Why I don't hate Hillary Clinton

Hillary Clinton is about third or fourth on my list of candidates for the nomination.  I think our country needs true transformational change under bold leadership.  We need another FDR, not simply a competent manager taking charge of the status quo.

But I don't hate Hillary Clinton.  I agree with Kos, who said:

We may decide she's not our first choice, but she's not a bad choice.

Electability

What about the baggage?  The GOP's Mighty Wurlitzer is primed and ready.  It'll be the 90s, all over again.

The Clintons won the PR war with the Publicans in the 90s.  In 1998, the impeachment crap backfired on the GOP, big time.  Hillary and Bill are not afraid to fight the Publicans, especially when they have skin in the game.  There would be no going dark in the face of Publican attacks.  

In addition, Hillary can credibly say, "After my husband, I have to be the most investigated politician in American history.  They cannot stand us, because we know how to make America work for everyone, not just the 'haves and have mores' that they represent.  No lie is too outlandish, no smear is too dirty, in their desperate attempt to preserve their privilege.  They cannot win a fight on issues.  This is all they have."  She can utilize the widespread disapproval of the Starr investigation to her benefit, and attack the GOP at the same time.

Is America ready for a female President?

IMO, yes and no.  Ideally, Hillary's gender should not be a factor.  In reality, I'm afraid it is.  But, given whom her spouse is, Hillary Clinton is uniquely positioned to win and become the first female president.  

The soft-core sexists, who are not necessarily misogynistic but still harbor some doubt about whether a woman can be Commander-In-Chief, will derive plenty of comfort from the fact that Bill Clinton will be available to her 24/7.  They will, fairly or not, see a Hillary presidency as a third term for Bill.

The hard-core, misogynists?  Well, they never have, and never will, vote Democratic anyway.  They are no loss.  Besides, they would be more than outnumbered by a sizable percentage of women who would turn out in droves to vote for Hillary.

Issues and Substance

As I said at the beginning, I don't think Hillary Clinton will offer enough of what we need right now.  I do not believe that she'll bring any significant change for working Americans.  At best, she'll nibble around the edges:  manage the wars competently; add some numbers to the rolls of Medicare/Medicaid; work to bring some modicum of sanity to the tax code, the budget deficit and national debt; incremental progress on LGBT rights, etc.  Hillary would, however, make excellent choices for the SCOTUS, and despite any willingness to have a "conversation," reproductive choice would be non-negotiable under a Hillary Clinton presidency.

Again, while I don't see Hillary offering much in the way of true change for the benefit of ordinary Americans, if she is the nominee, Hillary deserves our support for two very important reasons: 1.  The SCOTUS and the judiciary as a whole; and 2.  Hillary would not actively work against us, and even incremental steps are better than anything that any Republican would do with the presidency.

Miscellaneous

Party Building

Bill certainly did nothing for party building.  In 1996, he ran against fellow Democrats, as much as he did Bob Dole and the Publicans.  This is a valid concern, but I think Hillary has shown a willingness to support the Democratic Party, not only in rhetoric, but with money.  I think Hillary realizes that the Democratic Party was the majority party when her husband won the presidency, and the minority party when he left office.  I do not think she'll make that mistake.

International Relations

Hillary Clinton is very well respected, the world over.  Bill Clinton is a freakin' rock star.  While the international community will give the benefit of the doubt to whomever follows the hated Bush/Cheney administration, the Clintons are a known - and loved - commodity.  We desperately need to improve our reputation in the world, and a Hillary Clinton presidency would do so, IMO.

Torment of Wingnuttia

Many of us were fond of saying we were heading to Canada after GWB stole won re-election in 2004.  Imagine the wailing and gnashing of teeth that "President-Elect Hillary Clinton" would cause to Freepers, and the whole of the Christianist community!  And where would they say they would move to?  Somalia?  El Salvador?  Both of those places are full of brown people, and not many speak English.  I don't think they'd be too happy in either one.  :)

In summary, Hillary Clinton is toward the bottom of my picks for the Democratic nomination.  That said, there appears to be a substantial likelihood that she will be our nominee, and if she is, I will not hesitate to support her to the fullest, without reservation.

In the meantime, I will continue to support John Edwards in every possible way, and I will refuse to use right-wing smears about "electability" or "competence" against Hillary Clinton. We are all Democrats.

•  As a wise Democrat once said:

  "Go ahead, fall in love, be for somebody," former President Bill Clinton said. "But when the primary's over, let's fall in line and bring the White House back to our party."

  That is true, even if Bill Clinton said it.  So let's advocate for our candidate, without any right-wing smears of another candidate, and pledge our support to our eventual Democratic nominee, no matter who it is.

  by HarveyMilk on Sat Nov 24, 2007 at 11:38:47 AM PDT

  •  Thanks, Harvey!

    I respect your decision to support Edwards, and I VERY MUCH appreciate your decision to focus on positive work for him instead of negative bashing of Hillary. While I disagree with you about Hillary's ability to make change happen, I'll agree to put the primary fight aside next February to focus on helping our Democratic Party win what should be a great election for us next year! :-)

    by atdnext on Sat Nov 24, 2007 at 12:06:59 PM PDT

  •  You're still here?

    Thanks for sharing, always such a joy to hear from you.

    by Jennifer Clare on Sat Nov 24, 2007 at 03:39:22 PM PDT

•  The poll is skewed. She is not right for the time

  by ameri on Sat Nov 24, 2007 at 11:40:29 AM PDT

  •  The poll is not skewed.

    Anyone around these parts who says they will not support the Democratic nominee, without reservation, is skewed against reality, IMO.

    by HarveyMilk on Sat Nov 24, 2007 at 11:41:52 AM PDT

    •  what did you think

      of Maureen Dowd's claim that Diane Feinstein got into her senate space with no head start?  And, how do you spell Mosconi?  

      by anna shane on Sat Nov 24, 2007 at 01:53:31 PM PDT

    •  We need to agree: NO to Naderism...

      Plus boutique ideologies are just not the Democratic way. We don't win when we induldge our inner secular pharisaisms.

      by Superskepticalman on Sat Nov 24, 2007 at 01:55:00 PM PDT

    •  In fact, those who WON'T support the Dem. nominee

      (regardless of who he or she is) are our own wingnuts, and we don't need or want them.

      Democrats ultimately don't work well with wingnuts; we're too committed to the common good to allow such marginalia to dominate.

      by Superskepticalman on Sat Nov 24, 2007 at 02:22:53 PM PDT

      •  Democratic Wingnut here then...ABH.. nt

        by Ocean Stater on Sat Nov 24, 2007 at 02:47:44 PM PDT

        •  I'm sure you won't complain

          when Guilani replaces Stevens and Ginsberg with  Rhenquist clones and the Supreme Court becomes a seperate arm of the GOP.

          by Mike S on Sat Nov 24, 2007 at 03:12:05 PM PDT

          •  I do not anticipate seeing Giuliani in the GE nt

            by Ocean Stater on Sat Nov 24, 2007 at 03:21:23 PM PDT

            •  Not many anticipated seeing Bush there either.

              The GOP likes their totalitarians. I expect to see him there.

              by Mike S on Sat Nov 24, 2007 at 03:23:38 PM PDT

              •  Romney is their nominee

                and Hillary is our strongest candidate against him or any GOPer.  Look at the new SUSA polls...that Kos highlights.

                As to whether Hillary will do great things...she knows what it will mean to be the first female President.  She knows her history.  She made a name for herself with her speech at Wellesley that landed her on the cover of LIFE.  It was predicted then that she might one day be President. It is just as probable she will not settle for incremental change...but will take big leaps... I think the big changes will come in a second term.  

                After all, why wouldn't she want the history books to recount an illustrious Presidency? She will go for  greatness...ending dependence on oil...massive investment in the environment and technology that also produces jobs and establishes the US as a global leader. And she is organized and determined.    

                by lily15 on Sat Nov 24, 2007 at 04:33:16 PM PDT

•  Your sentiment is too early. We have 1 yr to go.

  by ameri on Sat Nov 24, 2007 at 11:41:40 AM PDT

  •  Six weeks,

    until the Iowa caucuses. Seven weeks until the New Hampshire primary.

    by HarveyMilk on Sat Nov 24, 2007 at 11:42:51 AM PDT

    •  and nothing is settled there.

      How much time until Denver?

      Iowa: Only 57 of 4,207 delegates

      by ImpeccableLiberalCredentials on Sat Nov 24, 2007 at 04:34:22 PM PDT

•  I am really tired as a woman of hearing

  those say they are going to vote for Hillary because Bill will be there. Vote for Hillary because you like her, you think she is competent, you think she is the most electable, you think she is the best choice. Please don't insult her and all women by saying you are voting for her because Bill will be there. You have no idea how crazy that makes me. Sorry, he is a former President, and by Democrats a well liked former President, but Hillary needs to, as all women need to stand or fall on her own.
  This so reminds me of the Republicans in 2000 voting for Bush because Cheney will be there. When are we going to vote for a person, any person because we actually think that person is the most qualified to fill the job as President.
  When woman go on a job interview, do they say, well my husband who was very successful at this job will be helping me? Until we get over this woman will never really achieve equality, even if we elect one President.

  by Vera Lofaro on Sat Nov 24, 2007 at 11:46:22 AM PDT

  •  I don't think gender should matter.

    And I think Hillary Clinton is qualified to be President, regardless of her spouse.

    But, in any event, I would rather have the "third term for Bill" crowd voting Democratic, and not Republican.

    by HarveyMilk on Sat Nov 24, 2007 at 11:50:45 AM PDT

  •  Hey, I voted for Bill in 1996 .....

    ...... because Hillary would be there.

    I wasn't crazy about his welfare reforms, but I liked what she had attempted with health care reform. I felt that we really were getting a "two-for-one" deal with the two Clintons.

    by MyOwnClone on Sat Nov 24, 2007 at 11:59:28 AM PDT

    •  I actually voted for Bill in 1992 because Hillary

      would be there. But this is very different.

      by Vera Lofaro on Sat Nov 24, 2007 at 12:14:31 PM PDT

      •  "But this is very different."

        Thats funny .
        Its a big insult one way
        but its just fine and dandy the other way ?

        by indycam on Sat Nov 24, 2007 at 12:46:26 PM PDT

        •  Not really,

          I trusted Hillary, I didn't trust Bill. I always thought she was the one with the liberal principles, and Bill, well he just had the charisma to win. I thought those liberal principles would prevail, they didn't, and it disappointed me. I also think Howard Dean did the exact right thing not bringing his wife into the campaign. I think it was bad advice for him to pull Judy out of a hat in an effort to thwart all the media criticism, and to win in Iowa. I so respected him for respecting his wife, and her career.

          by Vera Lofaro on Sat Nov 24, 2007 at 01:50:36 PM PDT

          •  So that makes it ok ?

            If I say I trust Bill , I don't trust Hillary ?
            Then I'm wrong and insulting you ?
            Double standard ?

            by indycam on Sat Nov 24, 2007 at 04:29:14 PM PDT

  •  She Has Intimated Putting Bill To Work

    as a "roving ambassador for America" as part of her plan to reinstate this country's international reputation and signal its recommitment to diplomacy rather than unilateral aggression.

    There is no reason to be tired of hearing that. And it's no cause for women to feel insulted. Rather, Clinton should be praised for her intentions to put all available assets to good use.

    by Limelite on Sat Nov 24, 2007 at 12:09:01 PM PDT

    •  And that sounds good to me!

      If anything, I think Hillary is BRILLIANT in saying she'll make Bill our "Roving Goodwill Ambassador" around the world! The world may hate Bush, but they still LOVE the Clintons! And what better way to make a good start in repairing our broken relationship with the rest of the world than to put our best face forward? :-)

      by atdnext on Sat Nov 24, 2007 at 12:17:51 PM PDT

    •  Sorry, but it just rubs me the wrong way

      when I hear people saying and most especially woman, I am voting for Hillary because of Bill. It makes me question, if we have come anywhere in the past 40+ years in terms of equality. We are still defined by the accomplishments of our husbands, or failures of our husbands. I voted for Bill in 1992, he was not my first choice, but I voted for him because I believed that we would get two for the price of one, they would be a team. That didn't work out so well. They were not a team, and when Hillary got so much flack about health care she became the traditional first lady. It was not what I expected from Hillary Clinton the woman who was not afraid to say, "I could have stayed home and baked cookies, but chose not to". Back then she was my champion, today, I think she just sold herself out for the sake of winning. Lately it seems that is what the Clintons are all about winning, and nothing else.

      by Vera Lofaro on Sat Nov 24, 2007 at 12:21:27 PM PDT

      •  "Clintons are all about winning and nothing else"

        Of course they are , that is the definition of being in an election .

        by indycam on Sat Nov 24, 2007 at 12:53:23 PM PDT

      •  You Know, I've Never Heard That

        We must run in different circles.

        I know lots of Clinton supporters who view her spouse as a greater asset than any of the other candidates' spouses.  Considering the importance of the job for whoever is the nominee, I think any consultant who makes it easier to do must give that candidate an advantage over the others.

        That's the kind of reasoning I hear people use.

        by Limelite on Sat Nov 24, 2007 at 12:59:27 PM PDT

        •  I think you are missing the point I am trying to

          make. I want to see a woman run for President and I want people to vote for that candidate because she is more qualified and can be a better leader than the others. I know there are women who can win on their own merits. Hillary Clinton might just be one of them, however we will never know if she won because of her qualifications or because of Bill.
          Sometimes it is not just about winning, there is a bigger principle at work. To me this is a bigger principle. I am sorry if you don't understand, but it is a guiding principle in my life. It is how I raised my daughters, and it is how I try to live my own life. I want to be judged totally on my own merits, not because of any of my associations with successful people, influential or powerful people. I would like the same principle to apply to Hillary, obviously it can't, but someday perhaps it will apply to some woman who is running for President.

          by Vera Lofaro on Sat Nov 24, 2007 at 01:46:20 PM PDT

          •  you are one worried person

            I think we should all just be happy that a woman has a chance to become President. I'd say relax and stop worrying about whether some people are excited by Bill coming back. I know I'm excited about Bill coming back, and I'm also excited about the prospect of a Hillary presidency. It's good.

            by heineken1717 on Sat Nov 24, 2007 at 02:32:36 PM PDT

            •  I have good reason to worry,

              I am fearful about the world I will leave behind to my grandchildren. Our parents and our grandparents left my generation a better world, I would like to do at least that. I hate that my grandchildren have to worry about the air they breath, the water they drink, the food they eat, or the toys they play with. I worry, that my grandchildren don't have a president they can look up to, and that they are growing up into a world that is so filled with hate. My oldest grandchild is only 10 years old, and as much as we try to shelter him from the bad stuff, we can't, look at what he has seen in his young life, an attack on America, 5 years of war, and an asshole in the White House for 7 of those ten years.
              I don't think it is too much to ask that we expect more from our leaders, and don't decide to elect someone to the highest office in the land because her husband once held the same office. If she is the most qualified, and she may well be, than lets vote for her based on that fact and that fact alone. What kind of message does it send to young girls, or boys for that matter, "it doesn't matter what you know, what matters is who you know, and use anything to get ahead."

              by Vera Lofaro on Sun Nov 25, 2007 at 06:29:05 PM PDT

•  What a lovely, sane diary.

  Thank you Harvey Milk for bringing some sanity to DKos.

  by Gabriele Droz on Sat Nov 24, 2007 at 11:46:53 AM PDT

  •  Kind of you to say.

    Thanks.

    by HarveyMilk on Sat Nov 24, 2007 at 11:51:20 AM PDT

    •  On balance, Harvey. . .

      I think you may now be even on the sane / insane diary scale!

      by LarryInNYC on Sat Nov 24, 2007 at 12:02:12 PM PDT

      •  Err,

        thanks.

        by HarveyMilk on Sat Nov 24, 2007 at 12:08:34 PM PDT

        •  You're welcome. . .

          I thought about asking you if you've heard that Hillary Clinton is dating Donnie McClurkin but I figured why bring up bad memories?

          by LarryInNYC on Sat Nov 24, 2007 at 01:26:36 PM PDT

        •  Oops.

          by LarryInNYC on Sat Nov 24, 2007 at 01:26:45 PM PDT

•  I'll also remind you. . .

  We need another FDR, not simply a competent manager taking charge of the status quo.

  That FDR was elected on a Reaganesque platform of smaller government, less spending, and a balanced budget.  There really isn't any way to know how things are going to work out -- for any of the candidates (even, gasp, the Republicans).

  It's true that Clinton isn't running on a campaign of transformational change.  It's also true that the electorate doesn't want a candidate running on transformation either.  People generally want change, but evolutionary change not grandiose plans.  I think the Clintons learned this in 1992 and if we manage to elect a President who really believes he's going to effect enormous transformations in two years, or whatever, I think we'll learn it (to our detriment) again.

  by LarryInNYC on Sat Nov 24, 2007 at 11:49:24 AM PDT

  •  Good point! FDR was NOT expected...

    To be a transformational leader bringing about major change. But when THE PEOPLE rose up and demanded radical change, FDR did it. That's what we have to remember. Politicians, and especially Presidential Candidates, usually aren't inclined toward radical change (with Dubya and his merry band of neocon thugs being an exception, as they're out to enrich themselves as they destroy our democracy). That's why WE THE PEOPLE must be ready to get out and advocate the radical change we want, no matter which Dem becomes our next President.

    We must still hit the streets. We must still pressure our members of Congress. We must still go out and BE THE CHANGE we want to see.

    Now I'm for Hillary, but I know she's not perfect. NO ONE IS. That's why I intend to keep going and keep advocating, no matter who's our next President.

    by atdnext on Sat Nov 24, 2007 at 12:13:57 PM PDT

    •  Actually FDR was expected to be transformational

      He was elected largely on his record in New York state where he had launched a mass of public works programs once the depression started.

      by otto vb vs on Sat Nov 24, 2007 at 12:31:44 PM PDT

      •  That's a very different thing ...

        I'd argue. For one thing, times are bad, but they are not catastrophic (may none of us ever live through a year like 1932). People by and large are very uneasy, but not desperate. Expecting an FDR level transformation just isn't in the cards at this point - and I hope things don't get so bad that it is.

        But most to the point, the transformation FDR promised wasn't abstract or quasi-spiritual - as transformational change seems to be now. It was pretty specific action to put people to work. In so far as it was more abstract, it was simply about doing something, instead of being paralysed. More or less, in 1932 the whole country was New Orleans.

        Our situation now seems a lot more complicated. I agree with Obama's subtext that Washington is deeply fucked up. But he didn't pull me in, because I never heard from him why Washington is fucked up, or what substantive he would do about it.

        The concern that Hillary is too deep into Washington is legitimate, though I think it is exaggerated. But against that I have to weigh the fact that she really knows her shit.

        Let's bring it down to cases. I'm not happy about her AUMF vote - it's the toughest thing I had to get past, by far. But the fact is that no vote she made, and no speech she made, was going to change the outcome, and does anyone here seriously believe that if she had been President she would have wandered off from Afghanistan and Osama to invade Iraq?

        by al Fubar on Sat Nov 24, 2007 at 01:46:55 PM PDT

•  Imagine for a moment

  If all the energy spent writing anti-Hillary diaries was spent doing something productive for their own candidates. Maybe then she would not be the front-runner.

  by RandySF on Sat Nov 24, 2007 at 11:49:25 AM PDT

•  All these Hillary confessionals, declarations

  and disclaimers.

  Everything said and done here needn't be put through a Hillary prism. Opposition to or support of her candidacy shouldn't require any more public disclaiming than opposition to or support of anyone else's.

  I'll fight tooth and nail to see her elected if she's nominated, but we're not there yet. Until then, can we support or oppose each one of these candidates without all these wherefores and howevers?

  by bumblebums on Sat Nov 24, 2007 at 11:54:29 AM PDT

  •  I actually don't know what I just said

    and I included my own disclaimer.

    Never mind. Life is short, silly season is loooooong.

    by bumblebums on Sat Nov 24, 2007 at 11:56:48 AM PDT

    •  Are you saying Hillary's campaign is silly? lol

      In the Hillary is Eve, Virgin Mary, and Mother Theresa diary, I made a joke and said she was Cruella Deville.  Let me tell you, Hillary people have absolutely no sense of humor.

      by dkmich on Sat Nov 24, 2007 at 12:05:21 PM PDT

      •  Maybe you are just not that funny. ;)

        by masslib on Sat Nov 24, 2007 at 12:12:16 PM PDT

        •  Oh, I would be if you weren't so earnest. n/t

          by dkmich on Sat Nov 24, 2007 at 12:43:20 PM PDT

          •  I'm not earnest at all.

            But you're still not funny.  

            Don't give up the day job.

            by LarryInNYC on Sat Nov 24, 2007 at 01:27:42 PM PDT

            •  Just don't forget the...

              ...importance of being earnest.  ;)

              by Caldonia on Sat Nov 24, 2007 at 03:53:34 PM PDT

          •  Now look.

            Here I go saying that your not funny and the first thing you do is show that you have a sense of humor by uprating my comment!

            by LarryInNYC on Sat Nov 24, 2007 at 02:29:19 PM PDT

      •  I think we're all losing our humor sense

        As long as people don't LIE to make their case for their candidate, I can maintain equanimity. I tend to lose it when the truth is compromised when it doesn't support someone's idol.

        by bumblebums on Sat Nov 24, 2007 at 12:13:42 PM PDT

•  Kos also said in 2005

  "I think people are looking for leadership from Hillary Clinton, and she's not showing any leadership on anything," says Markos Moulitsas of Dailykos.com, one of the new movement's leading blogs. Even in Hollywood, where the Clintons have been royalty for more than a decade, patience for bipartisanship is running low. Last month in Beverly Hills, I talked about Clinton with Norman Lear, the television and film producer who founded the liberal organization People for the American Way. "I love her," he told me. "But as terrific as I think she is, my concern is that we need someone who will tell the truth as they see it all of the time. She, like all of them, is not somebody who does that."

  In a very good pre-run article

  Mrs. Triangulation

  by Just This on Sat Nov 24, 2007 at 11:57:37 AM PDT

•  Rec'd and Tipped.

  A nice, solidly-written diary.

  And I think the phrase, "The Torment of Wingnuttia" is beyond perfection.

  I'd love to see it in Olde English manuscript letters, above a medieval pen-and-ink drawing of HRC.

  by MyOwnClone on Sat Nov 24, 2007 at 12:02:15 PM PDT

•  Definition of "not a bad choice"

  depends on the person writing the definition.

  by LaEscapee on Sat Nov 24, 2007 at 12:05:26 PM PDT

  •  I am so sick of the diaries telling us

    that Hillary is an okay choice.  I just don't believe it.

    by pioneer111 on Sat Nov 24, 2007 at 02:41:50 PM PDT

    •  I didn't bother

      I notice the Diarist left out a third choice which is echoed by the majority of us.

      She's not my choice because she's a bad choice.

      by WeBetterWinThisTime on Sat Nov 24, 2007 at 05:43:37 PM PDT

•  substantial likelihood????

  C'mon...you've seen the numbers in Iowa and New Hampshire.

  Obama is gathering strength...Clinton's numbers are softening. There is still a race to be run. I give no quarter.

  by Morgan Sandlin on Sat Nov 24, 2007 at 12:08:57 PM PDT

  •  IA too close to call. NH Clinton way ahead still.

    Obama could win IA but it won't make any difference because over the next fifty days Clinton wins everything. The idea that leads of 15% to 30% are just going to magically disappear is absurd. Intrade has her at 80.0 for NH. Although it's illegal to bet on the outcome of democratic nomination in this country if you want to check the bookies odds in Australia and a couple of other places they won't give you evens on her while Obama is at 6 to 1. Since they are using real money and you are using words which come pretty cheap, I'd say it is going to take a miracle for Obama to get the nomination.  

    by otto vb vs on Sat Nov 24, 2007 at 12:38:02 PM PDT

  •  Iowa is probably Obama's to lose.

    by masslib on Sat Nov 24, 2007 at 12:54:29 PM PDT

    •  If Hillary can't win Iowa with her money

      and connections it shows us that she would have a hard time winning the general election.  

      If she can't convince Democrats that see her up close to vote for her, I think we need to wake up and choose someone else.  

      Iowa is about being seen by regular folk and convincing them that you are a good choice for president.  

      She wanted to win the TV ad campaign in Florida and California.   She moved up in the polls in Iowa and now is trending down.  

      Obama also needs to win Iowa.  

      If Edwards wins then it proves that money is not the only factor.  Message and policies count.   That is the intriguing thing about Iowa.

      by pioneer111 on Sat Nov 24, 2007 at 02:46:23 PM PDT

      •  Hillary was never expected to win Iowa.

        by masslib on Sat Nov 24, 2007 at 03:11:12 PM PDT

        •  True that

          She started late there & didn't have the chance to build as much organization as Edwards/Obama.  Glad to see it's close but.. yeah.  Time will tell.

          by daria g on Sat Nov 24, 2007 at 04:52:03 PM PDT

      •  Iowa is not representative of the country

        but Ohio is.  The SUSA polls show Obama crushed in Ohio by any Rethug.  Hillary beats them all.

        by lily15 on Sat Nov 24, 2007 at 04:41:38 PM PDT

•  Harvey, the electability issue is not RW!

  it is very real, and we had better pay attention to any gains made by Pubbies against our candidates, not the recent one about Obama in Kentucky.

  Now, as Hucky-poo enters the race as a viable candidate and it becomes clear that pandering to fear and religious bigotry I think we need to be doubly ready for such idiocy as we might see in this letter that Chris Floyd got in reply to something he wrote.  Please read it.  This is going to be the mindset of the Pubbie onslaught.  Mindless, blind terror of a straw man.  Emptyheaded sheer fright of a boogieman.

  The choice of the party will need our support, though I too like and prefer Edwards and an Edwards/Obama ticket, and fear a Hillary ticket may include some DLC dope as VP.

  However, she deserves our support if she is nominated.  BUT, she needs to stand up and be the leader, or step aside.

  by boilerman10 on Sat Nov 24, 2007 at 12:14:53 PM PDT

  •  not the recent one?

    ummm, that should be 'note' the recent one'

    also add in second paragraph after the word 'bigotry' "are going to be the tools brought into play"

    Thanks.

    by boilerman10 on Sat Nov 24, 2007 at 12:21:30 PM PDT

  •  Indeed

    fear a Hillary ticket may include some DLC dope as VP

    Gawd save us from a Clinton/Bayh ticket.

    Aaaaaghghhhh!

    by bumblebums on Sat Nov 24, 2007 at 12:23:00 PM PDT

    •  I wrote last night

      Clinton/Dick Morris.

      That's pretty bad too.

      by boilerman10 on Sat Nov 24, 2007 at 12:32:11 PM PDT

•  I sho's ain't wontin' to vote for Hillary.

  I sholey hopes I ain't gites to do it.

  by Mike Taylor on Sat Nov 24, 2007 at 12:42:23 PM PDT

  •  Nobody has to do it

    I'm not. No more war enablers. I'm putting my foot down with this election.

    by betson08 on Sat Nov 24, 2007 at 12:44:38 PM PDT

    •  I'll be sure to thank you

      When Romney replaces Bader-Ginsberg with John Yoo.

      by dedmonds on Sun Nov 25, 2007 at 06:17:12 AM PDT

•  what's up with this poll

  There's no category for
  not Hillary, ever, again.

  by betson08 on Sat Nov 24, 2007 at 12:43:55 PM PDT

•  I think Hillary is a terrible choice

  I'll never vote for her. EVER!

  She's my Senator and I've voted for her and defended her, but she has no principles and she's a war enabler. I've had it for good.

  by betson08 on Sat Nov 24, 2007 at 12:46:04 PM PDT

  •  "I'm Ralph Nader and

    I approve this message."

    If the choice is Hillary and any of the GOP field, this sentiment will be the final nail in our coffin. Immagine Romney or Guiliani putting on the next two Supreme Court Justices.

    That alone should convince people to support the Dem candidate regardless of who it is.

    by Mike S on Sat Nov 24, 2007 at 01:34:26 PM PDT

•  One Thing You Can't Argue

  If Hillary were to be the nominee she will not wait to be "swiftboated." And if she were, she would hit back both faster and harder than any of the other Democratic contenders.

  Speed kills, windsurfing doesn't.

  by Frank Cocozzelli on Sat Nov 24, 2007 at 12:47:31 PM PDT

  •  I dunno.

    I've always been a big believer in that idea.  But I'm still waiting to see her hit back at the Democrats attacking her and she's been pretty weak in that regard, in my opinion.

    by LarryInNYC on Sat Nov 24, 2007 at 01:29:14 PM PDT

    •  I think her ability to hit back is severely

      overrated.  The Politics of Pile On video backfired seriously and inspired the Politics of Parsing which really has given her problems.  

      She tried getting back at Edwards and Obama.  Her counter attacks on Obama were even weaker than those on Edwards.  Penn may not be the genius people think he is.

      by pioneer111 on Sat Nov 24, 2007 at 02:50:18 PM PDT

      •  No.

        She tried getting back at Edwards and Obama.

        She hasn't, and that's the surprising thing.  She had a trivial little comment about Obama (that living overseas to age ten doesn't constituted "experience") but the full fledged attack on either Obama or Edwards hasn't materialized.

        It could be that you're right and that she really isn't the attack dog candidate she's been made out to be.

        Or it could be that she's still feeling confident and holding her fire until she knows that she's actually being threatened and by whom.

        Or it could be that she really doesn't believe in attacking other Democrats.

        by LarryInNYC on Sat Nov 24, 2007 at 02:56:09 PM PDT

        •  Not a trivial comment

          It reminded me.. A big change in the race happened at the July debate where Hillary/Obama had the argument about foreign leaders & the next day Hillary called Obama's views naive and irresponsible.  Look at where the polls went after that..

          Now, I know what the mainstream media and blogs said about the recent comment of hers re: Obama's living overseas as foreign relations experience.  Not much right?  But it made that remark by Obama that could've made news or not..  definitely make news, and not in a way that helped Obama.

          I talked to both my parents at Thanksgiving (they don't live together) about politics in general and each one of them brought that up about Obama.  Hmm.  Yes, anecdote is not data, but it surprised me that they'd both heard it.

          by daria g on Sat Nov 24, 2007 at 04:56:17 PM PDT

      •  But the next debate had no "pile on"

        So for purposes of effectuating change, her Politics of Pile On put the issue front and center...and the narrative changed...People were aware of the problem..and were careful to appear fair.  If that is all the video accomplished, it was significant.

        by lily15 on Sat Nov 24, 2007 at 04:47:22 PM PDT

•  Thanks for this diary

  A helpful perspective.  Hillary isn't the bold leader I want, but she is smart, hard-working, and a Democrat.

  And yes, there is the sweet consolation you dub the Torment of Wingnuttia -- the pleasureful prospect of watching steam shoot out of their ears for 4+ years.

  by joejoe on Sat Nov 24, 2007 at 01:01:47 PM PDT

•  I am American

  Obama is my choice he just happen to be a Democratic Candidate.

  by army193 on Sat Nov 24, 2007 at 01:06:50 PM PDT

•  Good post

  Hillary isn't my first choice either, but she's warming up to me. The polling indicates that she isn't as "dead on arrival" as I thought she would be in the red part of the map. I finally have come to realize that the 40% who will not vote for her under any circumstance is probably not voting for any Democrat anyway. I think that the "polarization" factor is overplayed when it comes to her. She's probably just as disliked as any other Democrat.

  Party Building

  Bill certainly did nothing for party building.  In 1996, he ran against fellow Democrats, as much as he did Bob Dole and the Publicans.  This is a valid concern, but I think Hillary has shown a willingness to support the Democratic Party, not only in rhetoric, but with money.  I think Hillary realizes that the Democratic Party was the majority party when her husband won the presidency, and the minority party when he left office.  I do not think she'll make that mistake.

  Harvey, I have to disagree with you on this argument. While the Democratic Party was the "majority party" in November of 1992, there were already early signs that the majority was going to eventually be lost. I say this because, at the start of the early 1990s, the last of the remaining old Southern Democrats either died or retired. Democrats like Jack Brooks, Charles Bennett, Claude Pepper, Dante Fascell, William Natcher, Jamie Whitten, Sonny Montgomery, Don Bevill, and other long-term Congressmen died, retired, or finally lost. What kept their districts Democratic was the personal popularity of the incumbents. When they finally were no longer on the ballot these districts swung to the Republicans even though the GOP should have had these districts as early as the 1950s and the 1960s. And even if the Democrats had been able to keep those districts they wouldn't be the type of "Democrats" that people on this board would have liked.

  In addition, what hurt Democrats in the early 1990s and the 2000s was the 1990 redistricting. The Bush Justice Department aggressively promoted creating "majority-minority districts", especially in southern states like Florida and Georgia. What ended up was that you had bizarre-shaped Congressional districts that often extended for hundreds of miles and looked like amoebas, parasites, and intestines. The only trait that they had in common was the fact that these districts basically swarmed up every minority precinct for hundreds of miles in some cases. What this process did was create districts that were 70+% minority and overwhelmingly Democratic. White Democrats in neighboring districts ended up with districts that were extremely white and Republican. In the process many of these white Democrats barely held on in 1992. In the 1994 Republican landslide the GOP wave knocked them out. You can see this trend firsthand in states like Florida, where Kerry received 47% of the vote in 2004 and Gore and Bush tied in 2000; but, instead, where the GOP holds an overwhelmingly 16-9 advantage in its House delegation.

  So I don't think that it's necessarily fair to blame the Clintons for the Democratic Party's weaknesses in the 1990s and early 2000s. Many of these weaknesses were due to long-term shifts in the electorate, especially in the South. The Clintons couldn't necessarily stop those changing the dynamics in the South, especially after the 1990 redistricting.  

  by oceanstar17 on Sat Nov 24, 2007 at 02:00:25 PM PDT

•  She is a bad choice [REALLY bad]

  if you think she is a good choice, ask yourself WHY she stands by her vote[s] on war..  [either she believes in war, supports the war corporations, or is pandering to the war-supporting public]

  Pick your poison--they all = hillary.  Oh, btw, if it's the 3rd reason, ask yourself why she isn't pandering to the anti-war voters--do you think she figures she can afford to take us for granted?  except for abortion-rights, what won't she compromise on?

  by Zacapoet on Sat Nov 24, 2007 at 02:58:27 PM PDT