What "baggage" does Hilary Clinton have? She voted for the war - what else?

[patricia92243]

I keep hearing so much about her baggage - what is it.

I know the Republicans did a lot of investigating - but nothing was found.

So, I never have understood what her huge baggage is supposed to be.

???

[waiting for hope]

1. She also co-sponsored

a flag burning amendment - that, while it's just obnoxious, is an indicator of her blowing which ever way the wind blows.

[Deep13]

5. I thought it was a watered-down alternative.

It was a way to give dissenters an excuse to vote against the real flag-burning amendment.

[mtnsnake]

6. That's typical DU bullshit. She co-sponsored LEGISLATION, not an amendment

The reason she co-sponsored anti-flag desecration legislation is because she DIDN'T want to see an amendment overhaul. Do some research instead of parroting all the other exagerrating whiners who have nothing to do but try and bring her down on a Democratic forum. Criticize her, but get it right.

[waiting for hope]

35. I Have......

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton is supporting new legislation to criminalize desecration of the United States flag _ though she still opposes a constitutional ban on flag attacks.
Clinton, D-N.Y., has agreed to co-sponsor a measure by Republican Sen. Bob Bennett of Utah, which has been written in hopes of surviving any constitutional challenge following a 2003 Supreme Court ruling on the subject.

Her support of Bennett's bill follows her position in Congress last summer, when a constitutional ban on flag-burning was debated. Clinton said then she didn't support a constitutional ban, but did support federal legislation making it a crime to desecrate the flag.

In her public statements, she has compared the act of flag-burning to burning a cross, which can be considered a violation of federal civil rights law.
http://www.mydd.com/story/2005/12/5/211436/972

Hillary Clinton's attempt to rebrand herself as a red state friendly DLC Democrat -- Bush on Brains -- continues with her decision to sign on as a co-sponsor of the Flag Protection Act, which makes it illegal to desecrate the American flag. It's stars, stripes, and triangulation. But, according to a top secret strategy memo leaked to the Huffington Post by a senior (and wholly fictional) Clinton official, this is only the beginning.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/arianna-huffington/huffpo-exclusive-secret-_b_11784.html

My apologies for using the wrong term...

I'm not whining, I see her as a right leaning Democrat. This is one example.

[mtnsnake]

37. Thank you for correcting that, something which is a rarity around here.

:toast:

[blm]

2. She trashed the White House - BushInc's spin machine had that going for A YEAR.

We DO count RW lies against Dems as "baggage" these days, don't we?

[Captain Hilts]

13. Her name was never mentioned in reference to that. nt

[blm]

32. The whole thing was a lie - and she was trashed along with Bill at every turn.

Remember the doozy about Hillary 'stealing' the furniture to put in her new house? My guess is RW radio yakkers still pass that one along as gospel truth. Will it ever end? Only if we pull the plug on corporate takeover of radio somehow.

[Deep13]

3. She's Hillary Clinton.

Right or wrong she has become the poster-child for everything people don't like about liberals.

[patricia92243]

11. I don't want innuendo - I want to know what her REAL baggage is - not Republican hype. n/t

[Deep13]

19. If people believe R hype, it is real baggage.

Elections are about perceptions, not reality.

[mtnsnake]

23. She has none. Instead, she has a problem. Her problem is that

it is hard for someone like her to cope with the relentless lies, innuendo, & gross exagerrrations that take place on forums like this because of people who want to bring her down in order to build up their favorite candidate. That, and no doubt there are well placed, clever moles present.

Rightwing hate radio can't even rival the damage and the distortions that take place about her on this board.

[More Than A Feeling]

75. Really? I thought her biggest strength was her ability to defeat

personal attacks against her. To exaggerate, if someone tried to swiftboat her, they'd be found tied up in a closet somewhere with a sign on them saying "Hillary rules!".

[sendero]

61. and the sad part is...

... she isn't even a liberal really.

[mtnsnake]

87. I think deep inside she is still a liberal, although politically of late she isn't.

She's a smart lady and she knows how to play the game of politics as well as anyone out there. She's doing whatever it is she thinks it takes to win. She's taking advantage of a country that wants to move toward the center, and she's catering to them in that respect, IMO.

I also think that conservatives are anxious about this, and that they stay up late at night worrying that if she's elected President her true liberal colors will come to the surface. To them, Hillary is nothing but a closet far leftist liberal. To most people on DU, she's the exact opposite. To mainstream Democrats, she's their choice for front runner. Figure that ;)

[Parche]

4. clinton

She didnt 'vote for the war' she voted to authorize the use of force
there is a difference
GW Bush illegally invaded Iraq, he is the one that 'took America to 'war''

[Deep13]

7. That's true.

It is also true that Kerry tried to draw that distinction without much success.

[karynnj]

40. She's actually in a worse position here

Kerry spoke out when Bush made it clear he was violating his promises before the war and spoke out when Bush attacked. Neither Bill or Hillary did. To me, this suggests that Kerry is honest on this. The question for Hillary would be, why, when it was clear Bush intended to attack when the inspectors were succeeding, she stayed quiet. Bill Clinton may have been the only one who could have led enough people to insist the invasion not occur.

[Cameron27]

74. When did Bill have his heart surgery?

Edited to add: 2004 surgery, quite possibly very ill prior to having surgery.

[patricia92243]

8. Good point. n/t

[Captain Hilts]

16. Right. She voted to give him a bargaining chip when he went to the UN, to goad the UN...

into doing something.

The logic backfired, but she didn't vote 'for' the war.

[Hippo_Tron]

76. So why was the guy in my avatar smart enough to know that Bush would abuse that authorization

But Senator Clinton was not?

[jpwhite]

9. she is a target

The GOP will see a Hillary Nomination as a chance to get back at us for the fact that they could not beat Bill in two elections. This will be about revenge, plain and simple. They don't really hate Hilary, they hate the fact that they lost to Bill. So all of this negativity directed at Hilary is really a disguised form of hatred of Bill. Now that he is no longer competing in elections they can't get to him by beating him. But they can get to his wife, and a victory over her would be just as sweet to the GOP.

James
[e-mail]

[patricia92243]

17. So, her bagage is that she is a target? How can she be a target with no baggage? n/t

[Quantess]

24. I agree.

I would say that her real "baggage" is the animosity that has been directed toward her and her husband for the past several years. That's quite a burden, right there.

[sendero]

62. Wanna make .

... the right wing's ridiculous vilification of Hillary pay for the Republicans? Nominate her, and you will see how effective 12 years of propaganda can be.

[mtnsnake]

10. She voted for the war as well as all these other Democratic Senators did:

Baucus (D-MT)
Bayh (D-IN)
Biden (D-DE)
Breaux (D-LA)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Carnahan (D-MO)
Carper (D-DE)
Cleland (D-GA)
Daschle (D-SD)
Dodd (D-CT)
Dorgan (D-ND)
Edwards (D-NC)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Harkin (D-IA)
Hollings (D-SC)
Johnson (D-SD)
Kerry (D-MA)
Kohl (D-WI)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Lieberman (D-CT)
Lincoln (D-AR)
Miller (D-GA)
Nelson (D-FL)
Nelson (D-NE)
Reid (D-NV)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Schumer (D-NY)
Torricelli (D-NJ)

[annabanana]

42. (ahem)

They thought they were voting to give the US some leverage at the UN. At the time they (and most Americans) thought the President of the United States wouldn't deceive the country about something as vital and critical as putting our kids in harms way.

[mtnsnake]

53. Yeah, I agree. My post was in regards to the OP subject line

Hillary always gets singled out for the voting for the war, but I just wanted to show she wasn't the only one, by far.

BTW, you should have that cough looked at. It's flu season, you know.

:evilgrin:

[Hippo_Tron]

77. So why did 23 Senators vote against it?

Surely there's nothing objectionable about giving the US some leverage at the UN. Maybe those 23 Senators like any other person with a brain knew that Bush had no interest in the process and would abuse his autority to rush to war. Just so happens that those 23 Senators were more interested in doing what was right for the country than they were in advancing their political careers.

I have no problem forgiving the Senators that voted for it, but lets not kid ourselves. They voted for it because Bush had a 70-80% approval rating and they didn't want to go against a popular President's foreign policy when they went home to run for re-election or in some cases run for president.

[WinkyDink]

12. Gee, let me think about that one......MONICA! Impeachment of her old man!

EVERY slur and slander, each lie and libel, will be re-hashed.
I'd expect interviews with "Bill's Women", e.g.

This IS the American media we're talkin' about here.

[Oleladylib]

15. That's BS..she was one class act all through the mess. n/t

[patricia92243]

28. She was a VICTIM of the Monica mess. I'm looking for real dirt that she has done that would be "bag

"baggage." So far I'm getting a big zero to this question - other than Republican made-up stuff.

[Virginia Dare]

14. Her "baggage" is that she is the front runner...

so everybody will be gunning for her first. Like it or not, right now she is probably the most powerful single person within the Democratic Party, and nobody can match her money making ability. As far as who she is, it's out there for everybody to see. At this point, I can't imagine that any more dirt could be dredged up on her that hasn't already been dredged.

In my opinion, who voted for the war as opposed to who didn't will not be an issue in 2008, it's what happens from here forward that will make or break a candidate as far as the war goes.

She will be a force to content with, that's for sure.

[LTR]

18. She pees standing up

:spank:

[Deep13]

21. Metaphorically, that's true.

A lot of people (not just men either) feel uncomfortable with assertive women who they see as going beyond their gender roles. The qualities that would make her a tremendous executive also work against her as a candidate.

[Captain Hilts]

38. That's pretty funny. nt

[TallahasseeGrannie]

20. What was that business deal she was in?

White Water or something? And of course the Pubs say she offed Vince Foster. Enough for a sound swift boating.

[Deep13]

22. Supposed to be a sweet-heart deal...

...on some land when Bubba was governor. It wasn't and they actually lost money on the deal.

[Nostradammit]

25. Did she vote for the "Patriot" Act?

[patricia92243]

26. I don't know. n/t

[jilln]

30. ALL the Senators did, except Russ Feingold!!!

[mtnsnake]

31. self delete

mistake

[SCRUBDASHRUB]

47. I thought Boxer didn't nor did Byrd.

[jilln]

49. Nope, Feingold stood alone.

He may be the only one who actually READ it.

And only about 10 of them voted NOT to extend it.

[depakid]

27. She has extremely high "negatives."

Whether fairly or not. That makes it very difficult for her to ever win in a general election, no matter what her stands on the issues are.

The far right has already spent billions of dollars and countless hours demonizing- and they've gotten what they've paid for.

[mtnsnake]

29. Hahaha, I notice you post that, & then don't bother to post a single negative

in your post.

At least enlighten us as to what all her negatives are. Oh, I know, she's polarizing. lol

[depakid]

36. It's common knowledge.... I just saw figures the other day

0f around 45% who would never consider voting for her. McCain's numbers were up higher than I expected- in the mid 3o's range.

Moreover, these cut across party lines- according to an exit poll citing on the huffington post, one out of 5 of her supporters doesn't think she'd be a good president.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/earl-ofari-hutchinson/the-democrats-hillary-di_b_34048.html

Overcoming huge negatives like that at the beginning of a campaign would be damn near impossible- and I think she and her advisors know that.

[AtomicKitten]

46. but other Dem contenders are higher

Hillary .... 40%
Kerry ...... 51%

And Edwards and Gore don't fare much better.

IMO the "negatives" are the byproducts of a concerted effort by the Rs to make them that way.

[HughBeaumont]

33. She's come out in support of offshoring and Tata.

No thanks on the freep-trader bullshit that "a rising tide lifts all boats". Read my journal. Read Myths of Free Trade by Senator-elect Sherrod Brown.

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/GC01Df03.html

[bling bling]

55. At least she acknowledges the issue.

She acknowledged that there are people here who are against outsourcing and explained why. She's trying to be balanced. I like to see a politician who recognizes both sides and at least attempts to negotiate so that both sides can win at least something rather than one side getting everything they want and the other side gets zippo like it's been for us the last 6 years. It's better than the GOP method of grabbing their balls and saying "here's the way it's gonna be and too fucking bad what 1/2 the country thinks about it....we don't legislate using opinion polls...."

From the article you linked to:

"Hillary further clarified her position during her recent visit as well as solutions that could be beneficial to both countries. She urged Indian industries to invest more in the US to allay negative outpourings over outsourcing of American jobs to India. "I have to be frank. People in my country are losing their jobs and the US policymakers need to address this issue," she said. She ruled out that the anti-India feeling was a reflexive reaction, and explained that the feeling was more because of the imbalance in trade between the two countries, which in turn caused anguish among Americans about the nature of the economic relationship.

"In 2003, US merchandise exports to India was $5 billion, while India exports to the US was $13.8 billion. Though the US understood that the economic vibrancy of India was in its own interest, there are people who feel left behind and might stir up negative feelings against India because they do not understand the economic benefits of outsourcing," Clinton remarked.

"If the feeling was to be arrested, Indian companies should invest more in the US to create a balance in trade relations," she said. Hillary added that she had personally wooed Indian companies to establish partnerships with American counterparts. "In June 2002, TCS partnered with the University of Buffalo to bring patented research to the market place. I would like to see more of such partnerships," she said."

[HughBeaumont]

67. Sherrod Brown acknowledges the issue.

As do Byron Dorgan, Dennis Kucinich, John Kerry . . . hell, even wingnuts like Tom Tancredo acknowledge it. The difference between all of them and DLC Free-Trade mavens like Hillary, however, is that they don't support mass job offshoring and correctly see it as only benefitting the rich while underpaying and exploiting the working and poor classes of all nations involved.

I'd like a logical explanation from Hillary how destroying one nation's working class to lift another helps working classes from both countries involved. Does she take in account unemployment and closed plants and businesses means less tax money going into the local and state communities, less income going into the economy, more secondary businesses such as bars, local stores, etc, closing because of all the lost revenue they once had when people are gainfully employed? Does she take into account the cost of retraining and the greater cost to the overall economy of likely underemployment (i.e. going from $25 to $13 dollars an hour)? Does she take into account the toll on the physical and mental health of the worker and the stress placed on families and relationships due to displacement? These are only some of the many reasons why offshoring and layoffs are unnecessary and economically detrimental.

Playing the eternal game of employment musical chairs seriously takes the bolts out of a strong infrastructure. The economy is painfully inadequate if it cannot accommodate anybody except the heavily degreed and privileged.

[bling bling]

70. What is the best course of action, in your opinion?

I admittedly have limited knowledge about the laws involving outsourcing. I would be intersted to hear what a Democrat in the Senate could/should *realistically* propose to counter mass offshoring. The article you linked to also explained that Kerry's position on outsourcing served to drive the Indian American voters to Bush's side. In your view, is there there any way to negotiate something that would work for everyone?

[HughBeaumont]

72. Superficially, for starters -

I'd do the things outlined in my journal entry here -

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/HughBeaumont/2

It would require a more collaborative effort between business leaders and the government to institute such a plan of action, provided they take the recently adopted "open minded" stance on things and not the "heartless, but that's business" view the past six years has plagued us with.

I'll be back with more details, as I've taken out more books on the subject as of late . . .

[bling bling]

80. I'll look for your further details.

I read the journal you linked to and it makes sense to me. I'm already on your side on this issue (I would think/hope most Americans would be...) but I'd like to get more education on the topic, especially in terms of what the Dems could/should do so that we can push them to do it.

[Hawkowl]

82. Repeal the tax breaks

First prohibit tax breaks for companies that ship jobs abroad.
Second, the Senate has to approve all Free Trade treaties. She could stop these destructive bullshit corporate giveaways, but she appears inclined to side with the corporations, rather than the workers. An individual Senator has a lot of power to stop legistlation, judicial approvals, and legislation. She has not made a stand on ANYTHING.

[zann725]

34. She "forgave" Bill. While as a politician he certainly has strengths, as a husband...

n/t

[FrenchieCat]

39. Hillary was the architect of the health care bill that got such bad press,

that it will hurt her, regardless of whether it wasn't as bad as was advertised.

Her proposed health care plan was sunk before it could get into the water, and again, it's not what the bill "could have been" that will haunt her....cause Lord knows we need a good health care proposal; it's the documented media hype on how bad it was and the fact that it never saw much light of day-- that will be maybe her biggest legitimate detriment as Health care will be a big issue in 2008, from where I sit.

Apart from that, I think that some will imply that she has bad judgement in more ways than one. Whether it's her supporting the war in Iraq or something as personal as not realizing how much of a womanizer her husband ....will be interpreted to mean that to some degree she has no clue on the character of those she deals with....even those she deals with closely. Of course what happened to her in her private life is something that has happened to many woman, but as she is a public person, I do believe that this will be said about her.

Beyond that, I feel like the "Dynasty" card will be played in that out of the hundreds of millions of people that are Americans, it will disturb some voters that we are coming up with Bush/Clinton/Bush/Clinton, and her opponent will have a free hand to utilize this "could be" easily interpreted as an anti-American development in a nation that was built to get away from such arcane notion.

Lastly, I believe that the fact that she is a woman does put her at a deficit from the starting gate, because there are folks that simply won't feel comfortable voting for a woman, in particular at a time when our national security is an issue and while we still have problems outstanding with countries like Iran and North Korea, never mind Iraq. I know that this is sad, but it is very true.

All in all, she does have some heavy enough baggage.......and add to that the plain vitriol that many feel for her, regardless of whether there is substance behind their hatred....it would still impact what many do at the voting booth. Too many folks vote with their hearts, not with their heads, and so this "I hate her so much" attitude does end up counting as very real baggage even if it is a reflection of shallowness on their part.

Of course, I am not counting the fact that many conservatives thinks that she's too liberal or they simply associate her with Bill Clinton, and they don't like him....still.

[AtomicKitten]

44. sexism and racisim in 2008

from The Unquotable Rag http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/10/AR2006111001387.html

Is America too Racist for Barack? Too Sexist for Hillary?

By Benjamin Wallace-Wells
Sunday, November 12, 2006

Excerpt:

Democracies are awkward like this. Despite incessant polling, we really get only one moment every two years, at best, to measure how Americans feel about things, and these elections must stand as imperfect proxies for a mess of subjects: what we think about religion, whether we like being included in the international conversation, whether Northeast bluebloods would tolerate a Texan as their leader.

But when it comes to race and sex, this seems a slightly more legitimate game: The question that remains for black Americans and women isn't whether prejudice has diffused to the point that they can participate in the United States, it's whether they can legitimately hope to lead it.

Today, they may have reasons to be optimistic. Poll numbers for Clinton and Obama are among the strongest of any presidential hopefuls. It now seems nearly as common for political leaders in television shows and movies to be women or racial minorities as white men. Recent polls have found that the percentages of Americans who say they would not vote for a hypothetical black or female presidential candidate, long formidable, have dwindled into the single digits. And last Tuesday's elections put House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) on the brink of becoming speaker and Democrat Deval Patrick, who is black, in the Massachusetts governorship.

*****

Clinton has made different choices, but they have their limits. Politically, she has done everything that Obama has done: She has become a serious policy professional, moved toward the center and renounced the excesses of 1960s-style identity politics. And yet these moves are received as the tacks of a smart politician. For Obama, they are received as the arrival of his race.

[fuzzyball]

41. So did Kerry, Edwards and dozens of other democratic senators..

so I don't see as a baggage for Hillary.

[EdwardM]

43. I hate to break it to you, but voting for the war counts as some extreme baggage.

That means, she is on the wrong side of the most important issue in politics right now. I don't think she has issued any regret for voting for it either. You may not count that as baggage, but that is certainly enough to make me not vote for her in the primaries in 08 or any other Senator who voted for it.

[napi21]

45. The baggage...HER NAME IS CLINTON! n/t

[ooga booga]

48. Hillary doesn't just HAVE baggage. She IS baggage!

Hillary is the bogeyman...or bogeywoman already in very large areas of the country more than 200 miles from Times Square and 50 miles from the Pacific Ocean. In my area (Dallas/Fort Worth), you can go out at least 500 miles in any direction and find that she's just a non-starter in the presidential race {Austin/Travis County excepted}. It's fashionable and the norm to slam Hillary.

If someone can show me how she can get 270 electoral votes, I'll reluctantly entertain the possibility of Hillary being the nominee in 2008.

[mtnsnake]

88. I don't mind Hillary, but I think your answer is probably the best one on this thread

On DU, it doesn't matter whether or not she HAS baggage, what matters is the perception that she IS baggage, just as you stated.

[Rockholm]

50. Louis Vuitton?

[election_2004]

51. She ran in a state she never even lived in...

...just to get elected to the U.S. Senate (in a very blue state she knew she could safely win), to use it as a stepping-stone to the U.S. presidency.

And the MSM whores have been loudly and shamelessly cheerleading for that eventuality ever since Bush's inauguration in January 2001.

Judith Hope and the NY Democratic Party were said to have "cleared the field" in 1999 to make way for Hillary to run against Giuliani. At least, that's the common theory that pundits are too afraid to admit. If Hillary runs, we'll know this CW was indeed true.

The Clinton namesake brings out seething hatred among the Republican base (even though Bill Clinton was moderate-to-center/right in his politics), and Hillary, as his high-profile wife and someone who the GOP shills painted as a "power-hungry" First Lady, will receive the brunt of the Clinton Hatred by association in 2008 (not to mention, she has a strongly left-leaning voting record that can easily be used against her).

Due to this reality, the right-wing will not only wage a relentless campaign against her, if she's the presidential nominee, but they will use that stigma to bring down Democrats who run for the U.S. House and U.S. Senate and local offices all the way down the ticket in red and purple states. Hillary could win the presidency, but Democrats would also likely lose control of both the House and the Senate alongside Hillary's hypothetical election (due to wishy-washy "split-ticket" voters who will vote for Hillary out of a desire for change, but will simultaneously vote for their Republican candidates in congressional races, in order to convince themselves they are being "bipartisan" and to "keep Hillary's liberalism in check").

THAT, folks, is baggage.

While the GOP will target and try to smear any Democrat who is nominated, Nominee Hillary would have more bloodthirsty vengeance directed at her than Bayh, Clark, Edwards, Kerry, Richardson, and Vilsack put together.

Oh, and she has done NOTHING during the past six years to make her more qualified for the presidency than anyone else who could run for the Democratic nomination.

She should remain in the U.S. Senate, working with other Democrats for change there.

The notion that she is this "superior," "immensely qualified" presidential candidate is simply absurd.

[opihimoimoi]

52. Small baggage...she has mostly good charactoristics...clear thinking, and

she advances Humanity....benevolent as well.

[skipos]

54. For whatever reason, 45% of America is committed to voting against her

I don't know how she can beat those odds, unless the GOP nominates another Bush.

[IndianaGreen]

56. The size of her rump?

Or perhaps it is her snail pace "evolving" on same sex marriage.

[jackbourassa]

57. She was on the board of directors for Walmart!

And oh ya, she's Hillary Clinton radical feminist, lesbian communist.

She will lose every district in the south and west.

[AZBlue]

58. Yeah..back in the 80's. For six years...and she tried to get more women hired & environmentally

correct programs in place.

Damn her!

[AtomicKitten]

59. the burning question is

What will those that salivate venom upon the very mention of Hillary's name a la Pavlov do if she does become the Democratic nominee in the primary process?

It isn't a leap to consider that possibility since she has consistently out-polled all others by a margin of at least 2:1 and better.

DU will become a ghost town, what with the mass exodus and all.

[election_2004]

64. Speaking for myself....

If that happens, I won't be posting in any of the presidential election discussions.

I will limit my DU discussion to threads specifically based on indvidual candidates whom I support, or narrowly-defined issues. Basically, avoiding all "Hillary talk" one way or the other, from that point on.

Offline, I would probably campaign solely for a single candidate (incumbent or challenger) who's running for a more local office, or else work on a campaign that's relevant to a specific ballot proposition.

[AtomicKitten]

65. You, sir/madam.

... are a good citizen, both on DU and off. Thank you for a serious, mature answer. I like the cut of your jib.

[election_2004]

81. Thanks

Because honestly, if it came down to it, I would prefer for Hillary to be the one appointing judicial nominees, rather than McCain, Brownback, Hagel, Romney, or Huckabee (Giuliani, I believe, would give his party headaches - - but I don't think he has a prayer of actually winning the GOP nomination).

Aside from that, I don't find any redeeming qualities in her. Her positions are mediocre-to-disappointing, and her public statements are suspiciously calculated on a consistent basis. I believe she only ran for the U.S. Senate in New York for the sole reason of becoming president someday. And the MSM is only pushing her hypothetical candidacy so hard because they want "excitement" to cover, and they want to perpetuate the impasse between Democrats and Republicans for as long as possible. I have very little respect for their corporatist game, and even less respect for Hillary's likelihood to play into it. For that reason, on a personal level I can't give her my vote.

I just feel there are Democratic prez hopefuls who would give more momentum to downticket Democrats in the more competitive races. Clark has shown himself to be an effective coalition builder during the midterms, and Bayh (although he's more conservative than I would prefer) would make a lot of new districts in the blue-collar Midwest competitive. If Senator Clinton does sweep up the nomination, many of the good Democratic candidates are going to have a hard enough time winning new seats or retaining their old seats in spite of her, so I will probably consider sending some of them money (even though most of them will be in other states).

Also, here in California we won't have any gubernatorial or U.S. Senate races (and my congressman is in a safe district). So I intend to be working very hard to pass a potential ballot proposition (assuming it qualifies) that would legalize civil unions in our state's constitution. That in itself will probably require most of my energy.

[Imagevision]

60. She voted for the war?- but didn't Kerry & Edwards vote for the war?

[blm]

71. Did she vote for Iraq withdrawal plans or sign on to the DSM inquiry?

.

[cadmium]

63. If that was all I wouldnt have much of a problem with

her if she came to reality sooner. Now it is obvious it is a mistake and that she is placing more importance on not being a flip-flopper than on the deadly reality of our mistake in Iraq. At this point it strikes me as a totally shameless position.

[Alexander]

66. Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas.

She showed more outrage about the sex scene in that game (which had to be hacked to all hell for anyone to even see) than she did about the Iraq War, the debt/deficit, the stolen elections, the illegal wiretapping, Roberts and Alito, the giveaways to Halliburton, etc....

Many college-age people play this popular game and having her stick her nose in something like this likely cost her thousands of potential votes.

If she's the nominee, I'll vote for her. That's it. Vote. No canvassing, no GOTV, no phone-banking, no overt support. We can do better.

[rodeodance]

68. The public hears that mantra over and over and so many continue to

repeat it over and over.

[PassingFair]

69. She didn't just vote to authorize the war. ...

she cheer-leaded it from the dem sidelines.

She STILL does not admit that it was a
fiasco and that she was duped into voting
our troops into harm's way for oil profits
and Haliburton's enrichment.

The "flag burning" issue is the kind of jingoistic
crap she latches onto and campaigns on. :puke:

She is REVILED by the puglicans, disliked by the
base of her own party. Why ANYONE thinks she would
make a good candidate, other than on the basis of
her "dynastic" name, is beyond me.

Her constituents
in NY not withstanding, of course.....

[NotGivingUp]

73. her husband passed NAFTA and GATT

[sniffa]

78. she has quite a few

[ElizabethDC]

79. Public perception is the main baggage I see . . .

While many may disagree with some of her policy choices and others may argue that she's ambitious and opportunistic, I think that those are arguments that can be made against just about any politician. Hillary's problem is that there is a visceral hatred of her among a large portion of the population - many of the people who hate her won't respond to any kind of reasoning when it comes to her, and so it's impossible to change their opinions about her. That being said, I think that a lot of the people who feel such strong hatred for her are likely to vote for the Republican candidate anyway. At the end of the day, it would come down to those independent, swing voters - just as it does in almost every election.

I, for one, think Hillary's advantage is that they've likely dug up all the bad stuff that they can dig up about her, and so she would likely be able to respond to just about any attack/accusation. Candidates who initially seem scandal-free are more susceptible to new character attacks that they don't have the time or ideas to properly respond to (a la the swiftboating of Kerry).

She's in a unique position and if she runs, it will certainly be very interesting . . .

[Muddy Waters Guitar]

83. Not just the original IWR but also her continuing Iraq

War support, moves against Syria and Iran, also-- in particular-- her support for that awful bankruptcy reform bill and pro-outsourcing stances. If anything, I suspect that, for many Democrats, Hillary's support for the bankruptcy bill-- which screws over people who've been injured or who've had car accidents-- and support of outsourcing, have made her someone they can't support even if she were nominated.

These are distinctly anti-Progressive policy stances that hit the middle class. Her flag-burning amendment support has angered many people.

Also, from before, there's the Hillary Rodham Clinton health care changes bill that failed so miserably, and that's a major piece of baggage. Finally, Hillary has some of her own verbal gaffes to account for, just like Kerry-- that dumb comment about Gandhi being one. I don't think Hillary's dumb, I think she's quite capable overall, but her baggage and her polarization are so high that she'd drag the whole party down. She and the DLC are just too set against our most basic policy principles to be acceptable.

[laylah]

84. She voted in favor of bankruptcy bill n/t

[Hosnon]

85. Did she vote "for" the war in the same way that other Dems did? It's one thing

to vote for a resolution that declares war on Iraq. It is quite another thing to vote for a resolution, like the AUMF, that authorizes Bush to do what he must to fight terrorism.

It was Captian Happypants that decided fighting terrorism required invading Iraq.

However, Clinton and the rest of them should have realized how broad the AUMF was before voting on it.

[KoKo]

86. Dynasty! Bush/Clinton/Bush/.... ..We need fresh ideas and new faces

enough of dynasty. Otherwise DC and the Corporations and Lobbyists will keep going with the same old crew who has brought ruin to our country and sent jobs overseas.

We don't have much left and the baggage is the Dynasty of DC Insiders who forgot long ago how real Americans out there are living under their NAFTA/CAFTA and deregulated Stock and Financial Markets.

[cadmium]

89. Voting for the IWR is one thing but she still is

advocating FOR the war now that we know the rationale and intel was bogus. At this point that is an unconscionable position.

[antigop]

90. She voted for the Pension "Protection" Act

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=2&vote=00230

This is an awful, awful bill. Ask anyone in corporate America who has (or had) a defined benefit pension.

Most of the Senate Dems (including Clinton) voted for it.

The House Dems gave workers much more support.

The Dems had a real opportunity to oppose this bill. They sold us out. Hillary sold us out.