The reasons Hillary should be our next President.

[The_Progressive]

In a normal situation Barack Obama, John Edwards, or even Dennis Kucinich would make a fine President. However we do not live in normal times.

* We are in a major war in two countries (there are others I know).

* Our current President has alienated just about every ally we have on the planet.

* Our economy is near the tipping point from the loss of jobs overseas.

* Healthcare costs will soon make it impossible for retirees to afford decent care.

The list could go on and on.

We don't have time for a President to have on-the-job training. We need someone who knows the ropes and can hit the ground running. The only candidate who can qualify as a "Statesman" is Hillary.

John Edwards, while (I hope) a good man, lacks the right stuff to lead a nation. This was clear when he was severely owned by Cheney in the Vice Presidential debates. It was embarrassing to watch him. I'm afraid he would be out of his league with Putin, Sarkozy, Merkel, Hu Jintao, et al. They would chew him up.

Barack Obama has the right heart and seems to be more on the ball than John Edwards. But we still live in a racist country and he could not win a general election. I don't want another 4 years of Republicans in the White House. Plus he doesn't have the experience to be a world leader.

Dennis Kucinich just doesn't think things through. He's an idea machine. But his ideas, while striking a resonant chord, would be disastrous for our country.

Hillary is the only candidate who has the qualifications, inside knowledge, leadership, and experience to be our next President.

[MannyGoldstein]

1. Unh-unh.

* We are in a major war in two countries (there are others I know).
(So she should be rewarded for failed wars that she aided and abetted? Maybe she'll start another one with Iran?)

* Our economy is near the tipping point from the loss of jobs overseas.
(Her cheerleading of NAFTA and, more importantly, permanent 'free' trade with China put us in this spot!)

* Healthcare costs will soon make it impossible for retirees to afford decent care.
(Retires get fine care through the single-payer Medicare system. Mrs. Clinton hates single-payer - she prefers schemes that increase costs, essentially no-insurance-CEO-left-behind stuff.

Putting Mrs. Clinton in the Oval Office is lock giving the Fox the keys to the henhouse!

[Donkeykick]

7. And Your Choice for Presidential Canidate Would Be?

:popcorn:

[MannyGoldstein]

9. (I Hate Good Questions...)

Probably Obama at this point - from what I can see, he's honest, thoughtful, and smart.

[The_Progressive]

15. Obama is a good man

But you have to win the South to win the White House. They still have Confederate flags flying from their cars down there.

[Colobo]

30. Those people won't vote for Hillary as well.

[elizm]

32. I live in South Carolina....

And Obama can win here a heck of a lot easier than Clinton can. The Republicans despise her and would come out in droves just to vote against her....and yet I personally know several Republicans who have said they could vote for Obama.

And we don't ALL have Confederate flags flying from our cars. You know nothing about which you speak.

[durrrty libby]

88. Project much??

[sendero]

42. Guess what..

.... those folks are Republicans anyway and they are DAMN SURE not going to vote for HRC either.

Find another argument, that one won't hunt.

[Ethelk2044]

44. Give me a break

Are you a racist because you are trying to insult our intelligence. What qualifications does she have other than Bill's wife?

[ElizabethDC]

46. What qualifications does she have other than Bill's wife?!

:rofl:

Well, she's been in the Senate nearly three times as long as your guy, for one thing.

[Ethelk2044]

50. Excuse me he has 8 years in the State Senate

He worked as a Constitutional Lawyers. He also worked as a community organizer. Therefore she has 6 years to his 10 + years. He has been elected to office more years than her. That gives him more experience than she has.

If she had the right ability to be a leader making the right decisions. She would have not voted for the war. The leads me to believe she does not know how to make right decisions. We need someone in that position who can make the hard decisions and not go along with the flow. The honk the horn of a evil person such as bush.


:rofl:

[ElizabethDC]

53. I was talking about the U.S. Senate

I know about his service in the state senate. But, unless Illinois is vastly different than many other states, the state senate isn't quite the "big time." Time in the state senate isn't really comparable to time in the U.S. Senate, as they're completely different animals.

Experience isn't limited solely to elected office - Hillary's time in the White House (during which time she was not merely a first lady - because I certainly don't think being a first lady is enough to qualify someone for the presidency - but she was also his closest adiviser, etc.) is, I think, far more relevant to being president than being in the state senate is.

And all of that excludes her other various professional experience, etc. prior to being in the White House. It's not as if she stayed home and tended to the traditional duties of the First Lady of Arkansas - she went out and did her own thing.

As for decision making, she, along with the majority of U.S. senators, made a bad choice, certainly, but I don't think that that means that she has bad reasoning skills in general.

[Ethelk2044]

56. Hillary was a wife when

she was in the white house. She proposed Health Care which fumbled. She has no experience but the experience in the Senate. He has more experience than she has. His state experience does count. You may not want it to count but it does. Being a wife does not count as experience. Hell I was a wife for 10 years. That does not give me experience to run this country. Advisor listening to her husband does not count. Hell if she had so much experience at getting things done and making good judgement she would not have voted for the war. She would not have needed her husband to get her an invitation to Selma Alabama. The only reason why she got invited was because of Bill.

[ElizabethDC]

59. Being a wife precludes someone from being something else?

Do you know anything about the Clinton years? I guess not. Hillary was more than just Health Care. And an advisor is not just a listener - it is, by definition, someone who gives advice - she was very heavily involved in many aspects of the presidency (mostly in domestic policy and strategy).

There are several good books out there about the Clinton presidency and her role in it is generally pretty clear in them. She wasn't working on the flower arrangement. I suggest you read one of them. ("The Survivor" by John F. Harris was a pretty balanced account, I think, and it gave me a good idea of Hillary's role - but seeing as Harris now works for the Politico, I might question him a bit more now.)

And you're also saying that because she voted for the war, she has no experience or good judgment? Heck, John Kerry and Joe Biden, among many other respectable senators, have years more experience than Hillary does, and they voted for it.

I think state senate experience *does* count, it's just not as relavant as being a U.S. Senator, a governor, or in the higher levels of the executive branch. Unless, like I said, the Illinois state senate is vastly different than the other ones I'm familiar with.

[Ethelk2044]

57. Give me one decision she made as Bill Adviser

If you want to count that experience. To my knowledge Bill made his on decisions. He listen to Madeline and others.

[ElizabethDC]

60. He made his own decisions because he was the President, but he relied heavily on her advice.

he did listen to Madeleine and others (btw, it was Hillary who suggested and strongly advocated for Albright as Sec. of State), but that doesn't mean he didn't listen to Hillary (although she wasn't so heavily involved in foreign policy - she mostly advised him on domestic issues and strategy.)

[rufus dog]

117. reasoning skills

Bad, no! She made a decision on what would get her reelected which is job #1 for a politician. Do I want four more years of a President doing what is needed to get reelected? NO

[mckeown1128]

118. by your logic carl...

rove should be president...:puke:

[durrrty libby]

89. Please re-read your question. It is idiotic

[illinoisprogressive]

96. I have not seen any policy from her. Where's the beef, Hil?

[ElizabethDC]

100. You must've been keeping your eyes shut. n/t

[earthlover]

55. Reality Check....

I moved from Minnesota, right smack dab in the middle of Lake Wobegon, to Virginia, right smack dab in the middle of Falwell territory.

Hate to disappoint you, but there is just as much racism in Lake Wobegon as in Falwell Territory. Just a statement of fact. Don't want to knock the Ice Box or the North. Just responding to the stereotype of the South. Racism is a disease that respects no geographical boundaries.

While we are talking about stereotypes.....how about recognizing that there may be a lot of racists in the South but there are also a lot of African Americans, a group that has historically supported Democrats but has not voted in large numbers?

The true rednecks aren't gonna vote Democratic unless the Republican nominee is black. Fat chance, and even then they might just sit it out. However, Obama would bring to the polls a lot of voters who otherwise probably stay home--youth and African Americans.

It is really unclear to me the effect of Obama running on the South. Some of you Northerners, who out of ignorance, like to stereotype the South might be in for a rather pleasant surprise.

[rufus dog]

119. I agree with you earthlover

I am from AZ and in the early 90's (maybe late 80's - I had moved to CA by that time) they had a redneck Gov Mecham that opposed the MLK holiday and the vote to approve was on the ballot. They were also in line to get a Superbowl and the NFL was wavering (NO WAY IN HELL would they play it if the initiative wasn't approved) so Bryant Gumbel, a black man, goes on CBS and says if they don't approve the MLK holiday then they NFL won't pick them as a Superbowl site. So many AZ voters including my friends say "We ain't letting some outsider influence our vote." I respond that if they vote against the holiday purely based upon his statement aren't you letting him influence your vote? The initiative doesn't pass, they lose the SuperBowl, but god dammit that yankee didn't influence them.

So, I agree, there are a whole bunch of racists pricks that will use any reason not to vote for him ... But they will use the same twisted logic not to vote for Hillary. If someone is arguing for a Clark, Gore, Biden, then you may have a point.

[Hippo_Tron]

82. Sheer mathematics says you don't need the south to win the White House

All Kerry needed was Ohio and he would've won without a single southern state. I'd say that we are far more likely to win Ohio this time because of the institutional support we'll have from Governor Strickland and Secretary of State Brunner will make sure that the votes are counted fairly.

I'm not saying we should ignore the south because I support the 50 state strategy. But if the south doesn't figure into the electoral math in the fall of 2008 then there are definitely ways that Democrats can win the White House without it.

[derby378]

104. The next Democrat needs to represent more than New England and California

That was the problem with Clinton, Gore, and Kerry. We need a candidate that can represent all 50 states, and right now Hillary just doesn't seem to fit the bill.

[Nedsdag]

148. Amen.

Plus there's no guarantee she'll keep Pennsylvania and maybe Michigan in the Democratic column come November.

You have to represent all 50 states not just the East and the far West.

[Athens30603]

114. Way to stereotype the South, buddy.

[rufus dog]

115. win the south - wrong

A dem picks off ohio and it is game over, no southern state needed. Florida may be tougher to win based upon demographics - the 60's children retiring and moving south. Iowa, bush barely one, could Obama pick up a farm state, maybe. Colorado - paint it blue, NM possible, AZ, no too many retirees and racists. So there you have it. Obama wins without winning the south.

[enough already]

151. If you think Hillary is winning anything in the South, you're on crack n/t

[rufus dog]

116. valid points Manny

Let's add, she has the highest potential of motivating the Republican base. To be fair Obama may be a close second. BUT..... Obama may get an offset by bringing out young voters that would have little interest in supporting Hillary.

[durrrty libby]

2. K and R

[athebea]

3. And why do you think...

... that Hillary could actually care less about fighting for working Americans ? Do you think all the Wall Street types who have been funding her don't know what they are buying ?

We don't need another Lieberman-type DLC-er. We don't need a cautious triangulator.

[robinlynne]

41. Thank-you. I'm more than sick of "cautious triangulators", triangulating with fascists.

[Donkeykick]

4. I Agree!

Hillary is the only candidate who has the qualifications, inside knowledge, leadership, and experience to be our next President.

I know the insurance companies beat her the last time she tried to bring us health care, but I will bet that she has learned from that ---and she would no longer be just "First Lady".;-)

[JTFrog]

129. Yes, she is the

second largest receiver of contributions from Insurance Companies. They beat her real good. :sarcasm:

[Donkeykick]

141. Could you show me proof?

:shrug: :hide:

[JTFrog]

142. Sure.

Separate analyses by the Center for Responsive Politics, an independent group that tracks campaign finance, and by The New York Times show that Senator Clinton has received $854,462 from the health care industry in 2005-6, a larger amount than any candidate except Senator Santorum, with $977,354. Other industries have opened their wallets to Senator Clinton, a formidable fund-raiser. But none warred with her as the health care industry did.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/12/nyregion/12donate.html?ex=1310356800&en=0882715139712152&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

[Donkeykick]

143. I Thank You For The Info.

But after reading the article, I can only take it that they (health care industry) are frightened and now it is time to kiss some a$$ and kiss it often. And hope!

She (Hillary) tried to make pharmaceuticals negotiate with Medicare for lower prices as First Lady during her husband's reign, but we know how that worked out. Nonetheless...

I'm not ashamed to watch her spend their (health care industry) $$ and stick it to them! :headbang:

[bigdarryl]

5. Can some explain this bullshit to me that Hillary has MORE experience than any candidate

your telling me she's more experienced than Senator Dodd or Senator Biden or even Governor Richardson. PLEASE!! shes a junior senator with six years in the Senate. if Hillary's last name wasn't Clinton she wouldn't register on the radar screen.

[MannyGoldstein]

6. But You're Forgetting All Of The Political Courage She's Demonstrated!

:rofl:

[bigdarryl]

8. yeah like voting for this DAMN war that shes on record sayinng we are staying in Iraq

[MannyGoldstein]

10. And Where She Wants To Stay For The Forseeable Future

Incredible.

[IndianaGreen]

86. Hillary has said that US needs to keep troops in Iraq for a long time

She has said this more than once, but here is where she told the NY Times:

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines07/0315-02.htm

Published on Thursday, March 15, 2007 by the New York Times

If Elected... Clinton Says Some G.I.’s in Iraq Would Remain

by Michael R. Gordon and Patrick Healy

WASHINGTON — Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton foresees a “remaining military as well as political mission” in Iraq, and says that if elected president, she would keep a reduced military force there to fight Al Qaeda, deter Iranian aggression, protect the Kurds and possibly support the Iraqi military.

<snip>

The United States’ security would be undermined if parts of Iraq turned into a failed state “that serves as a petri dish for insurgents and Al Qaeda,” she said. “It is right in the heart of the oil region,” she said. “It is directly in opposition to our interests, to the interests of regimes, to Israel’s interests.”

“So it will be up to me to try to figure out how to protect those national security interests and continue to take our troops out of this urban warfare, which I think is a loser,” Mrs. Clinton added. She declined to estimate the number of American troops she would keep in Iraq, saying she would draw on the advice of military officers.

<snip>

The idea of repositioning American forces to minimize American casualties, discourage Iranian, Syrian and Turkish intervention, and forestall the Kurds’ declaring independence is not a new one. It has been advocated by Dov S. Zakheim, who served as the Pentagon’s comptroller under former Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld. Mr. Zakheim has estimated that no more than 75,000 troops would be required, compared to the approximately 160,000 troops the United States will have in Iraq when the additional brigades in Mr. Bush’s plan are deployed.

[riverdale]

28. and her incredible courage never admitting a mistake

just like gw bush

[ElizabethDC]

40. She has admitted mistakes

with regard to health care, etc. She also said that it was a mistake to trust George W. Bush.

[Smarmie Doofus]

132. riverdale... New York?

Just curious. Welcome to DU.

[BeyondGeography]

153. That could make three

I'm a Riverdalian, too. :hi:

[Ethelk2044]

47. And she has Yet to apologize

:rofl:

[durrrty libby]

101. Wow you really have no comprehension at all. So sad

[durrrty libby]

90. I loathe lying dems more than pukes

[The_Progressive]

149. Explain?

Ok, 1992-2000 in the White House.

[Telly Savalas]

11. So you're saying black people shouldn't run for president?

How is that not racist?

[Colobo]

31. That is racist, no doubt.

[durrrty libby]

105. Are you drunk? Clearly that is not what the poster said

Good grief people can't seem to read around here

[Smarmie Doofus]

12. Where do you get this from?

>>>This was clear when he was severely owned by Cheney in the Vice Presidential debates.>>>

I watched 'em. Thought Edwards did well. The post-debate polls showed a plurality of viewers thought that Edwards "won" ... despite some furious spinning by Fox and ABC.

[The_Progressive]

13. Edwards was pwned by Cheney

He looked like a teenager arguing with his grandpa.

[Smarmie Doofus]

18. Well, Grandpa seemed pretty addled. Especially when...

... he said he had never met Edwards in person prior to the debate.

Despite numerous eyewitness accounts to the contrary.

Give that man a shotgun !


And I'm generally very critical of the DEM debate performances. For instance.. thought that Bush Sr. did better than Clinton.

[Auntie Bush]

72. I don't agree with you!

EVERYONE agreed Cheney won that debate but you and a few others.

Same thing goes for Bush/Clinton debate. I just can't agree with your weird conclusions.

[Smarmie Doofus]

107. Sorry... but Edwards won the debate...

http://www.marketwatch.com/News/Story/Story.aspx?guid=%7BD538

... 41% -29%, according to CBS insta poll. And that was reflected in the other post-debate polls.

It's amazing what Republican spin-meisters can achieve.


Cheney, Edwards come out swinging
CBS News insta-poll: 41% say senator won, 29% for VP
By Corbett B. Daly, CBS Marketwatch
Last Update: 12:10 AM ET Oct 6, 2004

WASHINGTON (CBS.MW) -- Sen. John Edwards and Vice President Dick Cheney faced off in their only debate Tuesday night, immediately taking on the subject of Iraq.
"Mr. Vice President, you are still not being straight with the American people," Edwards said, taking off the gloves first and accusing the administration of whitewashing the violence in Iraq.
Cheney defended the administration's decision to overthrow Saddam Hussein, saying he would recommend launching the same war against Iraq if the administration had it to do over again.
"What we did in Iraq was exactly the right thing to do," Cheney said during the debate televised from Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland.
Immediately following the debate, a CBS News poll of 169 uncommitted voters found 41 percent said Edwards won the debate, while 29 percent said Cheney won. The survey has a margin of error of plus or minus 7 percentage points.

[Ethelk2044]

48. Hillary could not make the right decision when it came down to

the war. She voted for it. She did not read the bill before voting. She should have thought it was important enough to read the bill. It was possible that our soldiers would be in a war because of the bill. She took information from others. I do not only blame bush. I blame everyone who gave bush the authorization to go to war and have not apologized for it. How do you expect her to make other decisions in the future when she failed on one very important decision. Yet you stated she is the only one qualified. Hell then we are all doomed, if we do not have someone who can make better decisions than that.

[rufus dog]

120. disagree

Edwards won.

[JANdad]

135. Well when you act like a condecending prick rather than a statesman

During a debate...it can scew the perceptions of who "Won"...

[Colobo]

33. Nah; Cheney dominated Edwards. Made him look like a scared newbie.

[ElizabethDC]

36. I thought it was a draw

I had really high expectations for Edwards, and I thought he did well, but he could have done better.

[The River]

14. Best Laugh of the Day

but then again, I just got up.
lol

[Totally Committed]

16. Get real, fercripessake.

While NONE of the people running right now has my vote, I can say Mrs. Clinton is the most unlikely to ever get it.

TC

[DemKR]

17. Hillary for President

[1932]

19. Those are a bunch of reasons you don't like the other candidates.

[LWolf]

20. I don't think the best ideas, the most integrity,

the least corrupt would be a "disaster." :eyes:

[Phredicles]

21. I think it's funny that you'd kick Obama to the curb as a concession to racism,

when the fact is that our society is not exactly the most enlightened when it comes to gender equality either. So shouldn't we write off Hilary too by that logic?

[earthlover]

22. From the title of this thread I thought you were going to list reasons why Hillary should be Pres

Instead we just got a list of problems facing our country, then "reasons" why the other candidates are not up for the job.

I guess I should not be surprised NOT to hear a list of affirmative reasons why a candidate is good rather than just knocking others.

Knows the ropes and hit the ground running are just appealing platitudes/slogans. As for the only candidate who has the qualifications, leadership, inside knowledge, and experience....
I dare to say that all of the candidates have the qualifications, leadership, knowledge and experience to be President.

I am confused here. Hillary keeps on trying to make the point that there is not much difference between her and the other candidates. Then we see posts that say she is the ONLY one qualified. Which is it?

Are the Hillary supporters going to vote Democratic if Hillary does not get the nomination? If you believe they are not qualified? Seems to me you need to show a bit more respect for the other candidates. There obviously is room for disagreement within the party, but we shouldn't be saying the other side is not qualified.

[dtotire]

23. The Republicans Want Her to Run

They feel she would be the easiest to defeat.

[jefferson_dem]

24. This time, the Repukes are right.

n/t

[durrrty libby]

26. That is just a typical RW talking point. In truth , they know she can win

[earthlover]

51. So Hillary can't win is a republican talking point?

Sorry to rain on your parade, but the Reps have been having a political orgasm fantasizing about Hillary being the nominee. The conservative main stream media have annointed Hillary as the front runner for years now. I don't think that the rep talking point is that she cannot win. Their talking point is that she is the inevitable nominee!!!!

[Ethelk2044]

52. They want her to win

because they have so much on her and her husband they can eat her alive.

[ElizabethDC]

54. What do you think that they have on her that they're holding back?

I mean, really, I'd be shocked if there were anything new out there that's any more scandalous than things they've already thrown at her. And if they had so much info, they'd have used it against her to prevent her getting into the Senate to begin with.

What do you think they have on her? (Other than that she had Vince Foster murdered because they were having an affair, etc.)

[Ethelk2044]

58. It is all out ther unless something has

happened that we are not aware of. With that being said the media is going to spend it and bring all of the other things out and make people remember all of the alligations that were out when they were in office. This will make the repugs come out in force and we will not win the election. Nothing more than the Clinton name can unite the repugs. They will come out in force to make damn sure they do not get in office.

[rufus dog]

121. Elizabeth, here is the talking point that will be beat into the ground

We can't have another 4 years of a Dynasty, we have had sixteen years of Clinton/Bush and look where we are now.

Forget the logic that is was the last eight that created the issue, that is being logical, the media and the repubs will not be logical.

[durrrty libby]

71. You are not raining on my parade. You did manage to

skip the point. No matter,I really don't care to hear about the reps orgasmic fantasy,
nor yours. pffft

[earthlover]

81. no, it seems it is you who skipped the point....

you said that saying Hillary couldn't win was a Rep talking point. In fact, Reps have been looking forward to a Hillary run. And many Dems are afraid that Hillary is the one Dem who could actually lose this election. Maybe they are wrong. They have been wrong about a lot of things. But the Reps really do look forward to Hillary running. That is why they want us to believe she is inevitable. That is why the right-leaning MSM has appointed her the front runner years ago.

[durrrty libby]

87. Truly, if you don't already...then you should work for the repuke MSM

I hear that the old tired broken record still plays in some mud-holes

[earthlover]

91. Tired old broken record? Hmmm....

Then I challenge you to tell us some positive reasons why we should vote for Hillary IN THE PRIMARY . By positive, I mean not why the others should not be nominated and why Hillary SHOULD. By positive, I would also mean cut the platitudes.

I mean, if you believe Hillary should be elected because she not only voted NO on the Levin Amendment on the same day as she voted Yes on the IWR Resolution...let's hear why you think so. . Or if you think she should be elected because she voted for the Bankruptcy Bill, or for the Flag Buring bill, or whatever.

What seems to be lacking is just WHY...other than that she is "inevitable"....she should be nominated.

So I am not a fan of circular logic.

TELL ME WHY!!!!

[durrrty libby]

94. "If you think she should be elected because she voted or the Bankruptcy Bill, or for the Flag

Buring bill, or whatever."

I see you like answering your own questions. Thanks, it saves me time, although I might have a problem with her support of flag buring. I just refuse to go there

[earthlover]

106. i ask for a positive reason to vote for Hillary....

and you say you won't go there.

Doesn't that say it all?

[durrrty libby]

109. No it says you you miss the point , irony and sarcasm 100% of the time

[earthlover]

110. ok, cut the irony and sarcasm please, I really want to know....

please give me some positive reasons to vote for Hillary. Not attacking other candidates. Not doing platitudes. And no sarcasm please. And no talk about electability either. Just focus on the positive. Why Hillary?

[durrrty libby]

133. Once a person has been disingenuous, and showed they

are a jackass, they can't expect to be taken seriously. just because

they feign sincerity.

[earthlover]

137. Are you talking about yourself?

I asked you for a positive reason to vote FOR Hillary. And that was the topic of this entire thread. So I think it is definately a relevant question.

I am dumbfounded why Hillary supporters would be the least bit shy to have an opportunity to tell us why we should vote for her. Instead, when asked, you act as if you were having a tooth pulled.

Forget it. I am tired of this conversation. Name calling should be against the DU code against flaming. But in any case I have lost any respect for you unless you apologize.

[waiting for hope]

98. Ding Ding Ding!

We have a winner!

[Ethelk2044]

25. Those reasons are the very reason why we should pick

another candidate.

She wanted to go down to Alabama for the March. She could not pick up the phone and get someone to invite her. Her husband had to pull strings to get her invited. We need someone who can stand on his/her own instead of having to ask hubby to get involved to pull her out. I do not need a President to ride on hubby coat string.

We need someone to unite instead of being polarizing.


She does not have anymore qualifications than Edwards or Obama. Just because she was the President's wife does not give her experience. She did 1 term in Senate. She is working on her second term. What other Offices has she held in government.

We need someone who takes reading Bills and amendments as an important read. It should have been important enough to her to read everything before voting. Making important decisions such as the one on the Iraq vote. Then after you make that vote push for the war.

Then do not come out an apologize for the vote.

[StudentsMustUniteNow]

27. I'm SICK of hearing that Obama's race will prevent him from winning

If we keep that mentality prevalent, then WE are making his race an issue. That's wrong.

I'm not an Obama supporter (just ask Katzenkavalier), but his race should NOT be an issue for deciding his "electability."

[Kat 333]

125. If not that it would be something else.

Ask Dennis Kucinich. Whom I supported last time and will again this time. While people continue to say he is unelectable.
So it goes.

[Colobo]

29. Progressive, you need to work much harder to make me change my mind on Obama.

Nice try, though.

[NastyDiaper]

34. I will vote for Hillary in the General.

But that will likely be my first vote for her if it comes to that.

[gulliver]

35. Hillary won't be able to restore unity. She'll keep us divided.

We need a candidate who can redeem Republican shame. We have to give the intelligent Republicans (there are a lot of them) a way to abandon their Bush-soiled party. Hillary is not that candidate.

The GOP is chagrined and shamed by their historically poor performance in power. Their brand name is in the crapper. We have to be the unifiers to get their voters, because the GOP itself has zero credibility. They can't offer a unifying candidate, because they have shown that as a party they don't deserve respect or trust.

GOPers are heading for the exit doors. They are sick of seeing jobs exported, border control loosened for corporate cheap labor, the dollar fall through the floor, incompetent leadership, foolish wars... They can become Democrat-leaning independents if we let them.

Why then choose a divisive candidate like Hillary? Haven't we had enough of "legacy presidencies" to last a lifetime?

[rufus dog]

122. excellent point Gulliver

Look how difficult it was for 30% of them to admit that bush was a mistake. HRC will need to get them to admit that the Clinton bashing was a mistake! So basically you are trying to sell the hate Clinton/ vote for Bush x2 Bush crowd that they have had their collective heads up their asses for 16 years. (Which they have)

I think it is a helluva a lot easier to convince them that bush is a mistake and move on and look for keeping the 30% at home or have them switch rather than fighting to hold on to the 30%.

[w4rma]

37. She is disliked by a majority of Americans. It is impossible for her to become President.

Favorable 47% / Unfavorable 51%

Conservative 9%
Moderate 31%
Liberal 55%
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/favorables/election_2008_democratic_candidates_running_in_2008_presidential_election
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3309936

[ElizabethDC]

38. Impossible? Nah.

George W. Bush is disliked by a majority of Americans, and he still managed to make it to the White House.

I actually think that Hillary's unfavorable ratings will drop (perhaps not significantly, but still enough to make her viable, which I think she is.)

[ProudDad]

63. "George W. Bush is disliked by a majority of Americans"

He wasn't when he was selected the first time...

He wasn't when the election was stolen for him the 2nd time.

Now he is...

[ElizabethDC]

65. Well, obviously he wasn't elected the first time

and the second time is questionable at best, but I'd bet that around the 2004 election he had very high negatives (obviously not nearly as high as they are now, but he was still incredibly polarizing.)

Still, I don't think that electing Hillary would be *impossible*, otherwise I wouldn't support her. That's not to say that getting her elected wouldn't be tough, but I think that getting any candidate elected is tough.

[ProudDad]

67. Just takes gobs and gobs of $$$$$$

and the support of the ruling class...

[ShortnFiery]

79. Spot on!

I keep trying to inform them of THE REALITY that HRC doesn't stand a snowball's chance in hell of being elected President. But they choose to listen to the PROPAGANDA from the DLCers who are plastered all over our M$M and Cable News Networks.

This is truly tragic and supports the argument that Goebbels purported - whomever controls the media, CONTROLS the people. :(

[durrrty libby]

85. Sorry , but the truth is ......it is Edwards with no chance

[zulchzulu]

39. If you want the best unifier for the GOP, nominate Senator Clinton

It's that simple.

As for Senator Clinton's on-the-job training, she failed at healthcare reform and then was quiet about it after she and the Clinton administration got hammered. She also thinks that desecrating the American flag as an expression of dissent in the First Amendment should be a federal crime. She also was willing to play an odd role model for married women everywhere by allowing her cheating husband to embarass himself and the World and still stay with him (I think I know why). There is absolutely no doubt that Senator Clinton is considered divisive. In many polls and articles, married women overwhelmingly would not vote for her. Are they stupid or anti-feminist? The honest answer is no.

With the Clinton administration, we got NAFTA, Don't Ask Don't Tell, the Telecommunications Act, the Defense of Marriage Act and a myriad of other problems...granted, they are overshadowed by the utter disaster of the Bush administration. Is that the kind of experience we want more of?

Saying that Senator Clinton is the only candidate who has the qualifications, inside knowledge, leadership, and experience is inaccurate as well. Obama has eight years in the Congress and three years in the Senate. That's more than either Edwards or Clinton. Plus, when you see how even moderate Republicans would support an Obama candidacy, you see who the best candidate really is.

As for Obama's race, the same people who would never vote for a ni%&er will certainly never vote for a women, let alone a Clinton. That's complete nonsense. I feel that many don't view Obama's race as an issue in much the same way they don't view Bill Cosby, Michael Jordan, Denzel Washington or Tiger Woods by their race. The ones that do are usually racist, homophobic Republicans who in fact may also have a problem voting for a Mormon.

Good luck in your support for Senator Clinton. We'll see what happens when the votes start counting.

[TeamJordan23]

43. This has to be one of the stupidest posts ever

What do you really accomplish by this posting, Progressive? You do not make any points how and why Hillary will be better at addressing those issues than any of the other candidates.

And what the heck are you talking about on-the-job training. Didn't Bill Clinton govern with on-the-job training. I guess he also didn't come with the experience to be a world leader right?

[Wilms]

45. I was excited by the subject line as I have no idea why some think she'd make a good nominee.

And I still don't.

Clinton supporters need to come up with something.

[mckeown1128]

49. WTF?!

Fear, war... fear... joblessness...fear...putin...Obama is black....fear..... vote Hillary (she was marries to Bill Clinton and is a women) :sarcasm:



Sounds a lot like the Carl Rove political tactics of the last six years.

[juajen]

138. Hillary supporters are tired of repeating the same

things over and over. You naysayers do it to get attention for your opposition.

Enough. Over and out.

[ProudDad]

61. By your reasoning

this should be the Dem candidate:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maria_Cantwell

Just as much experience as Hillary, just ain't got the Clinton handle at the end of her name...

She even voted for "free investment" agreements, the misnamed "patriot" act and the illegal Iraq invasion

"In the summer of 2005, Cantwell voted for CAFTA, which angered many who opposed free trade agreements. Others argued that due to the state's unique economy, any senator from Washington almost had to vote for free trade pacts. Her votes on CAFTA, the PATRIOT Act, and Iraq prompted a 2006 Democratic primary challenge from Hong Tran, a Seattle legal aid attorney, and a third party challenge from Aaron Dixon, the former captain of the Seattle chapter of the Black Panther Party."

Why not Maria???

[ProudDad]

62. As for health care

Hillary's pandering to the insurance companies who bankrolled Bill fucked it up in '93-94. Why give her another bite at that apple?

Unless she came out for Single-Source, Single-Payer financed health care with STRONG regulation of Big Pharma she'd be pissing into a headwind.

[IndianaGreen]

64. Has Hillary rejected first use of atomic weapons?

As she implied in her "all options are on the table" in her speech to AIPAC.

Has Hillary renounced keeping a "residual force" in Iraq beyond 2009, as she has stated on more than one public speech?

[William769]

69. Any person who takes any option off the table should NOT be President.

[ShortnFiery]

76. Yes, wees luvs R nukes ... that's why we don't want others to have them.

If they don't have them (nukes) then AmeriKKKa can invade at will. TEAM AMERICA! F**k Yeah! :eyes:

[IndianaGreen]

84. Creating more Hiroshimas and Nagasakis should never be an option!

Sy Hersh revealed that the Pentagon was considering using atomic bunker busting bombs against Iran. Millions will die, not just in Iran, as the result of the fallout such bombs would cause. An American President that orders a first strike against Iran will become such a pariah, and will make our country such an outlaw, that there are no words to describe the consequences of such actions, not to mention the blowback.

Until Bush took power, it was never US policy to strike first in a nuclear war.

[earthlover]

111. Any person who doesn't think war is the last, last, last resort

should not be president. And as for the first use of nukes, it goes beyond that!

What is it about "the table" that is so important? Shouldn't we be more interested in peace on earth and how to achieve it than some god forsaken table?

[earthlover]

112. Bush couldn't have said it any better....

"Any person who takes any option off the table should NOT be President"

BARF

[bling bling]

127. Agreed. And any person who would even SAY that would be a liar.

And any person who waxes idealistic when it comes to foreign policy isn't a leader suitable. A whole lotta dynamics will have to shift in terms of power and human nature here and abroad before nukes will ever be taken off the table. I hope we as a species survive long enough to evolve to that type of idealism.

[election_2004]

66. Bill Richardson is conveniently invisible from your list....

Explain to me how Senator Clinton is "more qualified" than Governor Richardson on foreign policy and experience dealing with international affairs?

[slay]

68. I totally disagree with just about everything you just said

I'm not going to break it down point by point, but your "analysis" of what makes a good Democrat is way off base. Just because things are bad and Hillary is an "insider" is no reason for her to be president. As corrupt as our government is these days, we need someone with NEW ideas and different perspectives. I would choose Gore, Kucinich, and Edwards over Hillary any day of the week, and in that order. I really want Gore because Hillary voted FOR the war, and Gore was ALWAYS against it. I honestly do not think you know what you are talking about, and I will say once again - I totally disagree with just about everything you said. :(

[Jim Sagle]

70. DLC hogwash!

[ShortnFiery]

73. But HRC will NOT be our next President and everyone here knows it, don't we? n/t

[ElizabethDC]

74. Um, no. n/t

[ShortnFiery]

75. Then time will tell, but I'm too weak to not come back with "I told ya so!"

:hi:

[ElizabethDC]

78. Good luck with that.

:hi:

[troubleinwinter]

77. Hahahahahaha!!!!!!!

[durrrty libby]

99. Please for thre love of God, get a med check

[jenmarie]

80. Aren't there polls showing

that of the current candidates Senator Clinton wins in numbers of people who said they'd never vote for her?

And yes, Republics HATE anything Clinton and those who are disgusted and perhaps wouldn't vote will definitely be motivated to get out and vote (R) if she's the nominee.

Plus, I believe there are a lot of people in this not so enlightened country who would never vote for a woman to be president during wartime -- and it seems that bushco will ensure we are involved in endless wars as long as they live and breathe.


Please help stop the next war now!

Stop Iran War

[EndElectoral]

83. Actually Biden has much more experience than Hillary, but I couldn't vote for either

[slick8790]

92. The sheer fact that

we, all democrats, can't agree on hillary is all the evidence i need of her unelectability. rush still blames things on the clintons 7 years after bill left office. i think we can all agree no one will mobilize republicans to come out and vote more than hillary. i'd say a fair percentage of repubs would stay home if someone like guiliani got the nom, but if anyone is running against hillary, they'll come out just to vote against her.

[Just-plain-Kathy]

108. Welcome to DU slick8790....I think you're 100% right.

Hillary would be used as a tool to get out the republican vote. I wish Hillary would step aside.

[Kat 333]

126. "The sheer fact that

we, all democrats, can't agree on hillary is all the evidence i need of her unelectability."

Good luck with that school of thought.

[slick8790]

128. Perhaps I didn't phrase that right.

Someone who is so divisive among even us, the most dedicated democrats, and so hated by republicans, just can't be good for our chances in '08.

[IndyOp]

93. Unfortunately your post is nothing more than opinion,

sort of disguised as "analysis" -- you should try for a job as a pundit in the corporate media - you'd be great.

Disappointing. :thumbsdown:

[illinoisprogressive]

95. hillary is Bush in a pantsuit. We don't need that at all.

[illinoisprogressive]

97. No policy on the horizon. Where;'s the beef, Hil?

[ElizabethDC]

102. Why do you keep posting this question?

if you've paid attention at all, she's given several policy-related speeches lately, and I've posted links to her issues page for you several times now. Are you just a broken record?

[durrrty libby]

139. YES

[Tom Rinaldo]

103. You make a compelling case for Gore or Clark

Because of all the matters you list, we need a candidate who is immediately up for handling that daunting job AND capable of actually winning the Election in 2008, so that he or she gets to hold that job. That would be either Wes Clark or Al Gore. I pray that at least one of them will enter the race.

[Alamom]

113. I agree, great post......& if you haven't been welcomed, Welcome to DU.

You may want to drop the south/confederate flag crap.




Hillary & Obama (both) have a lot of support in the South.

[rufus dog]

124. Please

IMO, the HRC supporters really need to identify what sets her apart from any of the other candidates and then analyze how big of a gap exists between her and their second choice. If it is a small gap you really need to consider voting for choice two in the primaries. The lady, wrong or right, has a HUGE negative rating. I am a hard core liberal and do not love her because she is to much of a central appeaser, but I would vote for her over any R. The problem is I would vote for any of the D's over any R, but most R's would never vote for her ever.

Granted, this is the ONLY chance HRC ever has at the presidency, after 8 years of mismanagement she has her chance. That being said, we would have a divided country even if she would win the GE.

So why take the risk, why not go for someone without the baggage that could have a chance to improve the USA rather than having someone who might win but keep the country divided?

edited to add:

I get the point of:

Obama would give me hope that he will work toward giving everyone a voice and the world will be a better place.
Edwards would focus on poverty and make the world a better place.
Kucinich would pull out the troops and make the world a better place.
Gore would focus on Global Warming, which will make the world safer and a better place.
Clark has military experience that would make the world a better place and make me feel safer.

What do HRC supporter get that hard on about? Because I don't get her message. Vote for HRC because Bush Sucks and she was married to a President?

2008 is a JFK/Reagan moment - what is she going to do to make voters feel that the world will be a better place.

[Alamom]

140. "2008 is a JFK/Reagan moment " ? ...um, okie-dokie.

It makes my head hurt to see JFK and Reagan in the same sentence.

[election_2004]

146. "Because electing Sen. Clinton president will make the RW's collective heads explode...."

Anytime you ask a Clinton supporter to explain why or how their goddess is the "most qualified" or "most experienced" in the primary field, they simply sneer a trite platitude totally lacking in substance.

Or they cut-and-paste a list of links from her campaign website, and then sneer, "I can't be bothered to do your research for you - - go look it up yourself!"

Good luck swaying undecideds, with those warm campaign skills... :sarcasm:

[calteacherguy]

123. I think we need another candidate in the race with those qualifications.

We could find a progressive candidate with more leadership experience on the world stage and crossover red state appeal to boot. Then we really would have a chance to chose among the best of the best...AND have the best chance of winning.

It would seem I am not alone it that assesment: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3307960&mesg_id=3307960

[GeorgeGist]

130. Let's see ...

1. Hillary has had no success in ending War.
2. Hillary has had no success in foreign Diplomacy.
3. Hillary has had no success in Economics.
4. Hillary has had no success in Healthcare reform.
5. Her 'inside knowledge' led her to vote, without regret, to give Bush the power to destroy Iraq.

Not much of a resume for a 'Statesman'.

[Perry Logan]

131. Hillary makes the Right poop their pants

Hillary makes the Right poop their pants. For this reason alone, she should be President.

Keep in mind, thanks to our Republican brethren, our next President will have dictatorial powers. If Hillary takes office, wingers will start spontaneously dying. Can we pass that up?

PS: Her husband was the most popular President of the 20th century, and she has Rupert Murdoch eating out of her hand. Could be useful.

[Dawgs]

134. "If Hillary takes office"

Never happen.

[election_2004]

147. Hmmmm...cute answer, but getting back to reality...

See my reply; post #146.

[Solon]

136. I see a lot of claims that Kucinich's ideas are "disasterous", my question is, how? n/t

[tammywammy]

144. I'm still gonna take a pass on Hillary

[snowbear]

145. As are the majority of American voters.

[churchofreality]

150. She will win it all, baby!!!!!

I agree with your post, high five!

[NewYorkerfromMass]

152. These were arguements for John Kerry too

and this time around, Dodd and Biden also, and Richardson, as well as Hillary. They all have the "qualifications, inside knowledge, leadership, and experience to be our next President". Your "only" qualifier is untrue.

[zulchzulu]

154. Is there a link to how First Ladies do legislative governing?

I can't find one...

:sarcasm: