls have her with high negatives, and other presidential candidates seem to do better than her in the national polls when up against various repug candidates. But then we know the value of polls, especially this far out from the GE.
http://www.presidentpolls2008.com/
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/national.html

Then there's the anecdotal stuff. I've heard co-workers and friends say that they're not sure yet who they will vote for, "Just not Hillary!" Obviously, plenty of people would vote for her, but she seems to elicit the most visceral negative reactions.

So I'm hoping to hear from Clinton supporters on how they rebut this question of her apparent high negatives. If there's information to contradict this, or a reasoned argument that nullifies or mitigates this concern, I would like to hear it.

I'm not posting this in the spirit of a provocative challenge, I genuinely would simply like to to be more at ease in the case that we end up nominating her. I realize of course there's little hope in the current environment to get a non-emotional, bashing-free thread, but what the heck, who knows.

Since I know the first response will probably be 'Good luck with that' let's just get that out of the way here.

updated for clarity.

[Selatius]

1. I'm wondering why she waited so long before releasing a health care plan

John Edwards was the earliest in terms of offering specifics. Obama came next, and then Hillary came last, but the funny thing is her plan is basically Edwards' plan with differences in the details. You would think she'd be right next to Edwards in terms of offering a plan. It wasn't enough anymore that one simply say that you are for universal health care. You must offer up specifics; feel good aphorisms won't cut it anymore.

[DemCam]

15. Time to take the power from MSM

How many ways they have to mmisconstrue....and that goes for
all of them.

I liked "fair and balanced" in the good old days.

[Yael]

2. It is my largest concern as well.

Not the only one, but certainly the largest.

[William769]

3. Not going to bash the thread but will just add that my number one issue with Obama is elect ability.

I just don't see him doing well in the general.

[NoBorders]

7. Thanks for not bashing

I appreciate the comment. FWIW, and probably not much, but he seems to have an edge in most national polls when pitted against various republicans, though they're about even against McCain.

[fenriswolf]

4. i look at it like this

alot of people prefer not to vote for obama or edwards or other people. But just look at the amount of people on DU who hate, loathe, will not vote for no matter what. The people on this board are supposed to be the dem base, if she generates so much hate and controversy here how do you suppose she will fair in the general election? when the repubs start throwing out decades of trash they have piled up?

[maddiejoan]

5. Is Hillary Clinton a "Corporate Democrat"?

recommended reading

http://www.theleftcoaster.com/archives/011131.php

by eriposte
UPDATE: Also see Part 2 and Part 3.

SUMMARY

This post examines the allegation that Sen. Hillary Clinton☼ is a "Corporate Democrat" - namely, a person who is beholden to "Corporate America" and who is more likely to support "corporate interests" as President than the interests of average or middle-class Americans.

I find that the existing evidence, based on her Senatorial voting records compiled by Progressive Punch, Americans for Democratic Action, AFL-CIO and SEIU, does not really support this allegation. Indeed, the evidence suggests that Sen. Clinton's voting patterns are substantially and surprisingly progressive (ranging typically from 90-100%), including on corporate or labor issues. There are certainly serious issues where Sen. Clinton has unfortunately taken anti-progressive positions (e.g., her vote for a version of the Bankruptcy Bill in 2001), but the data reviewed here suggests that overall, she is far more progressive than corporatist. In the absence of additional or new data, I have to conclude that the label "Corporate Democrat", as applied to her, is inappropriate and extraordinarily misleading. In other words, while it is true that she has strong links to corporate America and corporatist interests, there is little or no evidence that she systematically votes in lock-step with those interests or even significantly in line with their positions. I provide a few plausible explanations for this dichotomy in the conclusions of this post.

Not surprisingly, outside of corporate or labor issues, Sen. Clinton's progressive scores take a small but non-trivial dip to the neighborhood of 80% on the topics of national security and war. This topic is not examined in this post.

Finally, the results discussed here should not in any way be interpreted as signifying an endorsement of her or of her practice of keeping unethical people like Mark Penn on her payroll (a practice that I find hard to understand or rationalize). I sincerely hope Sen. Clinton will reconsider having Penn on her payroll.

<snip>

[NoBorders]

8. Good information.

At the very least, I would suggest that any of the dems are far-less subservient to corporate america than any repug. But that's not really the question I was posing.

[hfojvt]

11. yeah, and according to those organizations neither is Lieberman

been there, done that. It's lame that any Senator gets 100% as if there is no possible way to be more progressive than them. Especially after 2000, in the Republican controlled Congress, it means they voted against bad Republican bills, not that they initiated anything good.

[DrFunkenstein]

6. My Concern is Her Need For Militarism to Show How She's "Tough"

She has demonstrated that over and over again. And that's not the kind of thing that going to go away after election day. I don't want someone willing to put hundreds of thousands of real, human lives on the line for the sake of political theater.

I also feel that she is unelectable, which ends the conversation involving the damage she would do to other Democrats and her inability to get major reform passed through Congress.

[hfojvt]

9. that's just not a convincing argument

If I like a candidate (and like what they stand for), like, say, Jesse Jackson in 1988, I vote for him/her in the primaries. Electability is not my primary concern, unless I am undecided between two candidates.

In fact, one could argue that Hillary is the most electable. First, because she is running as an incumbent - Mrs. Bill Clinton. Second, because she, like her husband, has shown she can raise big bucks. Third, she's already been hit with everything they've got, and like the Iron Giant, she's still standing.

[NoBorders]

12. Thanks. Probably the most convincing point

To me in your post is that she had indeed been through the Right Wing Wringer, and we already know what they will bring against her.

[Stop Cornyn]

10. I also do not think Hillary is an Ogre, but she'd cost us more downballot votes in Texas if she tops

our ticket.

Ideologically, I see no meaningful distinction between Hillary and Obama, but I see Obama as having a neutral effect on the ballot in Texas and Hillary as a net loss, but Edwards would bring us some key downballot victories.

[AndyTiedye]

13. That Is My Concern With Both of Our Frontrunners

I think either of them would be a huge improvement over what we have now. But they have to get elected first.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

14. This is a huge concern

she's been on the public stage so long, and is, obviously associated with her husband and his administration--there are a lot of people who want something new. I can't help but think we'd have a better chance winning the White House with someone else.