Maybe Hillary is the answer

[cooolandrew]

I mean in all reality I think she has the candidacy for 08 however we cut it. So, given that reality let's look at the positives. Of course we have doubts about how she will govern militarily, but in other areas we could see big improvements. One thing Thom Hartmann always states is that population expansion is limited by the empowerment of women. One thing that comes across clear in Hillary's biography is that she has fought for women's rights across the globe which can only expand under her presidency. The lowering in world population is our best shot againt ecological decline, the less people consuming the least amount of damage we impact on the planet. No other candidate can boast this record. When it comes to the environment I feel she has the mental capacity to tackle the issue smart too. So if Hillary is the candidate and this is how the cards fall, we may well in the long run find more positives than negatives from her presidency.

[Perry Logan]

1. What do you mean "maybe"? The most objectionable things about Hillary are her detractors.

[Buzz Clik]

2. Hillary is unpopular at DU and among the base because of her compromises on progressive ideals.

Most of us find that right on the edge (or beyond) of forgivable.

[cooolandrew]

3. I'm just trying to find the bright side because in reality we may have to get her elected.

[Buzz Clik]

5. Those of us who were HUGE Hillary fans when she was elected Senator are doing likewise.

Speaking personally, I have found her swing to the right disappointing but not fatal. I can tell you now, however, that not every progressive I know personally feels the same -- they will not forgive her.

[paulk]

32. a question for you - and I mean this as a serious question

not snark -

What is this "swing to the right" that I keep hearing about? I see this on DU all the time, yet when I look at her actual voting record I don't find it. What is it - 97% votes with the Democratic majority in the last Congress - 95% lifetime? How can that be seen as a "swing to the right"?

Unless you consider the Democratic Party to be right wing - and I realize there is a significant portion of DU's members who do feel that way - but I don't see how HRC can be differentiated from the rest of the Democratic field (outside of DK, who has no chance of being elected), which is often done here.

[Yuugal]

49. "What is this "swing to the right""

Hillary voted for the Patriot act, the Iraq war, a new war in Iran, and for cluster bombing near civilians. Plus she wants to stay in Iraq and defend our new megabases forever. She's voted to fund the war and voted for some of Bush's new cronies. I'm sure her fans will say she 95% effective because some middle school got named after Molly Yard, and the national dog feces elimination act, or whatever nonsense, but other than raising the slave wage in this country to 7 bucks I don't remember even one bone shes thrown us. Did I mention she has totally sold her soul to every corporation that could write her a check? And she's pro-outsourcing and free trade?

If Hillbots think we schleps of the working class are going to line up for someone like Hillary, they are dreaming.

"but I don't see how HRC can be differentiated from the rest of the Democratic field (outside of DK, who has no chance of being elected)"

Keep trying then. There is one guy who has a chance AND is talking about kicking some corporate ass and ending the war by bringing ALL our troops home real soon.

[paulk]

53. sigh...

I was hoping for a real answer instead of the usual nonsense...

[GregD]

69. I'll give you a specific answer

Look carefully at her record on the voting machine issue. Go back to 2003 when BBV was first recognized, look at the bills that were introduced, and look at her record. Look at the bill she introduced, look at those that she collaborated on, and look at the (absolute lack of) support that the election integrity movement gave to her bill. It was riddled with loopholes and would have left us worse off than we already were (are).

HRC has a horrid and patetic record on that fundamental issue and it speaks loudly about how much she (fails to) care about our right to vote.

As such, she is not a friend of democracy, and I'll sit it out in terms of working for her candidacy or voting for her.

[paulk]

70. the "voting for her" is problematic

I have no respect for anyone who says that. Hillary Clinton would be light years better than a Republican, period. Any Democrat is better.

[GregD]

77. shades of gray...

I don't see her as a real Democrat. Sorry - I just don't. Just a moderate repuke.

[paulk]

86. I heard that same thing back in 1999

look where it got us.

What is a "Democrat" to you? How can someone who has voted 95% with the Democratic majority not be a real Democrat?

No one seems to be willing or able to answer that.

Instead all I get are "she's a moderate repuke" or insults.

[GregD]

90. Let's see how you do here.

Challenge: look into the issues that people don't like about HRC and defend them. Start with her voting machine record. Explain to me why her legislation made any sense, and how you feel that makes for a trustworthy leader. I don't think you'll do it.

[paulk]

93. I don't have any problem with this legislation

Senator Clinton, Representative Tubbs Jones Announce Reintroduction of Major Election Reform Bill




Washington, DC - On the 42nd anniversary to the day of Bloody Sunday, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY) and Representative Stephanie Tubbs Jones (D-OH) today announced that they are reintroducing in both chambers of Congress comprehensive voting reform legislation that demands an electoral system that not only ensures that every voter is given the opportunity to cast a vote, but also instills in every voter the confidence that his or her vote has been counted. Senator Clinton and Representative Tubbs Jones announced the action today in a press conference joined by co-sponsors Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA) and Representative John Lewis (D-GA) and voting rights advocates, including Ralph G. Neas, President of People For the American Way; Hilary Shelton, Director of the Washington Office of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP), Barbara Arnwine, the Executive Director of the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law and Wendy Weiser, Deputy Director, the Brennan Center for Justice.

"Voting is the most precious right of every U.S. citizen, and we have a moral obligation to ensure the integrity of our elections. We cannot rest until we have done everything we can to make sure that voters have confidence in our voting system and exercise their right to vote. We must be able to easily and accurately count every vote so that every vote counts," said Senator Clinton.

"I am pleased to once again join with Senator Clinton in introducing companion legislation in the House as we continue our efforts to ensure that every American is afforded their Constitutional right to vote," said Representative Tubbs Jones. "Considering the tremendous election discrepancies that we have seen take place in this country, including this past mid-term election, we know that we are still dealing with a flawed system. The passage of this legislation is paramount to ensuring that people throughout this country are not disenfranchised when they attempt to exercise their right to vote."

"It was exactly 42 years ago today that Hosea Williams and I led a march of 600 peaceful protestors across the Edmund Pettus Bridge in Selma, Alabama. Many of them gave a little blood on that bridge for the cause of voting rights in America. It is because of those brave individuals that I and so many others hold seats in Congress today. We have come a great distance, but we still live in an America where some votes are nullified, discounted, and disregarded, and where some communities are systematically disenfranchised from full participation in the democratic process. We need this comprehensive voting reform to help continue the work that those marchers and so many others throughout our history sacrificed to build—a more free, more fair democratic society," said Representative Lewis.

The Count Every Vote Act will provide a voter verified paper record for every vote cast in electronic voting machines and ensures access to voter verification for all citizens, including language minority voters, illiterate voters and voters with disabilities. The bill mandates that this ballot be the official ballot for purposes of a recount. The bill sets a uniform standard for provisional ballots so that every qualified voter will know their votes are treated equally, and requires the Federal Election Assistance Commission to issue standards that ensure uniform access to voting machines and trained election personnel in every community. The bill also improves security measures for electronic voting machines.

To ensure that citizens have the ability to vote in a timely and efficient manner, the Count Every Vote Act requires states to work to reduce wait times for voters at polling places. It also designates Election Day a federal holiday and requires early voting in each state in order to encourage more citizens to exercise their right to vote. The bill also enacts "no-excuse" absentee balloting, enacts fair and uniform voter registration and identification, and requires states to allow citizens to register to vote on Election Day. In addition, the legislation restores voting rights for ex-offenders who have repaid their debt to society.

The Count Every Vote Act also includes measures to protect voters from the conflicts of interest and deceptive practices that lead to the disenfranchisement of voters and harm voter trust in the integrity of the system. In particular, the bill prohibits chief state election officials as well as owners and executives of voting machine manufacturers from serving in any position on the political campaign committee of a candidate or engaging in other kinds of partisan campaign activities. The bill also makes it a federal crime to commit deceptive practices, such as sending flyers into minority neighborhoods telling voters the wrong voting date, and makes these practices a felony punishable by up to five years of imprisonment.

The legislation is supported by People For the American Way, Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights Under the Law, the NAACP, Common Cause, U.S. PIRG and the Brennan Center for Justice. At today's press conference, representatives from civil rights organizations emphasized the urgent need to pass the Count Every Vote Act.

"The need for election reform is clear," said Ralph G. Neas, President of People For the American Way and People For the American Way Foundation. "Every Republican, Democrat and Independent deserves the right to vote without unnecessary barriers to the ballot box, and with the confidence that each vote will be counted. Unfortunately, our current election system fails to live up to that basic promise. That's why this legislation is so important."

"The vote is the heart of democracy. Today there are too many barriers to citizens registering, voting and knowing their vote will count. This legislation would make a major stride toward fixing our broken election system and restoring democracy's promise. Our research and litigation shows these are just the steps that are needed," said Michael Waldman, Executive Director of the Brennan Center for Justice.

Barbara R. Arnwine, Executive Director of the Lawyers' Committee said: "The Count Every Vote Act responds to the hundreds of thousands of American voters who called the 1-866-OUR-VOTE voter services hotline reporting the real problems that lead to disenfranchisement across the country. Unfortunately, too many voters are needlessly blocked from exercising their fundamental right to vote by defects in an unresponsive and insufficient election administration system. I commend the co-sponsors for looking beyond partisanship and putting the fundamental rights of all American voters first."

Senator Clinton and Representative Tubbs Jones first introduced the Count Every Vote Act in the 109th Congress along with colleagues in both chambers. They will continue to work this Congress to address the unfinished business of election reform. Co-sponsors of the Count Every Vote Act include Senators Barbara Boxer (D-CA), Barbara Mikulski (D-MD), Patrick Leahy (D-VT), John Kerry (D-MA) and Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ) and Representative John Lewis (D-GA).

[GregD]

96. VV,org wouldn't support it - make you wonder why?

Reviewed by Robert Kibrick, one of the nations most effective analysts of legislation in this area, tends to be very cautious about publicly stating the negatives about any given bill. But his private analytical comments among the VV team weighs heavily in what bills they will endorse or not. You'll notice that they wouldn't support that bill. The bill also clearly endorses the use of DRE voting systems which should be summarily rejected instead of being further institutionalized.
http://www.verifiedvoting.org/article.php?id=5841

I may have more a detailed response concerning the above legislation. But in the mean time, let's look at other bills she endorsed or authored:


Clinton supported Feinstein's obnixious S.1487
http://www.nyvv.org/noS1487.shtml
http://www.solarbus.org/cgi-bin/dada/mail.cgi/archive/electionjustice/newest/
http://www.votersunite.org/info/s1487Report.asp

An analysis of her trainwreck S.1986 in 2003
http://www.wheresthepaper.org/PADAproblems.htm

Verifid Voting refused to support that bill either, and for very good reasons:
http://www.verifiedvoting.org/article.php?id=5038

There were other issues where activists had opportunities to work closely with Clinton and to try to influence legislation to create a verifiable solution and she made a mess of every single thing she touched.

[paulk]

98. these people do, though

The legislation is supported by People For the American Way, Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights Under the Law, the NAACP, Common Cause, U.S. PIRG and the Brennan Center for Justice. At today's press conference, representatives from civil rights organizations emphasized the urgent need to pass the Count Every Vote Act.

"The need for election reform is clear," said Ralph G. Neas, President of People For the American Way and People For the American Way Foundation. "Every Republican, Democrat and Independent deserves the right to vote without unnecessary barriers to the ballot box, and with the confidence that each vote will be counted. Unfortunately, our current election system fails to live up to that basic promise. That's why this legislation is so important."

"The vote is the heart of democracy. Today there are too many barriers to citizens registering, voting and knowing their vote will count. This legislation would make a major stride toward fixing our broken election system and restoring democracy's promise. Our research and litigation shows these are just the steps that are needed," said Michael Waldman, Executive Director of the Brennan Center for Justice.

Barbara R. Arnwine, Executive Director of the Lawyers' Committee said: "The Count Every Vote Act responds to the hundreds of thousands of American voters who called the 1-866-OUR-VOTE voter services hotline reporting the real problems that lead to disenfranchisement across the country. Unfortunately, too many voters are needlessly blocked from exercising their fundamental right to vote by defects in an unresponsive and insufficient election administration system. I commend the co-sponsors for looking beyond partisanship and putting the fundamental rights of all American voters first."

Senator Clinton and Representative Tubbs Jones first introduced the Count Every Vote Act in the 109th Congress along with colleagues in both chambers. They will continue to work this Congress to address the unfinished business of election reform. Co-sponsors of the Count Every Vote Act include Senators Barbara Boxer (D-CA), Barbara Mikulski (D-MD), Patrick Leahy (D-VT), John Kerry (D-MA) and Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ) and Representative John Lewis (D-GA).

[GregD]

99. PFAW and the others are on the wrong side of the debate.

There is a massive fight between election integrity advocates and the PFAW's of the world. Those large organizations were late to the fight in the first place, and they are wrong now.

DRE voting has to be made illegal and rejected. Every study proves the technology to be unworthy of support, yet PFAW continues to support it. Which makes every supportive position that PFAW, etc. takes on voting issues subject to question.

And your not recognizing this, and throwing them out as validation of your position, makes it clear that your own positions should be questioned.

[paulk]

100. no, you don't get to criticize my "position" with that

"I'm better informed, I'm smarter than you" bullshit. That's the last refuge of someone who doesn't have an argument to make.

My "position" is that if co - sponsers of that bill, who are some of the most liberal members of our Congress, think it's a step in the right direction, then I'm ok with the bill.

YMMV.

[GregD]

101. More on this bill:

This appears to be HR.1381. Introduced by Tubbs Jones, and S.804 Introduced by Clinton.
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=s110-804

Check out Section 106 "Improvements to Voting Systems." It's the section that authorizes the EAC to establish residual vote benchmarks and exempt communities that have had high rates of undervotes in the past.

In fact most of what is in this bill is very similar to the Feinstein bill.
See VotersUnite's analysis of that one -- which Clinton signed onto.
http://www.votersunite.org/info/s1487Report.asp. In particular, read how it provides a legal excuse for expanding the disenfranchisement of “distinct communities” such as racial minorities.
http://www.votersunite.org/info/s1487Report.asp#2


To make it really easy for you to understand, they not only institutionalize and permit the continued use of the failed DRE technology, they encourage even more technology, and they institutionalize discriminiation based on past systemic failures.

You can't win this one Paul. It's unlikely you have had the close view of the voting machine crisis that I have, or have the contacts to those who still work full time on the issue. Clinton cannot be trusted on the issue, and any piece of legislation that she touches can be picked apart. That's a fact.

[TheWatcher]

80. Then vote for someone who is a real Democrat.

Vote For Edwards.

Vote For Kucinich.

Hillary is not the second coming.

[paulk]

87. Edwards, who has a more conservative voting record than

she does?

How is he more of a "real Democrat" than Hillary?

Kucinich who couldn't even win his home district in the Ohio primary last time around?

He speaks for "Democrats"?

[TheWatcher]

79. It isn't nonsense.

It's called her record.

And a lot of the Hillbots seem to retreat to this low brow type of response whenever faced with defending it.

Because you can't.

It's really that simple.

[paulk]

106. here is her "record"

http://www.vote-smart.org/voting_category.php?can_id=55463

Perhaps you would care to peruse it and point out to me how exactly it constitutes a "swing to the right". Then maybe you could post something of substance intead of your usual playground insults.

[HughBeaumont]

82. What part of it is nonsense?

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/GC01Df03.html
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/538674.cms
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/593175.cms

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UhLBSLLIhUs
Hillary pushes for more h1-b visas and outsourcing

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cLNOSGM2jK4
Hillary Clinton's hypocrisy (part 1)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jgdrh2Bc95M
Hillary Clinton's hypocrisy (part 2)

[paulk]

88. the part where her views differ from the mainstream of the

Democratic Party.

And Lou Dobbs can take his opinion and shove it up his fat Republican ass.

[DiverDave]

94. Usual nonsense?

you mean the answer YOU didnt want to hear...the truth is tough to take, huh?

[paulk]

105. I haven't seen an answer yet

that addresses my question. How can someone who has voted with the Democratic majority 95% of the time be seen as "swinging to the right"?

Her overall voting record is more liberal than that of John Edwards, the candidate you support. How do you feel about that? Is that a truth that you don't want to hear, perhaps?

[ProudDad]

55. "Unless you consider the Democratic Party to be right wing"

BINGO!!!!

They're the "near-right" wing of the pro-corporate, Big Business Party...the pukes being the "far-right" wing.

[warren pease]

75. Yup, exactly...

The '60s and '70s produced the Raygun backlash, and the two main parties have been largely indistinguishable ever since.

The '70s featured Watergate leading the way toward a national repudiation of the GOP and its right wing nut cases. Amazing (compared to the present) congressional investigations like the Church committee temporarily reined in the CIA and the House committee on assassinations actually admitting JFK's death was "probably the result of a conspiracy."

The very public flipping off of the right wing culminated in Carter's presidency, which would have been remarkable for mandating a shift away from fossil fuels and federal investment in R&D to develop clean energy sources. Unfortunately, the right wing successfully painted him as an ineffectual hick and environmentalist wimp, presaging the kinds of character assassinations they've refined into an art form over the past 30 years.

Since then, the political center has shifted so far to the right that it's possible to claim to be a moderate and still support the occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan, US imperialism and blatant resource grabs, massive deficits benefiting the investor class, the impending national security state and tax breaks and "defense" spending that transfer the remaining wealth of the working and middle classes into the pockets of the investor class and the ruling elites.

These were all extreme right wing positions prior to Raygun, who was able to sell them to working people, who then dutifully marched off to the polls and shot themselves repeatedly in the foot. And they've done it so much ever since that it's amazing anyone in this country can still walk.

And so Kucinich, who would be a moderate left/liberal in western Europe, is a flaming radical here because his political positions value people over corporate interests. Edwards, who's starting to pound on his populist message, is of course starting to get vilified by corporate media, who have already chosen our candidate for us and will not have the people acting independently and voting in their own interests for once.

Yup... That's what's wrong with the democratic party these days. Instead of standing firm throughout the '80s and calling bullshit on Raygun, then Bush I, at every opportunity, they meekly folded their tents, went to the back of the corporate suck-up line, and came with their hands outstretched begging for the corporate dime, just like their alleged opponents. Then money did what it usually does and, presto, here's the one-party system.


wp

[TahitiNut]

103. Exactly. It's appalling to watch "liberals" abandon principles and values ...

... and wear the hair shirt of some misplaced guilt. The pathetic apologetics of supporting people whose positions are inimical to just and equitable social and economic reforms in a corrupted system extnd to abject denial of even the clearest possible portrayal of the huge lurch to the fascist right in our political process.

No metric is perfect, but the politcal compass is better than any other I've seen

[uppityperson]

30. Bright side=she's not as bad as the current bunch. SCOTUS thing too

I don't think she'll nominate as rightwing of a candidate as the repubs would.

[bobbolink]

33. "we may have to get her elected"

don't count on me.

[bpeale]

63. me either. not happening from me.

[HughBeaumont]

83. I don't have to do anything except stay 1/4 Italian, be a good parent to my kid and die.

[Didereaux]

4. so unforgivable that...

you would refuse to vote for her in the general election?

[Buzz Clik]

6. I would vote for her, but reluctantly. I know others who will not.

[niceypoo]

29. There is a small core of Haters here that are obsessed with her

Mostly Obama supporters and freepers. Haters don't sway me, they just disgust me.

[bobbolink]

35. Get a clue.

Those republican tactics just don't work anymore---we've had 7 years to be innoculated against them.

FOR ONCE AND FOR ALL--we don't "HATE" her, and we aren't "HATERS". That's so very silly, and so very destructive.

We're tired of the corporate ownership, and are saying so, loudly and clearly.

If that bothers you, then maybe it's time for you Hillary supporters to register your issues about her corporate ownership, and tell her enough.

Or, keep calling us Haters, and make it a surity that you won't have our support when you most need it.

[creeksneakers2]

68. If you don't hate Hillary

how can you believe a silly thing like she corporately owned? Her votes and issue stands are nothing like that. Because she got money? They all get money, or else they lose.

I read lots of stuff here only a hater would believe. Today there's one circulating that says Bill Clinton was behind the coup that put Masharraff in power. They said Clinton risked terrorists getting nuclear weapons and a war between India to pay back a friend. All part of a cover up conspiracy of course. One would have to hate to believe a nutty thing like that.

[bobbolink]

76. "Hate" and seeing the obvious are two very different things.

You want to use the same tactics as the right wing, yet you want me to vote for your candidate?

Really????

[rAVES]

26. So wishful Perry.. c'mon...

[EFerrari]

60. That's right. What right do the people have to chose a candidate?

:rofl:

[TheWatcher]

78. So those who oppose Hillary are now objectionable?

Sorry my friend, I know many intelligent, well-informed people who do not support her.

There are a lot of respected posters at DU who do not support her.

Your assessment is rather embarrassing.

[Tektonik]

92. I can't figure what's worse

Your opinions or your video editing.

[Toots]

7. There is a very good article in this weeks Newsweek about Hillary

and it pretty much puts to lie most of the DUers who are constantly harping on her. It is an eye opener..

[Flubadubya]

8. Is there a link?

:)

[Toots]

13. Probably, but I read it in the actual magazine not online.

:shrug: Try google

[Flubadubya]

14. Thanks Toots...

I figured you did and I did try the google and came up with a link from MSNBC which supposedly showed the latest Newsweek with all its stories. I didn't find the story, though. I will continue to look. Do you have the actual name of the story by any chance? Thanks again!

[Flubadubya]

15. OK, I think I finally found it...

It must be this one... It's called Hillary's Hidden Hand:

http://www.newsweek.com/id/81600

[ProudDad]

57. You mean the Black Hand?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Hand_(blackmail)

Or the famous "hidden hand of the Market"?

She'd be a fucking disaster -- more of the same corporate bullshit that gave you NAFTA, GATT and the huge wage gap between real workers and CEO's.

More of the same-o, same-o.

[Toots]

19. Apparently it isn't the newest issue though I just received it yesterday.

It is a Special Double Issue and the article I am talking about is called Hillary's Hidden Hand by Sally Bedell Smith page 62 I can not find a date on the cover but it is the issue with the Chinese NBA Star for the Rockets on the cover.. The article speaks to how Bill never made any decisions without first consulting with Hillary and how they truly were a team effort on every issue..It mentions the fact of how the Right Wing was so incensed over how Secretive her Health Care meeting were and how hard they hammered her over that secrecy. I wonder why no such outcry over Cheney's Secretive meetings or in fact the Bush* Adminstration's secrecy in general..:shrug: I am certain it isn't hypocrisy :crazy:

[skipos]

9. Is the question "Who should not be our nominee?"

Cuz the answer to that question is Hillary.

I am still rooting for
B I D E N.

[brazos121200]

10. No doubt Hillary is the most "Republican like" of the

Democratic candidates. I think the reason she has taken such a pro-war stance on Iraq is her concern that voters will consider her "weak" on military matters if she shows too much hesitancy to support Bush's war there. She is the first woman to be a serious candidate for President from either party and she wants to project a tough image. This is regrettable. She has aleinated herself from the left wing of her party in her attempt to appeal the vast middle ground. Another thing she might believe is that you have to "compromise with the devil" to get elected President, as politics has been said to be the art of compromise.

[earthlover]

17. BINGO!

Not only is she the most Republican of our candidates, she has the least ability to appeal to moderates and Rep cross-overs in the general election and will unite the Rep Party like nobody else could in a crusade against her "liberal politics".

Maybe it is because she is a woman that she has felt the need to not look weak, and to embrace Iraq and getting tough on Iran. I used to think a woman president would be more peace-like, but if this is an illustration, maybe they have to be more war-like just to not look weak. I wish we had a woman candidate this time that was not so easily villified by the right. It would be great to have a woman president....problem is, Hillary won't be the 1st woman president because she can't get elected.

[mwb970]

85. These Hillary analyses confuse me.

You say she is the most Republican of our candidates but then in the same sentence you say that Republicans will not cross over to vote for her as they presumably will for our less-Republican candidates.

Apparently Hillary's "embrace" of bush's war has alienated voters like you while somehow also putting off people who agree with her. Well, shucks. Someone must like her - she's been ahead in the polls for months.

[Rydz777]

11. I've been holding out for Gore, but I'm beginning to face reality.

I think Hillary will be nominated and elected. I see pluses and minuses.

Pluses: she is smart, hard working, and has a better sense of this country's problems than any Republican.

Minuses: she is a candidate of the establishment (i.e. the party elite and even the business elite) and may be constrained not to undertake serious reforms. I also fear that, being a woman, she will feel that she has to prove herself by exercising the military options. (It was Albright who told Powell: "You've got this big military. Why don't you use it?") I hope she resists such urges.

[stlsaxman]

81. facing reality does not mean you shouldn't vote your heart in the primary.

I'm holding out for Gore but voting for Biden. not telling you to vote my way- look around and decide for yourself. THIS is what primaries are for.

i suspect the Iowa caucus will change everything. Hillary may place 3rd.

[JohnnyLib2]

12. I suspect that your outlook will be shared by many in the next

several months. Gutsy to post it here and now! :thumbsup:

Edited to recommend

[Elidor]

16. Then the question must be: what's the 2nd worst choice we could make?

I'll take Democrats for the Leisure Class for $400, Alex.

[undeterred]

20. I thought that was Democrats who Love Corporations

:evilgrin:

[scarletwoman]

71. "I'll take Democrats for the Leisure Class for $400, Alex." LOVE it! (nt)

[earthlover]

18. ..." I feel she has the mental capacity to tackle the issue smart too...."

Wince

[cooolandrew]

24. Grammar is my major downfall in life but I try. See she's smarter than me for a start.

[cooolandrew]

25. ....

[in_cog_ni_to]

21. "Governing militarily" is an easy fix with a strong VP...Wes Clark? Bill Richardson? Joe Biden?

That's not going to be an issue for Hill. There's something about every candidate I don't like, but I will vote for whomever our nominee is......a box of rocks would be better than ANY of the repuke candidates.

[annie1]

97. 1. lol @ box of rocks. 2. Clark would be so awesome. and they...

are such a good match. what a ticket.

[DemKR]

22. K&R for hillary n/t

[emilyg]

28. Rec. for Hillary

[davsand]

23. Suicide is never "the answer."

Nope. I'm not buying it. Hil is NOT my answer.


Laura

[CorpGovActivist]

27. Depends Very Much on What the Question Is n/t

[Whisp]

34. or who the question is directed at.

big corp would definitely say Yes.
us pleebs, maybe not so much.

[bobbolink]

37. .

:hi:

:hug:

[Whisp]

38. :)

:hug:

[bobbolink]

36. .

:evilgrin:

:thumbsup:

[CorpGovActivist]

64. ..

:angelic halo:

- Dave

[Pastiche423]

31. Your reality

is much different than my reality. I know no one in rl that will vote for her and very few online.

The only way she will win is through rigging. And I don't have a hard time believing that TPTB will do just that.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

39. Why Won't The GOP TPTB Prevent It?

Or do they prefer her to a Republican... If that's the case why doesn't the GOP TPTB nominate Duncan Hunter or Ron Paul to ensure a HRC VCTRY...

[Pastiche423]

40. The republics

have had their sights on her for well over a decade. They want her to win the Democratic nom. They believe they can beat her.

It's been all over the news for the past fourteen years. Did you miss it?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

43. Yes

I'm illiterate...

Thank you for your concern though...

Kisses

DSB

[Pastiche423]

45. I never said you were

When republics in my area ask me, w/a smirk, if I believe Clinton will beat their guys, I answer, I don't know, but I'm not voting for her.

The bewilderment in their faces is priceless. What? A liberal that's not voting for Clinton???

They don't understand people that go off (GOP) script.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

50. Our Personal Observations And Reality Can Only Go So Far...

I have told this story at DU several times... I had a boss who managed several professional and trade associations and travelled extensively who told me in 1994 he never met anybody who voted for Bill Clinton !!!

Folks tend to associate with folks who think like them and thus get their own views shouted backed at them...It's human nature... Then when they get their own views shouted back at them they think everybody thinks like them...

Most of my friends are Democrats...They are all o k with HRC...That doesn't mean they "love" her...

I am a yellow dog Democrat...I'd vote for a yellow dog if it had a (D) after its name... I don't make any apologies...

Happy New Year

DSB

[Kucinich4America]

74. "I'd vote for a yellow dog if it had a (D) after its name..."

But would you vote for a cat, just because it claimed to be a dog?

(Apologies to cat lovers for comparing cats to Republicans, but the yellow dog analogy is really weak)

[hootinholler]

41. As long as the question is: Which candidate is best for corporate merka

Then I think you have the answer.

Hillary isn't my answer to health care, Iraq, outsourcing, yadda yadda.

-Hoot

[brentspeak]

42. She's the answer...to the GOP's prayers

A Hillary nomination = GOP White House AND GOP Congress.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

44. That's Silly

George McGovern suffered the largest popular vote and Electoral college defeat in modern history and the Democrats picked up two Senate seats...

[brentspeak]

47. George McGovern was not a hated and divisive figure like Hillary Clinton is.

And this is not 1972.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

52. He Must Have Been Divisive...

He got 38% of the vote and lost forty nine states...

If you think HRC will suffer a loss of that magnitude there is nothing I can do to disabuse you of that notion...

Thank you for pointing out to me that this isn't 1972... America is a fundamentally different nation, demographically, and it's hard to envision any national Democrat doing so poorly...

Hate's a strong word but I appreciate you projecting your hatred on to the entire populace...

[troubleinwinter]

46. "has the candidacy". Not if I have anything to say about it.

[dtotire]

48. We would lose the election n/t

[fenriswolf]

51. answers any questions i might have about your post

"When it comes to the environment I feel she has the mental capacity to tackle the issue smart too"

please proofread so people can understand the point you are trying to make.

[ProudDad]

54. She the answer all right...

But she's the answer to the wrong fucking question.

The question she answers is: "Since no freakin' repuke can win in '08, how can 'we' keep the ray-gun/bush/clinton/bush pro-corporate, anti-human juggernaut moving along?", asked the corporate capitalist masters.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

56. Is There A Candidate In The Race Who Isn't A Capitalist?

Even Ralph Nader says he's a capitalist...

[ProudDad]

59. CORPORATE CAPITALIST

Even Fidel Castro is a fan of little-c capitalism and has allowed it for years in Cuba.

I'd say that Kucinich and maybe Edwards are not "Korporate Kapitalist Klones" and boosters like hillary is.

[BlueJac]

58. To Corporations.......

Just quit it! Look to the future for answers not the past!


:puke:

[dkofos]

61. Only if the question was, "do you want more of the same"??

[vssmith]

62. "...we could see big improvements."

Right! and we could see big improvements if you were elected too, coolandrew.

[Lerkfish]

65. as long as the question is "how do we continue the corporatist stranglehold on democracy"

then yes, Hillary is the answer.

if the question is "How do we continue to justify bush administration policies in the middle east", then yes, Hillary is the answer.

[HughBeaumont]

84. More questions:

"How do we continue to sell the 'free trade/job offshoring/free market is good for you' myth to the people most affected by it?"

"How do we continue to sell the bogus Global War on Terror to Indiana, Ohio and Nebraska?"

[Tom Joad]

66. If she's the answer, obviously someone is asking the wrong question.

[porphyrian]

67. Nah. At best she sucks less than some of the other options. That isn't "the answer." -n/t

[dropkickpa]

72. Pimary - Not Hill for me

BUT, should she receive the nomination, I WILL vote for her, even if it means holding my nose to do so. Another repuke in office will destroy the ragged tatters that are all we have left of the constitution and bill of rights. SCOTUS is my motivator, because it will have farther reaching effects (20+ years, justices are sitting longer and longer) than a presidency will.

[Rex]

73. Maybe.

[KoKo]

89. SURE...she is! Until the RW Attack Machine starts to go into Blue Dress and

Hillary's "Personal Assistant." Sure...it's the cave in...vote. Yep.

[rodeodance]

91. nicely said.

[DiverDave]

95. She doesnt speak for me or mine.

Sorry, she just doesnt.

like someone said upthread, same old, same old...no thanks.

[snooper2]

102. Just say no!

BUSH
BUSH
BUSH
BUSH
CLINTON
CLINTON
CLINTON
CLINTON
CLINTON
CLINTON
CLINTON
CLINTON
BUSH
BUSH
BUSH
BUSH
BUSH
BUSH
BUSH
BUSH
NO! CLINTON
NO! CLINTON
NO! CLINTON
NO! CLINTON
NO! CLINTON
NO! CLINTON
NO! CLINTON
NO! CLINTON

[RiverStone]

104. Your assumption regarding how she would govern...

...is based on a WIN in the GE.

She would not win.

She would lose badly in the GE. Maybe not as bad as Dukakis, but not with as much support as Kerry.

She has not the appeal to win across regions or even among independents.

She would not win!

Of course, I'm making an assumption too....:hi: