I'm less anti-Hillary after Sunday's debate

[BluegrassDem]

I'm an Obama guy as most know, but I must give credit to Hillary. She was very polished and knew her shit. I have to give credit where credit is due. I've been critical of her being like a programmed robot, and she likely still his. However, if she is the nominee, I think she can mop the debate stage with any Republican on the other side. I will give her that much. She knows what she's doing and is a very adept politician. Although I still think Obama is the best candidate, I don't think I will 'fear' a Clinton general election candidacy like I did before.

[StudentProgressive]

1. I fear her post-election most

nt

[aquart]

2. Can you be more specific in your hatred and loathing?

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

5. her fear of being seen as weak will give us atleast another 4 years of Iraq

[doggyboy]

6. His hatred isn't very specific

He seems to hate Chinks and camel-rats.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x1035200#1036172

[ellisonz]

21. Dude, I'm 100% positive that post was sarcasm.

[TankLV]

32. You don't understand SARCASM?

some have NO clue...

[pnwmom]

12. Poster is a Green party/Nader suppporter.

[ellisonz]

22. As are many here...

I'm not one of them but what was the point of the comment?

[Forkboy]

33. To ridicule,just like the right uses the word "liberal" on Dems...who then flee from it.

[pnwmom]

62. You thought the poster was being sarcastic about being afraid of Hillary.

I disagree.

I made the comment about his or her being a Green supporter to put the comment into context.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

69. I'd prefer Edwards or Obama, but Clinton would still make a perfectly good candidate.

My impression is that in general Edwards is the most liberal of the big three, and Clinton the least, but there's not all that much in it, and any of them would be immeasurably better than any of the Republican alternatives.

I would be perfectly happy with eight (more) years of Clinton presidency.

[lvx35]

3. Same here.

I have no illusions about her, I think her politics will be Bill Clintonesque, including all the free trade BS. But How bad WAS the Clinton years compared to this? And I believe two major things about her:

1) Her commitment to universal health care is real
2) Her understanding of, and commitment to solve the Iraq/peak oil/global warming crisis is real.

These two things make me fine with having her as president.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

8. She wants to keep troops in Iraq indefinitely.

For what? To bake cookies. No, to fight a (de-escalated) war.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/03/15/clinton.troops/index.html

==• Presidential candidate says small force should remain past 2009
• New York senator says troops would fight terrorists, train Iraqis
• Scenario works only if Iraqis "get their act together," she says
• Sen. Barack Obama laid out similar plan on Wednesday ==

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- If elected president, Sen. Hillary Clinton said, she would likely keep some U.S. forces in Iraq in a supporting role after 2009 because America has "a remaining military as well as a political mission" that requires a presence there.==

[lvx35]

10. Oh yes! If the Iraqis "get their act together"

I hate that.

We shot at them, bombed them, tortured them, and we are so fucking suprised that they can't "get their act together" and set up a stable Saudi style government to sell us oil! Fuck that!

Yes, I hear you there. But I am still hearing her say that we are getting out of Iraq.

[bvar22]

59. NIX on Hillary's "commitment" to Universal HealthCare.

The DLC and Corporate sponsored Dems refer to their plans as "Universal HealthCare", but it isn't.

Hillary and Obama support MANDATORY Health Insurance, NOT Universal HealthCare.
You see how well Mandatory Car Insurance has worked?
They support more Corporate Welfare for some of the RICHEST Corporations in the USA.
Read the fine print.

Dennis Kucinich is ALONE among the candidates in supporting REAL Universal HealthCare.

[glowing]

4. I don't like her. I don't trust her. She's bought. She will say one

thing and do another. She was more real when she came into the white house with her little head band on and really wanting to reform the health care issue. Now she take a lot of money from the healthcare industry. I don't trust her to fix anything in America... just put a different face in the white house.

[gobblechops]

11. I agree

I like her as a person,but shes way to Republican lite for me,although all the front runners seem that way if we don't elect a progressive you can bet Dem's wont win the next one.

I think there health care plans are lacking,corporations profiting off health care is immoral and backwards should be looking for cures and working on preventive care not designer drugs and cutting corners.

Free trade and outsourcing is killing us,we need fair trade and anti take your money and run laws
if your going to use the american public and there info structure,tax dollars etc. to become wealthy then decide you want to leave for cheap labor elsewhere thats fine but you will no longer be allowed to call your self a american company and will be subject to fair trade laws that make leaving not in your best interest.

[Name removed]

7. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Colobo]

9. She's my second choice now

[emilyg]

13. She's my first choice. Obama is my second choice.

[19jet54]

16. I may have to toss a coin on election day

Tough Choice - agree with you both

[Tellurian]

37. Good on you, Katz

I knew at some point in time, you'd see what I see.

Hillary isn't the shrill robot the repubs have painted her to be.

And I bet if you saw her in person she would further convince you.. she's the one.
I know you're a loyal Obama fan and if nothing else you would stay in his camp until the last hurrah..
But as I said to you before, there's always a place for you with us in Hillary's camp, front seat, too! :)

[ronnykmarshall]

46. That's the perfect ticket .....

I think Clinton/Obama would be fantastic.

I don't think that Hillary would want to be VP however. But I can dream!

[sandnsea]

14. They'll destroy her

It'll make 2004 look like patty-cake. All for corporatist triangulation and endless intrusion in the ME. She held her own against Edwards and Obama, but that's not saying anything about the onslaught that will hit her in the GE. It'll be awful, and people will refuse to vote for her simply because they don't want 8 more years of that shit. But I'm fairly resigned to her being the candidate. :cry:

[cui bono]

19. NO! She CANNOT be the Dem candidate!!!

She will not win the GE, and she is not to be trusted.

[Tellurian]

38. Hillary, by virtue of seeing her in ACTION.. in the debates

is singlehandedly dispelling all you're old repuke talking points. The facade of your senseless talking points are falling away like the dirt rolling off a car at the car wash, revealing the true color and lustre of what we're seeing and hearing in front of us.

As time goes on, we're seeing Hillary as her real self... Your words become a blurr of just that, negative Republican talking points meant to cast fear and aspersions here in the DU readership..

Well, guess what...you've had ample time to prove what you say is true and so far you've never made your case.. The more we see Hillary in action, the easier it is to confidently let you know, your talking points are falling on deaf ears.

[cui bono]

48. That's funny, I don't remember ever having a conversation with you.

But you might like to read the article in The Nation titled Hilary, Inc. Might open your eyes. But actually, the way you speak, probably not. I suspect you are following her in lockstep. If anyone sounds like a Republican it's you. I am a liberal and a progressive. The person you are defending is way to the right of most Dems.

[Tellurian]

49. If you added a disclaimer to your statement as to the accuracy of same..

it might give a boost to your street cred..

Hillary is not "WAY TO THE RIGHT OF CENTER" as you claim..

and heres proof you're perceptions are inaccurate. Most likely it is you that is so far right of center, seeing you frequently use RW reference points as part of your everyday speech. And another thing, most likely not an accurate statement as all, you consider yourself a liberal/progressive...because as seen your comparative baseline is skewed.

According to Hillary's voting record she is considered a

Moderate Liberal standing just Left of Center.

http://www.issues2002.org/Hillary_Clinton.htm

[cui bono]

54. If we're going to discuss this you need to quote me correctly

and stop making personal attacks. I apologize for my comments to you in my last post as I know they weren't constructive and simply a reflex reaction to your rude post.

As it stands, I'm not going into this further since you seem to think I'm a freeper infiltrating DU. You can go read up on her if you like or you can follow her blindly. I will conceed that her voting record is more liberal than her ideas, her persona, her statements, her company, her advisers and her contributors, to whom she will be beholden to if she were to be elected, but she is unelectable in the GE, so let's pick someone else. But she is a corporate dem and it will be Business as usual if she is in the WH.

Seriously, read that article...

Anyway, that's it for me. I know you are set with how you feel about her, and so am I. I really do fear that we are not going to get the WH in '08 if she wins. Why do you think so many people feel that way? Why do you think the corporate media is pushing her so hard? Does that not make you wonder? I would like to vote for Kucinich, but I will vote Obama if it helps keep her from winning the primary.

:hi:

[pnwmom]

63. Hillary's actual voting record has consistently put her among the

most liberal in the Senate. She is by no means "way to the right of most Dems." I think your view of "most Dems" may be skewed by the perspectives you see on D.U., which by definition represent the progressive wing of the party.

Ironically, the Republicans who view her as a fire-breathing liberal are much closer to the truth about her positions than anyone who would claim she is on the right.

[IndianaGreen]

15. I wish someone had asked Hillary about her AIPAC "all options are on the table" in regards to Iran

What did she mean when she told that to her AIPAC supporters? Is Hillary advocating first use of atomic weapons, as Sy Hersh revealed the Pentagon was planning to do?

[FrenchieCat]

18. Oh....come on now! They were all talking like that......

not just Hillary.

[Cameron27]

50. One was worse...

"tough-guy talk"

[Erika]

17. Hillary scares the hell out of the GOP

Go Hillary!

[cui bono]

20. And she scares enough people to vote Republican.

She'll never win the GE. Please vote for someone else.

[William769]

25. ...

:rofl:

[ellisonz]

23. You're kidding right?

She's the one they want!

[Honeycombe8]

36. Only some of them want Clinton. It will help galvanize their base to turn out...

for the vote. But other than that, I believe the GOP is afraid of her candidacy. The GOP's #1 attack mode is to identify the opposing candidate for the public in a negative way, and make it stick ("Swiftboating" "liberal elite" "northeastern liberal", etc.). The GOP I believe are afraid of Hillary because they would not be able to do that with her....the public already knows about her, including many of her faults. So if the GOP goes after her marriage, like in the recent books, or her prior healthcare plan...well, all of that's been hashed over before. It's nothing new.

People who vote have pretty much decided what they think of Hillary, except that a few who haven't watched the debates may be unaware how skillful she is at debating, or they may be unaware of her performance as a NY senator. But personally, they have already decided whether they like her or not. This puts the GOP at a disadvantage.

One thing they would like about her, though, is that she voted for the Iraq resolution. That's why it's helpful for her to want to keep a contingency force in Iraq after withdrawal and not be as "anti-Iraq-War" as some of the others. Her vote makes it harder to be flat out against the war. That helps the Repub position in a way.

Still....I think they would love one of the others as an opponent, like Edwards. They'd be easier targets...except maybe Obama. They'd have to tread carefully with him. But they would still be able to define him in the public's eye, since a lot of people don't know him.

For the record, my favorite is Obama. I didn't like Hillary but am warming up to her because of her skillfulness as a politician, which is what I think this election will take.

[Dawgs]

29. Every Republican I know wants Hillary to win the nom.

If they were scared, why would they want her to win, hmmmm?

[rinsd]

56. Every Republican I know thinks we're winning in Iraq. Reality ain't their strong suit (nt)

[ellisonz]

24. I will vote Socialist Workers Party before I vote for Hillary...

She's so wrong on Iraq its sad.

[wyldwolf]

30. of course you will.

[ellisonz]

58. Howard Dean RULZ.

[JTFrog]

26. No More Warmongers

for me. Not even a chance I'd think about voting for her.

[ddeclue]

27. Fred Thompson will kick her ass...

and I'm a Democrat saying that.

She looked coached, she parsed words. She was NOT credible.


Edwards and Obama did much better than she.

Doug D.

[luckyleftyme2]

28. SORRY I DISAGREE

Fred THOMPSON IS A GREAT PERSON;BUT A PRESIDENT NO WAY.
HILLARY,OBAMBA OR EDWARDS WILL CLEAN HIS CLOCK! EVEN WITH ALL THE COOPERATE MONEY HE WILL HAVE IN HIS WAR CHEST!
DEMOCRATS IN "08"

[ddeclue]

70. Not so...

Al Gore would probably be the best to oppose him (i.e. make it a TN race) - unfortunately he's not running.

John Edwards or Barack Obama would be next best.

Hillary would get her butt kicked.

Doug D.

[Nedsdag]

40. If it's Hillary vs. Fred Thompson.

He wins the South and the Independent vote.

[pnwmom]

65. He wins the Independent vote? Don't you think women vote Independent, too?

They'll swing wide for Clinton, not Thompson. I don't know any women who like him. We don't need a big daddy figure. No thanks.

[Nedsdag]

79. Which women are you talking to?

The women I know aren't happy with Hillary's lead and probably would not vote for her.

[pnwmom]

83. I know many women excited about Hillary, and NONE about Thompson.

And my neighborhood is a "swing" area.

Hillary is not my top choice at the moment but I would be perfectly comfortable with her as the nominee. I saw her speak on behalf of Maria Cantwell and was very impressed.

[TankLV]

31. That's how I would put my position, too...

Not exactly FOR her - but less against her...

[Forkboy]

34. She's still the only one I refuse to vote for.

[pnwmom]

66. Even in the general?

[Forkboy]

74. Even in the general.

She won't miss my vote here in Mass at all if she's the nominee.She,or any Dem,will carry the state easily.If it was a closer state I'd think about it,but fortunately I have leeway here,and I'm so,so tired of voting my fears instead of my hopes.

[Auntie Bush]

35. Me too! (more & more every day. I believe we will be in the best hands with her as

President and Bill attached to her ear than with any of the other candidates. She would be up and running on day one with their previous experience in the White House...no learning curve that the others would need. Experience is important. I love Obama, but he really needs more experience before he becomes president. Eight years from now he'll be perfect and UNBEATABLE...especially if those 8 years are spent as Vice President.

[Nedsdag]

41. In eight years, there will be others running.

Obama won't look as "fresh" as he did now.

[venable]

39. Must be because she said Bush has made us safer

take a stand, Hillary. That answer is the final nail in that coffin.

[Cameron27]

51. Apparently it wasn't a nail in Edwards' coffin...

From NBC's Chuck Todd:

"Edwards told The Des Moines Register on Dec. 20, 2003: "Yes, we're safer. We're not as safe as we need to be."
A rival campaign believes this contradicts what Edwards implied tonight regarding whether we are safer now than on 9/11.


http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/06/03/212238.aspx

[venable]

55. it's 2007. a lot has changed in the world

and certainly with Edwards stance and strength as a leader.

[Cameron27]

57. Nothing has changed regarding

whether we're safer or not under Bush since 2003.

You think that Edwards stance and strength makes him a leader, and that's fine, it's an opinion. Many disagree and have to take Edwards' many "180 degree" flips on previous statements into account. In less than 4 years in some instances.

[IA_Seth]

61. So...we were safer then, but not now?

Spin away.

Edwards said we were safer in Dec-2003, but now we are not safer?

[venable]

68. no need to spin

in Dec 2003, Edwards was still trying to hold on to the beliefs that led him to vote for the IWR. Shortly thereafter he abandoned those beliefs and became the truth speaking clear anti-war voice that we have today, and for which I support him.

Not spin, history.

[ddeclue]

71. Archaeology? 4 year old quotes are relevant? Gimme a break..

[Cameron27]

76. Of course they're relevant,

he was one big cheerleader for Bush in 2002, 2003, and even going as far as trying to convince Kerry not to admit their votes for the IWR were wrong in 2004.

[madfloridian]

42. She said we are safer now. That won hearts of the conservatives.

We did not watch the debate, but I sure heard about that part from some friends here who were angry. They said if we are so much safer why all the terror alerts and fear tactics.

[Tellurian]

43. Well good, MF..

you can have the job to set them straight. The NYT has mis-characterized her words. What a surprise!

you can read here for the true skinny and read the cnn transcripts if you still are an unbeliever:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3298577&mesg_id=3300117

[AtomicKitten]

52. or like actually watch the damn debate

instead of knee-jerk regurgitating with zero context the carefully excised inflammatory tidbits the bloggers are cackling over.

The debate was surprisingly substantive and the format allowed a good exchange of ideas. The debate was not only a don't miss, it was worthy of a watching again, which I did.

[Cameron27]

53. So did Edwards in 2003

[ddeclue]

72. 4 years ago...he knows better now...Hillary is still stuck in the past.

[Cameron27]

77. He's not being honest today.

He was on the Senate Intel Committee, not Hillary. He had access to the classified NIE documents as part of that commitee, not Hillary. He had the advice of senior Democratic leaders on the committee like Durbin, who were warning about the "cooked intel" not Hillary.

He chose to co-sponsor the IWR even after reading the unclassified version of the NIE that still had significant dissenting views, not Hillary. His speech ended up on the bushie's webpage, not Hillary. And his apology lacked any mention of the NIE reports or the fact that the evidence for voting for the IWR was insufficient.

[IndianaGreen]

60. And that video clip will be used against her in a GOP commercial

She won't win independent voters. About the only way she could win would be if the GOP nominates any of their candidates, except for Romney. I think Romney is the most dangerous in terms of the election.

[Cameron27]

64. Are you kidding?

Do you think that they won't pull out Edwards' speech regarding co-sponsoring the IWR, that made it onto the bushies' website and use it against him?

[ddeclue]

73. Considering he's been crystal clear in his oppostion for 2+ years - no

Hillary is a very late and equivocal arrival to the peace train...

Edwards opposition has been quite clear for a long time BEFORE it was popular to be against the war. To use the IWR would be obvious and dishonest and it would be seen to be so by whoever tries to use it.

Hillary can NOT make any such claims until she apologizes for HER own vote.

Doug D.
Orlando, FL

[Cameron27]

75. He apologized in 2005

NOT before it was popular to be against the war. His co-sponsorship will be used, I guarantee it.

His "I didn't read the NIE; I did; I only read a summary of the de-classified version" is being noted. And until Edwards apologizes for co-sponsoring the IWR after he read the unclassified NIE docs that still had enough dissenting opinion that should have inspired caution, his apology is meaningless.

[pacalo]

44. I'm ambivalent about her.

The sole reason I'd back her would be if she got the nomination. Like you, I kept wishing she had a more natural, flowing delivery like her husband whenever she spoke.

I fought tooth & nail for her when she was criticized by the media about the "right-wing conspiracy" statement she made on the Today Show as First Lady. I wrote letters & made calls.

But now, I'm skeptical about how the pundits after last night's debate were fawning over her. I thought she did well last night, but not exceptional. And then, there's this strange friendship going on now between Bill Clinton & Poppy Bush. After 6 years of being familiarized with how the BFEE operates, I'm skeptical at Hillary's newfound respect by the public-opinion-shaping media. Was a deal made between Poppy & Bill?

Like I said, I'll support her if she's the nominee, but in the meantime, I'm still looking for a candidate who will envigorate my enthusiasm.

[ShortnFiery]

45. That makes one of us.

:eyes:

[BlueStater]

47. She didn't sway me

She's articulate and intelligent. I don't think anyone is denying that. But it's the things she says that bug me. Does someone as smart as her honestly believe that this country is safer since 9/11?

[Awsi Dooger]

67. Hillary will continue to dominate the debates

She's the sharpest and frames the issues best. Hillary is also the most relaxed out there and having the most fun. It's kind of like boxing matches many months apart where you listen to all the hype from promoters and fans, but when they step into the ring it's all garbage. One combatant is simply superior to the other. In this case, that's Hillary.

She's not my first choice because the electability problems are very real, but you know damn well she'll be the most effective nominee since her husband. It's just a matter whether the country is ready for a woman, and one they don't particularly love. There will be almost zero margin for error in a Hillary nomination. She'll need a flawed GOP nominee and a big generic edge to Democrats. Scares the hell out of me but it will be fascinating.

[Township75]

78. As much as everyone talks a good game about how much they won't vote for her

they will. Just like Kerry, about 80% of DU hated him in the early primary season, then after he became the nominee they loved him, and cried when he didn't become their president.

It's great to talk about how you won't vote for someone, but it sucks to read it and know it's complete BS. Everyone here at DU is voting for the Dem nominee regardless of their little hissy fits now.

[calteacherguy]

80. Me too. It will be interesting to see what happens over the next 8 months. nt

[mvd]

81. She can hold up well under pressure and is quite intelligent

But she already has bad handlers and that was shown with the "we are safer" comment. She can't make the same mistake Kerry did.

[w4rma]

82. I'm permanently anti-Hillary at this point. (nt)