Sorry, Hillary Rodham Clinton, I do not support you for President in 2008

[Divine Discontent]

For me & my family who ALL vote, Hillary represents the status quo. She threw our '04 candidate for office (who won the biggest states handily and was screwed in OH) under the bus last week by calling his flubbed joke, "INAPPROPRIATE", when she knows DAMN well that he didn't mean to insult the troops but Bush, and saw it as a way to eliminate an opponent for '08.

I do not trust her anymore. And with the Carville attacks on Dean and his connection to Hillary, one cannot assume anything other than a betrayal on the Democrats when we just SWEPT the halls of Congress, thanks to Howard Dean, Rahm, Gore, and Clark. They spoke about the shameful war that Hillary STILL backs and I refuse to believe anything the Junior Senator from NY says anymore.

Gimme Gore. Gimme Clark. Gimme Edwards. Gimme Kerry. Gimme Obama. Gimme any Democrat except the one that will DRIVE the Republicans to the polls in '08 to vote AGAINST her!




www.cafepress.com/warisprofitable <<-- antibush prodem stickers/shirts

[Digit]

1. I don't support her, either

Since this has been the week to send "messages"...I just wanted to add: DITTO

[here_is_to_hope]

53. I will ditto your ditto...n/t

[aquart]

2. That's why we have primaries, dear.

And they don't start for another year or so.

But it's good to know your opinions are already set in cement.

[Sherman A1]

5. Agreed and Well Said.

The process will sort out the candidates. Hillary would not be my first choice, but if she is the nominee she will get my vote. Up until then if a candidate wants the job they will have to sell themselves to me and the rest of the electorate.

[cali]

31. I will not vote for he if she's the nominee

and I've never felt that way before. Aside from the fact that I can't stand either of the Clintons, I think the concept of tossing the Presidency between two families is despicable.

[lvx35]

42. The dynasty thing is really the problem...

It tends to make the US feel a bit like a monarchy, no?

[Amused Musings]

65. That is how I always felt

I'm sure she would be a "good enough" president, its just that it would be weird if every president since I was four had the last name "Bush" or "Clinton." Let's say she theoretically ran and won. That would at least 24+ years of Bush/Clinton. It's like some dual monarchy.

[election_2004]

6. Hmmmm....

First we're being told to "wait until after the midterms are over" before criticizing the prospect of a Nominee Hillary.

Now we're being told to "wait another year." (I guess to give her more time to build up her warchest, huh?)

Well, guess what...the midterms are OVER, and the Democrats were victorious.

And the primaries have already started. Don't miss the bus.

[FormerDittoHead]

50. I picked up on this as well. For some reason, only Hillary comments should be postponed. n/t

[Divine Discontent]

7. yeah,

but the betrayals and attacks on the people behind our country wide takeover are something that need brought up by all of us. To "jokingly" say a guy that lost his senate race should take over for a guy that just maneuvered an incredible, shocking, and sweet victory, is ludicrous! Sounds like the Clinton Machine is in full gear - and therefore I am, too!

[W.E.B. Du Bois]

54. Can you only vote in the primaries if you live in certain states?

i.e. Iowa, New Hampshire? Or does every registered Democrat get to vote. I would really like to vote against Hillary.

[fujiyama]

61. Some states have primaries

Others have caucuses.

Some states have open primaries, meaning any registered voter can vote. Others have closed, meaning only registered Democrats and independents can vote.

Check your states rules and the primary schedule, as it rolls around. The reason some people don't vote in primaries is because they feel by the time it comes to their state, one candidate already has the required number of delegates to win and they feel their's doesn't matter.

[W.E.B. Du Bois]

76. Thanks for the tip. :) (nt).

[BuyingThyme]

64. This is why we have DU, dear.

And it started some time ago.

But it's good to know your opinions are already set in cement.

[election_2004]

3. And gimme a: FUCK YEAH!!!

Hillary, for the most part, is a competant senator (apparently 70% of New Yorkers agree), and the U.S. Senate is where she should stay. I don't agree with the way she got there, but Senator Clinton has a secure job representing NY for as long as she wants one. And now that the Dems have control of the Senate, she can really deliver for New York.

I could get behind Clark, or Edwards, or hell, even Bayh, for president in the General Election. But Democrats can't get cocky, and most be cognizant of implications (and possible public backlash) for the 2010 midterms.

[Pepperbelly]

4. Why do you think she intends to run? nt

[Divine Discontent]

8. Because the MSM

is constantly propping her up as if it's a foregone conclusion that she's the Dems candidate for President, and her organization and operatives are vast, her warchest is getting bigger & bigger. Something really stinks with that. She inspires so much animosity from the Republicans that they'll vote in #'s never seen before, and I would much rather have Barbara Boxer run than Hillary. I'd vote for her over any Repub, but I dread seeing her run. Maybe she'll not run since the 40% she'd get from us Dems who'd stick with her, and the landslide for the Repub, and decide against running.
Plus Hillary sounds odd when she's on the stump. She's good, but too much from the gut, and it sounds odd.

PS - Sorry I didn't put Feingold up there in the original comment.

[election_2004]

11. You know why that is, don't you?

The MSM has A LOT to gain from the possibility of the GOP retaking control of the House and Senate.

A Hillary nomination could clinch that reality.

[Divine Discontent]

12. I respect that argument

and it's valid, of course. But don't think for a minute that Hillary doesn't want in that WH along with the great Bill.

[election_2004]

17. Oh, I know they do....

The Clintons and the MSM each have distinct gratification to gain from putting Hillary in the White House. Just different motives.

[Pepperbelly]

14. But they are almost always wrong about everything.

She has not addressed the question. No one in her family has addressed the quesiton. No one who knows anything has said anything. In my view, most of the talk is geared toward gop fundraising through the rightie's horror of Hillary and their gullibility as well.

I don't know that she wants the gig. Her experience in the WH before, while no doubt rewarding, was also damned near FATALLY draining and pretty damned unpleasant to boot. And she knows what it is like better than almost anyone.

Just saying ...

:shrug:

[election_2004]

18. During her debate against Spencer, she admitted she's thought about it....

She obviously couldn't come right out, during her senatorial reelection campaign, and say, "Yes, the moment NYers reelect me to this seat, I intend to start planning my presidential run."

[Pepperbelly]

56. Shoot ...

I'VE thought about it but I ain't gonna do it.

:)

[devinsgram]

48. Could it be the 28 + million dollars she has raised?

[Pepperbelly]

55. only time ...

will tell.

:shrug:

[Muddy Waters Guitar]

67. She used up most of that in her Senate campaign against Spencer

in an attempt to produce a lopsided margin against a candidate the GOP basically threw in there to take potshots against her. Even then, her margin of victory was less than that of Eliot Spitzer, who ran with much less money and much less support against a candidate who got more GOP money in a very liberal state.

[desi]

9. Let the hatefest begin

It's never too early to bash Democrats.

[BluegrassDem]

10. Well we have primaries to sort out the details

She's not my first choice either, but if she's nominee, I'll do whatever I can to her elected! The idea of us not voting and letting McCain waltz into the White House is enough to make me throw up.

[Divine Discontent]

13. Yes, I agree

She did it the week before the election, mind you! So sneeky that Hillary is!

[desi]

15. Absolutely the "sneekiest"

The Repukes need all the help they can get to send her into "hiding" again.

[elehhhhna]

25. When she acts like a DEm, I'll treat her like one.

Sorry, Hil, but w/o Bill you ain't jack.

The fact that he may predecease her makes her potential presidency totally unattractive. Just saying.

Let BC be apointed SOS to a dream-team cabinet and say Buh-bye, Hil.

[Hieronymus]

16. I don't support Hillary ..

but I certainly don't support Kerry. We lost '04 because of him. He sucks at campaigning.
Edwards and Clark are my favorites.:applause:

[Muddy Waters Guitar]

70. Yeah, Edwards, Clark, Obama top my list

We have strong horses, far too strong to let the media basically select for us like this-- a foolish oversight that could doom our chances in 2008.

[codjh9]

19. Agreed - she's become too much of a moderate, the Bubbas still hate here...

[adadem]

20. Me neither

nor any of my Dem friends

[Divine Discontent]

21. well, see, that seems pretty common to me... not too many want her

Clark and Edwards are my faves, but they supposedly don't like each other, and Gore is prob. not running. So, one of the 1st two will hopefully get it and pick a Feingold (if Edwards wins) or Obama (if Clark wins, or he might pick Hillary) for VP.

[AJH032]

22. Please, Clinton is not status quo

I'm sorry, you may not like her or support her, but no way in hell is Hillary Clinton the equivalent of our current (status quo) president. She is a vocal critic of the President and his policies. "Status quo" politicians don't criticize the present.

[IndyOp]

23. She LOST the straw poll at our local Democratic Women's Caucus yesterday!

I was SOOOOO pleased. I stupidly assumed that the Women's Caucus would blindly vote for the girl.

:spank:

:kick:

[Olney Blue]

26. Interesting! Do you mind saying who won?

[Divine Discontent]

28. yes, Olney and I both wanna know now, that Hillary didn't win...

Gore right? No, Edwards???

[IndyOp]

49. The straw poll was just: "Hillary - Yes or No" so it wasn't much of a straw poll..

Four people mentioned Obama without being asked and I listed Gore and Kucinich.

:hi:

[elehhhhna]

24. Rec #7. NO MORE FAMILY POLITICAL DYNASTIES!1!!!

[Divine Discontent]

27. wow...

first off, I agree with your "family dynasties" comment. and #2, thanks for the recc., I'm shocked to see it has 11 already. Was just frustrated about her over the top slam on her fellow Democrat Kerry, when she shoulda backed him up, instead she stabbed his back with a butcher's knife.

[elehhhhna]

37. i have a creepy feeling that

she's Lieberman in a dress.

[Blue_In_AK]

29. I'm with you.

[pstans]

30. I totally agree

There is a big sign on a barn just outside of town that reads, "Hillary Stay Home."

[bigwillq]

32. I will only vote for her

if she wins the primary other than that I prefer someone else.

[Barack_America]

33. I agree. I grew up in a "centrist" town, evenly DEM and REPUB

...both sides are united on their hatred of Hillary Clinton. "Hatred" isn't an exaggeration either. I don't know exactly what it was about her that rubbed them the wrong way, but something did, and they haven't forgotten it.

Given that communities like mine are the front-lines of the Democratic party's push to reclaim the center, I don't see how nominating her will achieve anything.

[wisteria]

34. She won't have my vote and I know of no other person who will vote for

her or thinks she will make it. One person says she is smart but caustic. Other just angry at the mention of her name.

[Clarkie1]

35. Unfortunately she has the greatest name recognition at this point

and the advantage that comes with being the wife of a popular President, along with $$$.

I have no illusions that it will be tough to challenge the Hillary train, but the fact is she's not the best person for the job.

[elehhhhna]

38. Pairs Hilton's better known and has more money. Doesn't make her a good candidate.

[laugle]

73. I disagree, I think she would be a great president,

along with her husband and maybe John Edwards as VP.

I'm just not sure yet if she could win.

Why don't you think she could do the job and who do you think could do it better?

[fuzzyball]

36. Luckily for Hillary, more democrats support her than any other candidate

as of now. She has no close contenders period. It is a case
of snow white and 7 dwarfs.

[elehhhhna]

39. LOL fuzzy! Good one! Welcome to DU!!1!!

:toast:

[Diane R]

40. I totally agree. She knifed Kerry in the back.....

and now Carville is doing her dirty work on Dean.

No more bushes, no more Clintons.

[roody]

41. Her support for the war makes her an inadequate

candidate. So was Kerry's, but I did vote for him out of fear of Bush. A lot of good it did.

[fuzzyball]

43. A good majority of democratic senators voted for the Iraq War Resolution

including sen Kerry and his running mate.
So why single out Hillary? Highly illogical I say.

[roody]

44. Some have renounced their error; Tom Harkin comes to

mind. Kerry renounced it way too late, and blamed being misinformed. How come I knew? After blowing my Kerry vote, I vowed to no longer vote my fears. We need a good anti-war candidate.

[BenDavid]

45. Before most of you all have to grab

a paper bag and put over your head to stop your hyperventilating, no one knows if she will even run. Now if she did she would not only win to be the Dem candidate but she would win the Presidency too....
She is one damn good poker player now, letting all the others show their hand i e mccain, and she will sit back and wait till the right time...I would suspect if she decides to enter the contest she will announce October 2007.....

[Clarkie1]

46. Then she will lose.

The only way a candidate could benefit in any way by waiting that long was if none of the other candidates was sufficiently inspiring and the new candidate brought something new to the table.

Hillary has nothing new to bring to the table except her gender, and I think American women are smarter than she gives them credit for.

[quickesst]

47. If...

Clinton is the Democratic nominee, and you vote third party or do not vote in protest, why not just simply declare your vote for four more years of the bfee? It is exactly the same thing, and for anyone to deny that is delusional at the least. You don't vote, or you vote third party. What have you accomplished. One thing. You have been able to successfully stroke your liberal ego at the expense of another vote that could deny the cRiminal Party another four years. Are Democrats really that (insert nice word for dumb here)? Some are. Thanks.
quickesst

[Oleladylib]

51. Simple, If she is our candidate, she has my vote..If it's a Hillary/

McCain face off..all bets are off on those who claim a no vote for Hillary.

[Muddy Waters Guitar]

68. Actually, there really are a lot of Democrats who won't vote for her at all

in the primaries or in the General. I'd imagine that they might revise their opinions if the GOP nominee were to be, say, somebody like Sam Brownback. But if it's someone like McCain, Giuliani or Romney, these nominees would be palatable enough to encourage a no-vote for Hillary, including a vote for a Third Party. That's the vibe I've been getting. Progressive Democrats could tolerate 4 more years of a not-so-crazy Republican, in return for getting a shot at having a Progressive elected in 2008, when Americans would be tired of 12 years of Republican rule. They won't vote for Hillary in any case.

[Oleladylib]

69. That's what I love about extremists..They'd rather drown..so be it..I would vote for Hillary.

But, when it comes right down to it..I wonder..in the booth ..by themselves ..I'll just bet they would vote Democrat because underneath it all they are relatively smart

[laugle]

77. Last I checked this was Democratic Underground not

3rd party underground.

Get serious and stop posting nonsense......you've said it over and over again.....enough!!

[wildflowergardener]

52. I don't like her either

I don't like her - and won't vote for her in the primaries. My only fear is that her people or the democratic party will pressure others to not run in the primaries and she will be the only choice.

Run in the primaries, - fine, but give the people other choices to choose from as well. I suppose it is conceivable that I could change my mind after seeing her speak - but right now I just have a fairly negative view of her and haven't seen that much of her speaking.

Meg

[Oleladylib]

71. How can one have a negative view without hearing her speak??

Would be informative to know how one basis and opinion on what...?

[young_at_heart]

57. She will DIVIDE the party and cause chaos if she runs

Why can't she and her advisers see this? The Republicans are really pushing for her behind the scenes because they know. Wes Clark has much more potential to be a great leader and NOT a divider!

[Prophet 451]

58. Mixed feelings

I don't much care for Hillary. I don't think she has either the gravitas or the likeability to be elected (and at that level, you need one of the two), she sometimes seems to speak without thinking and she would be the best GOTV advert the GOP could ever have. "Hate" is too mild a word for the feelings she inspires amongst most of the Righties, "visceral loathing" is getting closer but "murderous contempt" is probably about right. She inspires such hatred amongst them that I would honestly fear for her life if she were elected.

That said, if she runs and if she wins the primary (and both of those are big "if"'s) then the party needs to unite behind her. I wouldn't vote for her in the primary even if I were eligible (Right now, I like the idea of a Clark/Obama ticket) but if she wins the primary, we need to put it behind us and unite behind her, if for no other reason than to stop whoever the Repubs are running (looks like McCain right now but I have recurring nightmares about a Jeb run). The R's are smarting right now but they'll heal quickly and utilise every dirty trick in the book and invent some new ones to hold onto the Whitehouse in '08. We cannot hand them any more ammunition by undermining our own candidate, whoever that turns out to be.

[Muddy Waters Guitar]

74. The problem with this analysis

is that a very large number of Progressive Democrats won't rally behind her at all and won't support her if she were nominated in 2008-- this is the reason for the Third Party talk. McCain would be repulsive on some levels, but the reasoning behind those who wouldn't support Hillary is that they could tolerate four years of him prior to our running a Progressive in 2012, after which the country would be tired of 12 years of Republican misrule, as they were in 1992, and ready to elect a Progressive. McCain isn't ideal but he's much more palatable than George W. Bush.

Besides, I'm guessing it won't be McCain in 2008. My money's on Giuliani as #1, Romney as #2. Again, he would be at least acceptable to enough embittered Progressives that they'd tolerate him for 4 years instead of Hillary, with the prospect of electing an actual Progressive in 2012 further justifying the choice.

[The Count]

59. I couldn't vote for her for the senate now (but did so happily in 2000)

Mostly for the torture parsing, war supporting, fascism coddling BS.

[bobbie]

60. Go away Hillary--And take your war with you

I won't forget that vote.

[jpwhite]

62. the real reason Hilary won't win

The real reason that Hilary won't win in 2008 is because Republicans will see this as an opportunity to get revenge for losing to Bill twice. How can you really seperate the two of them? They are married!!! Look, we don't need that in 2008. She is an excellent senator and we need her to keep that seat in the Senate. We need someone who can win the whole thing, such as Al Gore, Barack Obama, Wesley Clark, or John Edwards.

James
[e-mail]

[quickesst]

63. How hard is it...

for some people to understand that the purpose of the primaries is to nominate a candidate. If you don't like Clinton, don't support her, but if she garners more votes than the others running, exactly how far are you willing to go to help the repugs win another four years. If there is another person running who can run a better campaign than Hillary, they will have an equal chance to garner the nomination. If Clinton does win the nomination, it will be because that is the will of the people, and as much as some here on DU like to think this is the center of the Democratic universe, guess what. It's not. Millions more Dems out there who are more centered than most here. Those who will not vote for her even if she is the nominee, fall into that category I was trying to find a nice word for. Thanks.
quickesst

[Oleladylib]

72. THANK YOU..it's called extremism..like we enjoy pinning on the Right Wingers..n/t

[Muddy Waters Guitar]

66. Again, this is why Hillary's so dangerous to our 2008 prospects

She's polarizing even among Democrats, not just the electorate as a whole. It's not just a Netroots thing-- I know quite a few basically computer-illiterate, old war-horse Democrats who have worked tirelessly for the party for decades, and they would not vote for Hillary in 2008 even if she were nominated. They're far too angry about Hillary's unflagging support for the war in Iraq and her pro-corporate, anti-middle class stands on thinks like outsourcing and bankruptcy reform to support her.

Were she to run for us in 2008, the Republicans and Third Parties would be the biggest gainers.

[laugle]

75. What a bunch of

BS....oohhhhhh...be afraid.....

[greeneggs708]

78. I'll Bet

Hillary cares even less then I do.