What's Wrong with HILLARY?

[Sensitivity]

I have not followed her senate votes very closely, but in general she seems
to be a competent lawyer, and a well liked legislator. With her
Arkansas and White House experience plus one senate term
under her belt, she should be one of the most qualified women who could
run for the Presidency.

The main criticims that I understand are:

1. She takes some positions for pure political angling -- e.g. the Flag amendment
2. She is willing to undermine fellow Democrats to pursue her ambitions -- e.g.
joining Puke slam on Kerry with the "totally inappropriate" comment.

I personally feel the party should be rallying around the leaders who
earned the Nom in the past -- either/both Kerry or Gore -- rather than
trashing around in a destructive personal popularity contest.

However, is there a critique of Hillary that would really disqualify her
as a good Presidential candidate?

[bowens43]

1. She is quite possibly the most hated woman in America.

Nothing would motivate the other side more then Hillary on the ticket. It's not about qualifications, it's about whether or not she is electable.


I don't think she is..

[bryant69]

4. Along with that

She's not going to activate the grass roots - we've seen her for too long we know what she's like and we know that, if she can get some political advantage she'll sell us out.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[skipos]

21. Yes. 45% of America is already commited to voting against her. nt

[BlueStater]

I'll vote for her if she wins the nomination

But I'm going to fight her tooth and nail in the primary. She's hardly the messiah of the Democratic party, no matter what the media may tell you.

[Bucky]

33. I request DU set up a forum called "Will Fight Against Hillary for the Nomination Democrats"

Then after the Convention we can rename it the "Pinchin' My Nose and Voting Blue Forum"

[G_j]

2. unapologetic support for illegal, aggressive war?

enough reason for me

[Raine]

3. She'll never get elected

to the Presidency, this country is not advanced enough to put a woman into the Whitehouse. :-(

[RiverStone]

28. At least not Hillary Rodham...

Though I'd like to believe that we are close to being gender blind for the presidency. It would take a very dynamic centrist Democrat with zero baggage. Not sure who that could be today, but I'd vote for her in a heartbeat.

[waiting for hope]

5. I don't think it would be

a really good thing for the country to have a Bush, Clinton, Bush, Clinton dynasty....we need a fresh perspective and Hillary just isn't the answer.

[Bucky]

34. My only question is "Can Chelsea clean up the mess Jeb leaves behind?"

By my calculations, that will be in November 2024. Assuming our North Korean overlords allow us home rule by then.

[longship]

6. Yes.

She will bring too much baggage to the campaign.
She will polarize the campaign, just by her existance on the ticket.
She might not even be able to win.
I have an extreme dislike for political dynasties.

Other than that, I agree with you that she's a competent legislator. She's made a few mistakes but she's no worse than many, many others in that respect. Actually, I put her near the top as a Senator. But I strongly think that's where she should stay.

[Marnieworld]

7. well

She had no White House or Arkansas experience other than being married to someone getting the experience. She has only begun a career as an elected official. I think we could use someone with a longer record of service. As well as someone not so divisive.

[truedelphi]

8. Bill Clinton - the best Republican prresident we've ever seen

And Hillary was cut from the same cloth.

She is not a progressive - just look at her signing on to the banking bills and bankruptcy legislation that legalizes usury as long as it is done by a bank, or credit card company, and not the local mafia

Certainly has not appeared too ruffled by large scale mergers of Communications and Media

She voted for the war in Iraq

That's her recent history

Past history includes five years? Six years? working as personal assistant (lawyer) to Sam Walton of WalMart- at a time when WalMart was gobbling up small town America with its mega stores. In some cases WalMart moved in, undersold the local merchants, and then when all was wiped out, WalMart moved on

Is she well known for that? Nope. She is well known for "It takes a Village", not withstanding the fact that her boss Sam destroyed many a small town...

[TheWraith]

43. That's more than a bit inaccurate.

"Past history includes five years? Six years? working as personal assistant (lawyer) to Sam Walton of WalMart- at a time when WalMart was gobbling up small town America with its mega stores."

That's not really true. She was a member of Walmart's board or something, back in the 80s when they sold only American made goods and gave their employees every benefit. It wasn't until Sam Walton died and his kids got greedy that the company turned evil.

Besides which, it's hardly fair to call Bill Clinton a Republican. He did help put through some things which we see now are a mistake (and was obliged to do some others for political reasons) but by and large the Clinton era consisted of peace, prosperity, and a measurable improvement in the country in just about every metric.

[truedelphi]

47. I've read that she was Sam's personal assistant

And heard her say on TV interviews that she was - and it is also my understanding that WalMart was doing its dirty work long before Walton died.

[BlueStater]

9. I'm not crazy about having another Clinton in the White House

One eight-year term is enough.

[Sensitivity]

12. Rather meaningless criteria, no?

[BlueStater]

14. You wanted my opinion

I gave it to you.

The idea of two families running the White for 20 years is ridiculous and shows an extreme lack of originality among both parties. You mean to tell me there is no one out there that is just as good, or better, than the Bushes or Clintons?!?

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

26. Oh, I disagree.

The only reason Bush is in the office is because of name-recognition.

[WyLoochka]

10. NEW Blood

She doesn't have it.

As to the others, it's a priority for me to elect someone who has not already been contaminated by having a lot of "experience" in DC. Such "experience" is a top disqualifier in my book.

I want fresh - non DC perspective - new blood - new ideas - new approaches to public policy.

None of these retreads you mention make the grade.

[OhioChick]

11. Her stance on outsourcing...

from 2005:

Hillary clears outsourcing air

Hillary Clinton made it apparent where she stood on outsourcing during her India visit, in an attempt perhaps to clear the Indian misgivings received during the Kerry campaign. "There is no way to legislate against reality. Outsourcing will continue," she told an audience of Indian big-wigs. She pointed out that there were 3 billion people who feel left behind and are trying to attack the modern world in the hope of turning the clock back on globalization. "It is not far-fetched to imagine ... if the Indian miracle would be the one of choice of those who feel left behind," said Hillary.

Hillary has been at the forefront in defending free trade and outsourcing. During the height of the anti-outsourcing backlash in the US last year, she faced considerable flak for defending Indian software giant Tata Consultancy Services (TCS) for opening a center in Buffalo, New York. "We are not against all outsourcing; we are not in favor of putting up fences," Hillary said firmly, despite inevitably invoking the ire of the anti-free trade brigade.

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.

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

[BuyingThyme]

13. She loves murdering Iraqis.

[madrchsod]

18. you forgot

unborn babies,puppies, and kitties

[BuyingThyme]

50. Yes, she has supported an all-out shock and awe attack on

an endless list of life forms.

[H2O Man]

15. Senator Clinton

is a powerful voice for the democratic party. No matter if one supports the idea of her running for president or not, her recent win in New York is very impressive. She won all but either 3 or 4 counties (I've heard both on the news). I live in Chenango County, one she did not "win" .... but she came very, very close in a county that is heavily republican. She got far more votes than from just registered democrats and other progressives. Clearly, a significant number of conservative republicans voted for her. And that is something that neither Daniel Patrick Moynihan nor Robert Kennedy did.

[Nite Owl]

16. To my knowledge she still

hasn't come out and said her vote was wrong and up til last year at least she wanted to put in more troops not bring them home.

What bothers me is she has the potential of being a real leader, a voice in the Senate and she holds back afraid of taking a strong stance until the she knows which way the wind is blowing. She isn't leading, she doesn't want to 'make a mistake' or make it seem like she isn't 'centrist'.

I think it would be wrong for her to run in '08, they already hate her and have all the research done and most of all I don't want more of the heirarchy. It's been Bush/Clinton/Bush and if it's a Clinton again it'll be decades of no one else but these two families. It just sort of seems unAmerican. If she were to win and get two terms it will be 28yrs of either family.

[madrchsod]

17. i think she doesn`t have a chance in hell

to win the presidency....actually she would make a decent if not a very good president.

[SoCalDem]

19. She caught Presidential Fever.

She's trying to say just enough, but not too much about pretty much everything she can think of.

She knows she has to try to be everything to everyone.

[Selatius]

20. I am not sure she would be as good a candidate compared to others.

If Gore ran, I'd vote for him hands down. I am afraid her presence would energize the far right to come out and vote. Also, her stance on the Iraq War has alienated many anti-war Dems.

[Bucky]

35. Well, any decent Democratic candidate will energize the Far Right.

Hell, I don't want a nominee who wouldn't energize the Far Right. The thing is to nominate someone who will energize us and attract moderates and independents to the polls, too.

[Selatius]

37. That's true, and that means you only have the anti-war folks to worry over then.

And their position hasn't really changed with respect to the war.

[Bucky]

40. As one of the antiwar folks, I'm voting for whoever we nominate, even if they're pro-war

Clinton may or may not be pro-war, but even the worst Democrat (with a reasonable chance of getting nominated) is better than the best Republican (who would be a walking oxymoron anyway).

[TheWraith]

22. Nothing that she can't fix herself, if she wanted.

Look, while there is a sizable chunk of the right that hates her, it's inaccurate to say that she's universally hated or polarizing. Here in NY she's got significant support across the board, Dems, independents, and Repubs.

What's wrong with her is that she seems to feel it neccessary to suck up to the right, with things like the torture comment, the attack on Kerry, waffling on the war, etcetera. I don't know if she honestly believes these things, or if she's just playing politics, but it's not an attractive characteristic in a candidate, and running right is not the way you win the Democratic nomination.

[oasis]

23. Hillary in 2008 because competence in governance is a good thing.

She's willing and able to take care of the people's business. That's the bottom line for me.

[PATRICK]

29. We have MANY

such Democrats. It is almost by definition. Part of the objection has to do with defending the nation against extremists. Cutting deals, compromising or otherwise ignoring them makes her not only extremely vulnerable as a candidate but less than hopeful as a President. The negatives against her laid out by the RW are the cement overshoes awaiting her either as a candidate or President elect. One reason they have been pre-emptively trashing Pelosi, whose REAL effect on the female population has been one of pride and elation for the highest(overdue) position held by a woman, is that a woman Democrat first in would automatically seal the fate of the GOP before they can dress up one of their crooked facsimiles as a stopgap.

But for actual campaigning and governance she comes up short and confirms it over and over and over again. Kerry's mistakes by comparison could be a learning curve. She is bogged down in the DLC she often has to urge back to sanity. I guess I identify principles with performance. You can be passionately pure in the former and flub the latter miserably but soft principles and so-so performance will degrade and cave in today's world. We would be substituting neo-con dark fantasy with centrist white fantasy with harsh results for a fact based world. Which one would you prefer and which is the less harmful? There are better choices, I hope.

[oasis]

38. It's a package deal. Hill and Bill will head a team of competent bureaucrats.

Fix-it folks with an eye to guiding America back on the right path.:thumbsup:

Many were "fat and happy" under the first Clintonista regime.

America/President Clinton was respected worldwide. We could work our back to that status again with the right crew in charge.

[Dora]

24. Don't forget that her membership in a political dynasty is a turnoff.

:puke:

[oasis]

39. Yes, like the Kennedys.

John:puke: Bobby:puke:Ted:puke:

Give me a "Joe Blow" candidate over a Kennedy or a Clinton any day.

[Dora]

41. Go ahead, puke your guts up. I stand by my words.

[KharmaTrain]

25. She's A Senator

Besides the polarizing affect Hillary's candidacy would bring and the corporate feeding frenzy it would unleash, the recent Presidential track record of Senators since 1960 has been dismal. Now, if you're a governor, that's another story...and for good reason. A Governor is more like a President than a Senator and can show results on a local level that is more easily understood than what one accomplishes in the Senate.

[TallahasseeGrannie]

27. Enough baggage to bring down a 747

[CrispyQ]

30. Time for new blood.

No more bushes, no more Clintons.


;)

[let us vote]

31. The Bankruptcy Bill

I imagine she's not too popular in New Orleans.

[truedelphi]

46. The Bankruptcy Bill sucked big timeand she let it

(helped it?) happen...

What happened on account of her in New Orleans?

[zulchzulu]

32. The primaries will take care of any possibility of her getting the nomination

I know a fairly wide group of people on a wide scale polically and NO ONE wants Hillary to run.

It's not that they don't like her necessarily...it's that she would completely unite the Right Wing in making sure she doesn't win.

She won't get past March in the primaries and certainly will not be participating in Super Tuesday with ANY wins.

[jgraz]

36. She's the Stepford Dem choice

In other words, someone you support just because she's popular and has 'D' next to her name. Most of her supporters have no idea where she stands on the Iraq War, NAFTA, the PATRIOT act, the Military Commissions Act, Medicare Part D and the Bankruptcy Bill. And really, neither does she -- at least until she gets the polling data.

We already tried Hillary's brand of craven political triangulation and it led directly to 12 years of a GOPee-controlled Congress.


ETA: Actual spelling and grammar.

[Perky]

42. YES...She can't win

she would bring the fractured republican coation back together again.


She would drag the party down with her.


SHe has not earned the right yet.

[wisteria]

44. She doesn't come across as a leader anyone would want to follow.

maybe it is because she appears to have no strong convictions about anything. I also, personally think she want to be president for the wrong reasons.

[arewenotdemo]

45. She lost me for good with the saber-rattling at Iran

and this little pearl of wisdom.

Sunday, February 20, 2005

HILLARY JOINS NEO-CON WAR IN IRAQ

Hillary Clinton, who hopes to become president, is on the Sunday morning talk shows saying that our troops might be in Iraq for some time to come. "We've been in Korea for 50 years," she said. "We are still in Okinawa," she told the TV cameras. Right wing Sen Lindsay Graham (R-SC), sitting next to Hillary during the interview on Faze the Nation, chimed in that even though "Sen Clinton and I are on different ends of the political spectrum, we both agree that our troops will be here for a long time."

http://space4peace.blogspot.com/2005/02/hillary-joins-neo-con-war-in-iraq.html

She should claim her chair at the American Enterprise Institute with her brothers and sisters:

# Robert Bork
# John Bolton
# Stephen Bryen
# Lynne Cheney
# Richard Cheney
# Eliot Cohen
# Seth Cropsey
# Christopher DeMuth
# Thomas Donnelly
# Nicholas Eberstadt
# Mark Falcoff
# Hillel Fradkin
# David Frum
# Jeffrey Gedmin
# Reuel Marc Gerecht
# Newt Gingrich
# Gertrude Himmelfarb
# Fred Ikle
# Bruce Jackson
# Jeane Kirkpatrick
# Irving Kristol
# William Kristol
# Mark Lagon
# Michael Ledeen
# Lewis Lehrman
# Joshua Muravchik
# Michael Novak
# Richard Perle
# Danielle Pletka
# Michael Rubin
# William Schneider
# George Shultz
# Arthur Waldron
# Ben Wattenberg
# David Wurmser

[Warren DeMontague]

48. Iraq. Iraq, Iraq, Iraq.

Look, there is a list a mile long as to why I believe she'd be a terrible nominee, but next time around we need to nominate someone who can enunciate a clear moral position on Iraq, particularly without the albatross of a vote for the IWR around their neck. (and yeah, that disqualifies Kerry, too) But Hillary's repeated attempts to burnish her Neo-Con cred make her particularly unsuitable in that regard.

[ripple]

49. She's hated by many

I'll vote for the dem nominee regardless, but I have a dem friend who absolutely REFUSES to vote for her. He's pissed about the way she
mishandled health care reform and the bureaucratic nightmare we all now know as HIPAA. I'll try to get him to come around if she gets the nod, but to be honest, she isn't my first choice, either.