Hillary: Why or Why Not?

Something just doesn't sit right with me. For over six years, I've known that Hillary Clinton was going to run for President. She never said so publicly until she announced, but somehow I and almost everyone else that follows politics knew this.

She's Bill Clinton's wife. She has been a successful lawyer in Arkansas, a very involved First Lady who was involved in policy issues, and she's been, by all accounts, a successful and effective Senator for the State of New York. We all know these things.

And now, she's running for President.

When I think of the Democratic nominees for President, in terms of who I want to see leading this country, I think about seeing the best among us...the most successful, articulate, inspiring and motivating person who shares views in-line with the Democratic vision. I see this person being someone that we know we as Democrats want to see on the news everyday, fighting for what we believe in.

This brings me to Hillary. I first learned of her in 1991 when her husband Bill was running for President. I remember her as a candidate, running for the open Senate seat in New York back in the year 2000, when I was stationed overseas watching the news on the American Forces Network. I have read her books, 'Living History' and 'It Takes a Village'. I see her in the news every day, speaking to crowds, proposing bills, offering her ideas on how to solve particular problems.

So why am I so lukewarm about the person who has inspired the greatest amount of Democrats of any candidate thus far?

What is it that would make me support or not support this person who has been at the top of every 2008 contender For several years now?

My problem with her is this: I have no idea what it is that makes her stand out above literally dozens of other Democrats. I couldn't begin to tell you why she, and not any number of Democratic Governors and Senators is the best candidate for the job.

I'm not specifically talking about policies, although I could. Are her policies any more specific, any more thorough, any better, or more outside the box even than those that any other top Democrat could come up with?

Does she REALLY have the experience that we need? Does experience even matter to the degree we think it does? What kind of experience is even most appropriate for being President?

What are her terms in office going to be like? Are we going to have national unity? A congress that works in a more bi-partisan, less vicious and more cooperative fashion?

Is Hillary even the best female candidate out there for our side? Would this community not prefer to see someone like the ultra-progressive Barbara Boxer, or the party-building executive Kathleen Sebelius?

I can't really put my foot on it. That's where you guys come in. I want you to try and articulate for me and everyone else out there, why or why not to support Hillary. This isn't meant to be a party-destroying, attack-politics primary thread where we compare one candidate to the other and say that our guy is better than yours, or anything like that. I'm not looking for ammunition to use against Hillary or anyone else in a general election.

Just why, or why not, you would support Hillary in a primary election. Even if all you are doing is saying why you are leaning one way or another...I'd like to know what this community thinks, so that we can all better understand why Democrats in general are behind her, or why this community is generally not lining up that way.

Thanks for reading. I included a poll just for fun, if anything to salvage this mess of a diary.

•  Hillary is just more of the same.

  Democrats had a fresh November '07 and we need to keep up the momentum in '08.

  by Yoshimi on Mon Mar 05, 2007 at 12:08:20 PM PDT

  •  I meant November '06

    by Yoshimi on Mon Mar 05, 2007 at 12:08:44 PM PDT

    •  LIVE- I watch her GO OFF the Bridge in Selma

      Copyright protection alert

      "If Hillary was a nanny goat, I'd take her to the sale barn....."

      4th post down in the Selma Story- Second Assault on the Pettus Bridge:

      http://www.motoredbikes.com/...

      It had "Money Can't buy me Love", Ode to Billy Joe, Obama pix, Marching photos....I heard Hillary crash !

      A work in progress, be done Wed.  A new genre, for the dyslexic generation.

      by Theghostofkarlafayetucker on Mon Mar 05, 2007 at 01:46:08 PM PDT

•  I Don't Know Why

  This diary fails to state a compelling reason why one should not like her ... except that it is just something in the vapors that people think they have to do.  I'm baffled.

  by bink on Mon Mar 05, 2007 at 12:14:41 PM PDT

  •  I'm not making the case for you not to like her

    just why I don't...yet. The questions I posed towards the end really sum it up for me. Maybe there just isn't a concrete reason on my part for not liking her as a Prez candidate...I just don't.

    by mihan on Mon Mar 05, 2007 at 12:17:31 PM PDT

  •  but I believe that's the whole

    point of the diary, no?  he hasn't yet heard real reasons why someone should like her.

    and I agree to a degree.  has Hillary done some great thing or supported some noteworthy cause that I've just never seen or heard of?  no, much as I hate to say it, and not to take away from what she on her own has accomplished here and there, but the only reason she is this well knows is that she was married to Bill Clinton.  she seems to have a sense of entitlement about this that I find hard to take.

    she so rarely speaks about policy in any grand sense, other than by basically aping George Bush and trying to be the toughest talking person in the room.  almost always falls flat.  i know that will displease some people, but I don't know how else to put it.  i really, really dislike people who fakely act super-tough, its so annoying.  foreign policy-wise, she is very, very worrisome.  i think her instincts about it are just terrible, awful, would be difficult to be much worse.  luckily she doesn't seem impulsive.  domestic policy-wise, she is very good, but not really different in that sense from any of the other candidates, many of whom are less worrisome with regard to foreign policy.  and hewr blatant, stupid pandering about video games and the like doesn't help her case with me one little bit.  if anything, crap like that makes me just ignore someone completely as not knowing what they're doing or talking about.  

    so there you have it from my point of view.  reasons to like her - she's been around and seen it all, knows how politics works.  reasons to dislike her - have known her name for over a decade and a half, still can't think of one real policy idea that can be attributed to her, supported Iraq war and still refuses to apologize for this blunder, fake "tough talk", remarkably un-media-savvy considering how many baseless attacks have been directed her way.  I could go on for a while with the negatives.  and i like her as a person, if she ends up being the nominee i will certainly vote for her.  but i'd rather not have to.

    by itsbenj on Mon Mar 05, 2007 at 02:08:12 PM PDT

•  I can't tell ya.

  I'm still trying to figure it out for myself. The problem as I see it is that everyone is telling you what Hillary stands for and what she wants to do -- except Hillary.

  by droogie6655321 on Mon Mar 05, 2007 at 12:14:43 PM PDT

  •  yep, i agree with that

    i'll add that people here in Dallas don't like HRC at all. at all. most of them are open to Obama.

    i am not sure many here like Edwards. i do. i really like them all. well, honestly, i dislike HRC more and more everyday. i'll still vote for her but not in the primary.

    by hypersphere01 on Mon Mar 05, 2007 at 02:55:01 PM PDT

•  How I forgot to add Hillary to the poll

  I'll never know. If its someone besides Hillary that you support, then the poll is appropriate.

  by mihan on Mon Mar 05, 2007 at 12:15:39 PM PDT

  •  I Thought It Looked A Bit Odd

    And they don't let us edit the polls 'round here - do they?

    I actually like Clinton.  She's got the experience I'm looking for and they don't come more battle-tested and tough than her.

    Boxer's high on my list in your poll though too.

    by Alegre on Mon Mar 05, 2007 at 12:55:24 PM PDT

•  You ask a question that leads to negative answers

  So I'm going to dance, but it won't be pretty - kust like in real life.

  I think she loses a GE for 2 primary reasons: she'll drive more people out to vote against her. I honestly believe she'd lse a GE to Bill Frist for example.

  Another reason is simple ugliness: there are too many men, democrats included, how are sexist when it comes to voting and won't vote for a woman because they're worried she'd cry in a crisis. That's not my reason, for sure, but you simply have to accept that crowd exists, even in this party, and will most likely do her in, in the end.

  by PopeFlick on Mon Mar 05, 2007 at 12:17:14 PM PDT

  •  I was trying not to lead the questions that way

    I mean, you're right, the questions I posed don't really lead to good answers, but I'm hoping that they can either be repudiated to some degree, or that someone will come up with some reasons why I should take a more positive approach and overlook the negative ideas I may have.

    by mihan on Mon Mar 05, 2007 at 12:20:40 PM PDT

  •  Well the same goes for Obama....

    No matter where you go on this website, someone somewhere has something negative to say about Obama....  Nuffin wrong with that but the issues that they bring up are crazy....  "Where does he stand on the isssues, He hasn't gotten us out of Iraq yet, He hasn't turned water into wine, He hasn't walked on water yet, etc".  They talk about his lack of expirence yet I ask how many more years in the senate does HRC have than he does, and Edwards????  They always mention his substance, well two books and a website are there for the perusing.....  where does Edwards and HRC stand on how to streamline the VA or would they keep or get rid of Tri-Care????  They never mention that...  Obama is held to a different standard than the others, I wonder is it because um maybe his skin color???  Dems have been known to use the black community like the Repubs use the "Christian Right" they'll pander us to get elected but once in they forget about us....  That's why when Edwards made his announcement from N.O. I was wondering where was this cat in 98 when he was Senator what was his platform on poverty then??  Don't know but supposedly I know where he stands now???

    I would have no problem voting for a woman, none whatsoever.  I have always had strong women in charge of me from my mom to different commanders, and supervisors to my wife.  The question is better put would I want HRC to be prez and that is a resounding NO WAY IN HELL!!!!!!

    by fromdabak on Mon Mar 05, 2007 at 12:36:12 PM PDT

  •  What a phony reason!

    Like we never saw Bush SR, Jimmy Carter, Gerald Ford or Ronald Reagan cry? Boo hoo! They're  unqualified!

    Another reason is simple ugliness: there are too many men, democrats included, how are sexist when it comes to voting and won't vote for a woman because they're worried she'd cry in a crisis.

    by KnowVox on Mon Mar 05, 2007 at 12:36:52 PM PDT

    •  I'm not defending it....

      ....and you're right it is BS. But it exists, just like the sky, air and oceans. Sexism, even in the democratic party, is a part of our life and political landscape.

      by PopeFlick on Mon Mar 05, 2007 at 12:44:43 PM PDT

      •  I disagree.

        In fact, I'd venture to guess that many of us wouldn't want to vote for a candidate that couldn't cry. It makes them more human.

        by KnowVox on Mon Mar 05, 2007 at 12:50:14 PM PDT

        •  Well.....

          What do you mean by 'many of us?' if you are speaking of the younger set of dems, I'll give you that. But older dems, ones 50+ - those most likely to vote - are much more likely to have sexist beliefs. in fact, they have them for you to say "I'd venture to guess" is another way of saying "I'm ignoring basic facts."

          No disrespect, but you might as well argue the sky isn't blue during the day.

          Here's why: my frosh year of college Patricia Robertson from Colorado ran for president. She never made a primary appearnace because she fell behind in funding so quickly. When she dropped out, she cried during her speech. Now, a buddy of mine was at home when this went down, and was watching with his dad. His dad, who was in his early 40's at the time said "that's why I'll never vote for a woman, they'll cry in a crisis." His dad was a card carrying, bleed blue democrat who wouldn't EVER think of voting republican. Think as he's gotten older he's opened his mind? Nope. Do you think he's the exception to the rule, or in fact representative of a sizable portion of voting democrats (white men in their 50's+) who in their twilight years won't suddenly change their tune?

          I am simply being realistic and going with the latter.

          These people exist. Just because you have never met them or never seen them post here doesn't mean they won't have significant impact on both the primaries and GE.

          Sexism exists in all people. Not just republicans. There are MANY unenlightened folks who call themselves democrats. Deal with it.

          by PopeFlick on Mon Mar 05, 2007 at 01:09:01 PM PDT

          •  Correction:

            Pat Schroeder.

            Talking about sexist white men had me freudally using Robertson....lol.

            by PopeFlick on Mon Mar 05, 2007 at 01:10:16 PM PDT

          •  When I say

            "many of us," I mean Democrats in general, not just the DKos crowd. Pandering to sexism and using it as an excuse to NOT elect someone is pretty stodgy, if you ask me. Course, what do I know as part of the 50+ crowd? LOL

            by KnowVox on Mon Mar 05, 2007 at 01:15:38 PM PDT

            •  I'm not pandering....

              ....I answered the question that was posed. I don't support HRC for other reasons, that have nothing to do what OTHERS think but what I myself do.

              by PopeFlick on Mon Mar 05, 2007 at 01:17:24 PM PDT

•  Barbra Boxer is

  right on the issues.  In summer 2006, she joined with Senators Kerry and Feingold on a bill to redeploy all troops from Iraq by summer 2007.   Hilary Clinton and some other Democrats voted no on that bill.  

  Boxer was right in 2006 and she is right now.  

  Senator Clinton was wrong then and now in her tepid opposition to the war.

  by TomP on Mon Mar 05, 2007 at 12:17:57 PM PDT

•  HRC, why not.......

  Lets see,
  1  maybe because I see someone who moved to NY because she knew she wouldn't have been able to win the Senate seat in her own state of Arkansas.

  2 I see a person who perceives that she is owed the Prez....  I see someone without convictions and who would sacrifice your newborn to become CINC....  

  3  I see someone (if I can be honest here) if she wasn't Bill's baby momma she would have been very successful in life but not Prez potential....  
  4  I see phony, calculating, priviledged, and non-principled....  

  5  I hate the fact that it's perceived that she's going to tap dance into the White House come hell or high water...  That's why I rather watch sports because at least they let them settle it out there on the field (Except for NCAA Div 1 Football) not on the television punditry industry...  Remember when you were growing up,  the Class President who won not because the students wanted them to win but the teachers wanted them to win....

  I love success stories not success stories written by the ones that succeed....

  Watch the movie "Election" with Reese Witherspoon and Matthew Brodrick, and you'll see HRC......

  by fromdabak on Mon Mar 05, 2007 at 12:25:18 PM PDT

  •  asdf

    With regard to point #1, if New Yorkers don't care about that (she WAS elected and re-elected by an overwhelming margin), why should anyone else?

    She may not be a "true New Yorker" (whatever that is), but she does represent the state well.

    by dennisl on Mon Mar 05, 2007 at 12:33:14 PM PDT

    •  I'll use a sports analogy if that is okay????

      I grew up playing sports in the inner-city, we always had talent, great coaching, and all but not the funding to compete with the suburban schools...  We were cheated in a fair amount of games, because of where we were from....  We always had to play by a different set of rules....  Most of the kids were older than us because their parents held them back an extra year of kinegarten so that they could "mature" (hold them back so it wouldn't appear on their Highschool Transcripts).    That is what HRC represents....  IMO...

      by fromdabak on Mon Mar 05, 2007 at 12:40:51 PM PDT

  •  Why HRC

    1. Winning the NY Senate seat. Skeptics said she couldn't win, and poo-poo'd her candidacy. To their shame, she's done an excellent job representing NY. And bedsides, anyone who holds the old "carpetbagger" argument against her obviously has never heard of Bobby Kennedy.

    2. Strong Democratic convictions, with a lifetime ADA rating of 95%. Anyone who doesn't think she's got convictions needs to education themselves by at least reading one of her books.

    3. Extraordinary success thoughout her life in tackling tough issues -- whether it was Watergate, Child Advocacy, or precedent setting First Lady. Her kudos are simply too long to list.

    4. Genuine, principled, forthright. Has been hit with just about every kind of dirt the Rethugs can throw at her, and has not only survived but thrived.

    5. Rethugs know she's the best qualified, best equipped Democratic candidate to run in years -- and she is.

    Remember the Validitorian in College who you knew was destined to greatness, based on their extraordinary intellect and ability to solve problems? That's Hillary. And I say, YOU GO, GIRL!

    by KnowVox on Mon Mar 05, 2007 at 12:49:03 PM PDT

    •  Please expound on this..

      "Rethugs know she's the best qualified, best equipped Democratic candidate to run in years -- and she is."

      How is she more qualified than the rest????  Especially Bill Richardson???

      by fromdabak on Mon Mar 05, 2007 at 12:51:03 PM PDT

      •  Indeed.

        If I were a Rethug, I'd spent my money trying to take down the best qualified Dem candidate (which they have.)  Nothing against Richardson, but I wouldn't waste my cash on a candidate with little or no name recognition.  And by the way, I think he's right about the critical role the first 4 primaries will have in this race.

        by KnowVox on Mon Mar 05, 2007 at 12:57:01 PM PDT

        •  But your comment on HRC being the best qualified

          didn't mention President errrr Vice President errrr Gov. Richardson...  You stated that HRC was the best qualified...  I wanted proof...  

          "Remember the Validitorian in College who you knew was destined to greatness, based on their extraordinary intellect and ability to solve problems? That's Hillary."  

          Was she Validictorian in College????  Is she the best that we have to offer the world???  If so please expound on this also....

          by fromdabak on Mon Mar 05, 2007 at 01:00:29 PM PDT

          •  No, it didn't.

            You made the HRC/Richardson comparison, not me. If you think Richardson it the man, make your case.

            Hillary was valedictorian of her class at Wellesley. That comment was made in response to this quote:

            Remember when you were growing up,  the Class President who won not because the students wanted them to win but the teachers wanted them to win....

            by KnowVox on Mon Mar 05, 2007 at 01:11:36 PM PDT

            •  Validictorian???? Are you sure???

              I'm looking everywhere to find evidence that she was but even on her website for Prez, no mention...  She did give the commencement speech, but that is decided on by the student body...  If you have the proof could you please provide??  Thanx

              Your comment was that "Rethugs know she's the best qualified, best equipped Democratic candidate to run in years -- and she is."

              And I asked how is she more qualified than Bill Richardson???  How is she better equipped than a fomrer Gov, former congressman, former ambassador, former Sec of Energy???  Is it because she's been a Senator for 6+ years????

              I await your respone...

              by fromdabak on Mon Mar 05, 2007 at 01:21:58 PM PDT

              •  Yep...

                In 1965 Hillary enrolled at Wellesley... Hillary graduated in 1969, valedictorian, with departmental honors in Political Science. Hillary entered Yale Law School in 1969. She served on the Board of Editors of Yale Review of Law and Social Action and worked with underprivileged children at the Yale-New Haven Hospital. During the summer of 1970, she was awarded a grant to work at the Children's Defense Fund in Cambridge, Massachusetts. In the summer of 1971, she traveled to Washington to work on Senator Walter Mondale's subcommittee on migrant workers, researching migrant problems in housing, sanitation, health and education. For the summer of 1972, Rodham worked in the western states for Democratic presidential candidate George McGovern's campaign. During her second year in law school, she volunteered at the Yale Child Study Center, learning about new research on early childhood brain development. She also took on cases of child abuse at Yale-New Haven Hospital and worked at the city Legal Services, providing free legal service to the poor. She received a Juris Doctor degree from Yale in 1973, having written a thesis on the rights of children, and began a year of post-graduate study on children and medicine at the Yale Child Study Center.

                http://www.dkosopedia.com/...

                And BTW, I'm not going to turn this thread into why HRC is a better candidate than Richardson. I'd be here all day. Write your own diary about that.

                by KnowVox on Mon Mar 05, 2007 at 01:56:37 PM PDT

                •  Well that is funny because I've been to

                  Wikipedia, Her Campaing site, her Senate site etc...  No mention of her validictorian, but everywhere talk about her commencement speech and 7 minute standing ovation...  I didn't want to make it a HRC vs. Richardson deal either, I just wanted to see what everyone was seeing that I was missing...  Nuffin more nuffin less.

                  by fromdabak on Mon Mar 05, 2007 at 02:03:12 PM PDT

                  •  You didn't look too close

                    Wikipedia lists it.

                    http://en.wikipedia.org/...

                    by KnowVox on Mon Mar 05, 2007 at 02:15:20 PM PDT

                    •  I read and re-read it.. Ran a find on it, nuffin

                      Per Wikipedia

                      "In 1965, Rodham enrolled in Wellesley College. She became active in politics and served as the president of the Wellesley College Chapter of the College Republicans. In her junior year, Rodham was affected by the death of civil rights leader Martin Luther King Jr., whom she had met in person in 1962.[2] She attended the Wellesley in Washington program at the urging of Professor Alan Schechter, for whom she would write a senior thesis about the tactics of radical community organizer Saul Alinsky[6] that later became the subject of mystery. Around this time, she decided to join the Democratic Party. In 1969, Rodham graduated with departmental honors in political science. She became the first student in Wellesley College history to deliver their commencement address.[7] According to reports by the Associated Press, her speech received a standing ovation lasting seven minutes.[8] She was featured in an article published in Life magazine, due to the response to a part of her speech that criticized Senator Edward Brooke, who had spoken before her at the commencement.[2]"

                      by fromdabak on Mon Mar 05, 2007 at 02:27:17 PM PDT

                      •  Hmmmm...

                        Just edited.

                        http://en.wikipedia.org/...

                        Either way, whether she was Valedictorian or not, she's one smart lady.

                        by KnowVox on Mon Mar 05, 2007 at 02:34:30 PM PDT

      •  Tougher than anyone else

        1.  Experience with Watergate trial.  Probably the infamous negative event in the history of the country.  Worked with many current and former government officials to do her work.  Note that she wasn't some researcher in a room...she actually sat in on the trial itself.  Shows she's smart and well educated, especially considering she was fresh out of law school.

        2.  Health Care experience.  Yes she lost.  Yes it was her own fault.  But she's learned how to negotiate.  Look at what people call her now - a panderer to the right and other things.  I think she has the skills to know how to compromise now and write effective legislation that will get passed by Congress.  Having been involved with the federal government longer than Obama or Edwards she knows what people want and how to negotiate with them.

        3.  Senate Experience - this is what she'll hold over Richardson.  He's a governor with excellent foreign policy experience.  She's worked in one of the stodgiest institutions in existence and has successfully made friends on both sides of the aisle.  She can work to get things done.  Richardson had problems with the snowstorm just two months ago.  It's great that he can handle Darfur, but what about his own state?

        by TheSilence on Mon Mar 05, 2007 at 01:32:18 PM PDT

        •  Senate Experience????? Are you serious????

          Then Edwards is a better choice....  He has had more Senate Experience than HRC plus he's actually been in a presidential campaign as a choice....  He's not my choice but damn, if those are the three indicators that she is best qualified, we seriously need help in America...

          by fromdabak on Mon Mar 05, 2007 at 01:38:17 PM PDT

          •  You asked for a comparison to Richardson. n/t

            by KnowVox on Mon Mar 05, 2007 at 01:58:53 PM PDT

          •  Edwards - one term in the Senate

            Hillary is currently in her 2nd.  Its not much more, but its more.

            by itsbenj on Mon Mar 05, 2007 at 02:14:02 PM PDT

            •  Wow, searching for the bottom of the bucket to

              validate HRC...  She served 15 hours and thrity-two minutes more than so and so......

              by fromdabak on Mon Mar 05, 2007 at 02:28:45 PM PDT

  •  Touchdown!

    I get the impression she thinks we should vote for her because this is something she wants.  She wants to be president for her. I'm looking for someone who is running because they want what is best for the country.  I don't think electing another divisive CIC is good for the country.  

    And, Fromdabak, Yes!  I've been thinking of "Election" for weeks now!  Thanks for bringing that one up! Especially when Senator Clinton became threatened by Senator Obama...The parallels are frightening...

    by theark on Mon Mar 05, 2007 at 01:17:04 PM PDT

    •  So is Bill Mr. McCallister?????

      by fromdabak on Mon Mar 05, 2007 at 01:25:25 PM PDT

      •  Mmm...only if they have some secrets

        we don't wanna know!

        by theark on Mon Mar 05, 2007 at 01:31:12 PM PDT

        •  Maybe I'm Sick but I do want to know....

          Would Liz cheney play Tammie????  Just imagine the possibilities of re-making the movie with people in DC....

          by fromdabak on Mon Mar 05, 2007 at 02:04:46 PM PDT

          •  I have always maintained

            that the beltway folks acted like they were still in high school--I just hadn't put two and two together that they'd already made the movie!

            I gotta go rent this again--I need a good laugh.

            by theark on Mon Mar 05, 2007 at 02:18:12 PM PDT

•  Yay Barbara Boxer!

  I remember, in another thread, wondering why Senator Boxer seems to have so little support around here, even though, IIRC, she's a consistent supporter of the progessive agenda.

  Is it that she DOES have support but we never hear about her because she's uncontroversial? Or did something happen at some point that I don't remember?

  by dennisl on Mon Mar 05, 2007 at 12:31:36 PM PDT

  •  I think its electability

    much as I hate using that word....there is some real truth to that problem, IMO. But even still, Boxer would make a great compliment as a VP candidate if the primaries resulted in a moderate Dem Governor at the top of the ticket.

    I'm not usually in the 'Boxer for Pres' camp, but given the 'progressive at all cost' stance of a lot of people around here, I really wondered the same thing...why NOT Boxer?

    by mihan on Mon Mar 05, 2007 at 12:41:59 PM PDT

    •  I'm not even thinking as a Pres Candidate

      A lot of Senators get consistently recognized here for doing good work. Similarly, a lot get blasted for being pseudo-centrist/corporate panderers/etc.

      I never hear anything about either of the California Senators, even though I believe they're almost always voting for a progressive agenda. Why is that?

      by dennisl on Mon Mar 05, 2007 at 12:47:36 PM PDT

    •  Cuz she is an emasculating female

      Not fem enough, to "strident," hair too short.

      Not my own reasons BTW, I like her, and wish she were running.

      by wakingup on Mon Mar 05, 2007 at 12:53:10 PM PDT

•  She has a shrill voice.

  I think it's mainly that.

  by Pegasus on Mon Mar 05, 2007 at 12:35:16 PM PDT

  •  If that were a strike against a candidate...

    then why do we currently have a braying hyena in the Oval Office? LOL

    by KnowVox on Mon Mar 05, 2007 at 12:54:06 PM PDT

    •  He's not the Prez it's Lord Sidious errrr. Cheney

      by fromdabak on Mon Mar 05, 2007 at 02:05:56 PM PDT

•  I've said it before,

  and since you have a poll with "Other," I'll say it again: Elizabeth Holtzman would make a great president. Brains, courage, ethics, experience.

  by chesapeake on Mon Mar 05, 2007 at 12:43:22 PM PDT

•  Not

  She equivocates too much, can't state her principles and then stick to them. Does she even have any ideals that inspire her, or does she just want the presidency for ambition alone?  That's my reason, she's insincere and phoney in all of her public appearances. Sure they all are, but she's one of the worst.

  Strategically, she is a bad choice. No borderline Republicans are going to switch cuz of her, no matter how conservative she swings. They have been too indoctrinated against her.

  So she loses on both counts, personal and strategic as far as I can tell.

  by wakingup on Mon Mar 05, 2007 at 12:47:23 PM PDT

•  Why not

  The whole dynastic-family issue is certainly troubling, but what really creeps me out is that she expects to become POTUS the exact. same. way. that GWB did: by 1) parlaying her familial relationship and a behind-the-scenes enforcement function into 2) a candidacy supported by the very same network of donors, consultants, shills, and hangers-on that the previous president in the family developed, and 3) winning by using that political machine to strong-arm donors & mow down other aspirants.

  My problem with her is this: I have no idea what it is that makes her stand out above literally dozens of other Democrats. I couldn't begin to tell you why she, and not any number of Democratic Governors and Senators is the best candidate for the job.

  Well, see above; that's what makes her 'stand out.'  Apparently the presidency is achievable just by prior proximity to it.  On her own-- specifically, had she followed her early path instead of following Bill to Arkansas-- she probably could have been a very respected congresswoman from Illinois, maybe even a senator or Attorney General by this point in her life, but there's no way she'd be considered presidential timber without Bill's sponsorship.  She has many talents, but world-class leadership ain't one of them.  She's a machine politician, and one of the many downsides of that system is that inheritance counts for more than inspiration... doesn't mean that a machine can't produce good managers, but a bit more than basic management skills would be nice.

  by latts on Mon Mar 05, 2007 at 12:52:35 PM PDT

  •  My comment

    I was going to make a glib comment that just said something like, "Just say no to dynastic rule." You said it much better.

    by Joe Bob on Mon Mar 05, 2007 at 12:56:40 PM PDT

    •  Problem is that America is obsessed with Royalty.

      And our colonial forebears must be spinning in their graves over it.  

      by chillindame on Mon Mar 05, 2007 at 02:30:16 PM PDT

  •  One of the best summations I've seen

    "Machine politician" sums her up quite well. And that kind of inbred, closed-door politics isn't popular with the dKos community.

    by Dump Terry McAuliffe on Mon Mar 05, 2007 at 01:17:17 PM PDT

•  Didn't You Leave Someone Out of that Poll?

  Like the person in the title of your diary?

  Just wonderin'.

  by Alegre on Mon Mar 05, 2007 at 12:53:23 PM PDT

  •  yeah, I mentioned this at the top of the comments

    I'll amend the bottom of the diary as well, but somehow it doesn't let me fix the poll.

    I say, just vote other or not at all if Hillary is your choice. I hate that I screwed that up, since I rarely post diaries and wanted to get one right.

    by mihan on Mon Mar 05, 2007 at 01:04:41 PM PDT

•  With Hill you get Bill

  the smartest and most competent President in the last third of the 20th Century.

  by SingleVoter on Mon Mar 05, 2007 at 12:58:16 PM PDT

  •  "It's like being "being a dwarf amongst midgets".

    So we should elect HRC because that would have Bill in again????  Ummm no....  I was sick and tired of Bill when he was in....  When you say that he is the most competent Prez in the last quarter century that's not saying much...You had Reagan, Carter, Bush, and Cheney errr Bush...  No competition there....

    by fromdabak on Mon Mar 05, 2007 at 01:06:29 PM PDT

•  Hillary is too "Beltway" and too inauthentic

  
  
  I'm not sure just what the heck Hillary Clinton really stands for (and what she will fight for even if unpopular).

  I think it may be dangerous to elect Hillary Clinton because she will feel that it is necessary to prove to everybody that she, as a woman, isn't "afraid" to use Military might and therefore will succumb to Right-Wing pressure to get ourselves entangled in new Military voyerism in Iran.   She follows the failed logic system that says in order to be "strong", you have to validate the dishonest and immoral Neo-Con policy (that bankrupts the U.S. Treasury, needlessly gets tons of innocent people killed, and causes far more problems than it solves).

  I also do not trust her as the best salesperson that can advance the debate on Universal Health Care and get Health Care passed (She also is opposed to a simplified, cost-effective, single-payer Health Care system).

  Obama is the voice that can actually unify people on the concept of Universal Health Care and expand the Democratic voting block by being an attractive candidate to Independents and moderate, disaffected Republicans.  

  Unlike Clinton, Obama draws in new people --not by caving in to the Right-Wing and parroting their own talking points or either by trying to drive out Howard Dean of the DNC-- but instead by being a principled, authentic, believable, charismatic person (with no past 'baggage' and no past scandals) and by speaking out for the common good.

  Hillary is too polarizing both to win the General Election and to govern very successfully (even if she were to win).

  Obama can not only appeal to a larger Voting Demographic but his non-polarizing style will also allow him to be successful at governing and advancing progressive thought and social policy once he does win.

  Obama is also where the grassroots energy is.
  He is smooth enough and political savvy enough to dress up Liberal social policy with comforting, unifying platitudes and sound to people as very centrist.

  However, his true roots, his prior community outreach work, his close association with Jeremiah Wright,  his Illinois voting record, and his anti-Invasion Iraq position, all make it clear that he will lead this Nation .... finally .... back in a progressive and liberal direction.

  While other candidates may also wish to, Obama is the one candidate that can actually pull it off and unify the Country.

  We need to stop Hillary and start organizing for Obama.

  He is our best hope!

  http://www.barackobama.com/
  
  
  
  

  by LiberalWithBalls on Mon Mar 05, 2007 at 01:02:33 PM PDT

  •  I didn't want this to be

    pro-anyone else...really...just why Hillary and why not. I like Obama too so far but this isn't what I was asking for at all. This does more harm than good, IMO.

    by mihan on Mon Mar 05, 2007 at 01:05:51 PM PDT

•  Why Not?

  She was wrong on Iraq which IMO shows a lack of judgement. During her time in the Senate, she has not displayed leadership on any important issue facing this country. She is consistently hawkish in her rhetoric and we have had enough tuff talk in the last 6 years to last a life time. I would prefer to see the end of political dynasty families.

  Bottom line,  she has not met any of the criteria I would like to see in the next President and others are more qualified to meet the challenges that this country faces.  

  by MO Blue on Mon Mar 05, 2007 at 01:07:21 PM PDT

•  She's more a brand name than a candidate

  If her last name were Smith rather than Clinton, her poll numbers would be in the Joe Biden range. She's a back-bench senator from a big state with an Iraq War vote she can't explain away.

  Ultimately, her campaign will become an appeal to nostalgia: restoring the Good Old Days when her husband was president. She's not Bill, but here handlers will conflate the two when convenient.

  by Dump Terry McAuliffe on Mon Mar 05, 2007 at 01:10:37 PM PDT

  •  Speaking of restoring the Good Old Days...

    did you happen to read Frank Rich yesterday in the Times?  

    http://select.nytimes.com/...

    I've included the link, but you have to have a subscription for columnists.  An excerpt regarding the Clinton/Obama/Geffen affair:

    The most revealing aspect of the incident was not in any case the who’s-up-who’s-down prognostications for a primary process some 10 months away. Rather, it was the fervor with which the Clinton campaign accused Mr. Geffen and Mr. Obama of practicing "the politics of personal destruction." This over-the-top reaction seemed detached from reality, almost as if the Clinton camp were nostalgically wishing it could refight the last political war — and once again clobber repellent old impeachment nemeses. But that battle may not be in the offing. Anti-Clinton rage has cooled, and the Clinton hating industry ain’t what it used to be. As The Times reported last month, even Richard Mellon Scaife, who bankrolled much of the vast right-wing conspiracy, has moved on. As with Mr. Giuliani’s marital history, any scandalous new revelation about the Clintons’ private lives might play out less momentously in post-9/11 America than it did in the last century.

    Maybe this is why she has been acting so scared lately.  Maybe we're getting away from the days of the bogeyman.  She can't blame the right-wing conspiracy if things don't go her way.  She's on her own.

    by theark on Mon Mar 05, 2007 at 01:26:49 PM PDT

•  Pelosi n/t

  by hells kitchen on Mon Mar 05, 2007 at 01:26:17 PM PDT

•  In a word...

  Phony.

  Every word, every gesture, every everything is scripted with her and I hate it.

  And can I be really catty and say how much I freaking hate her monochromatic wardrobe.  I swear if that was all I could wear everyday, I'd put a gun to my head.  And whoever told her to put a brooch at your shoulder instead of just to the left of your lapel (or about where a lapel should be if your blazer lacks one).  I saw her brooch all the way over at her shoulder down in Selma and I laughed my butt off.  (At least she left the Babs-style large pink pearls home, thank god.)

  Thank you for letting me indulge in my shallow side for a moment.  Getting back to reality, she is a phony, she is wrong on too many issues, she is wrong for America.
   

  by chillindame on Mon Mar 05, 2007 at 02:25:23 PM PDT

•  The cold truth is that of that list you posted,

  only one is even vaguely electable. And several of them (Herseth, Lincoln) would cause most people here to rip their hair out in frustration.

  by tigercourse on Mon Mar 05, 2007 at 02:25:35 PM PDT

•  Electability, pure and simple.

  Two kinds of voters:

  1. Issue wonks. Like practically everybody at DailyKos.

  2. People who turn out on election day, but otherwise don't pay a lot of attention to politics.

  It's important to understand that there are more #2s than #1s. (Unsupported assertion, I know, but that's my belief.)

  We #1s can't win the election unless our candidate draws a lot of support from #2s. And Hillary, for whatever reason, doesn't. There are too many people who are too turned off by her, for reasons that may be intangible or even nonsensical, but whattya gonna do? It is what it is. She just doesn't have the charisma to win a general election. She's Michael Dukakis in a skirt, John Kerry in sensible pumps.

  I do NOT suggest personality-charisma-electability is the ONLY criterion for selecting a candidate. But throw out all the candidates who lack charisma (including Hillary), then apply your issue wonkiness to select from who's left.

  It will surprise no one reading this that I'm trying to choose between Edwards and Obama.

  by HeyMikey on Mon Mar 05, 2007 at 02:59:15 PM PDT

•  Can she do the job?

  I wasn't lukewarm about my realtor.  The truth was, I didn't really like him very much.  He came off like a salesman.  Which is what he was.  I don't really like that slick salesman vibe.  Turns out, though, that he was a darned good salesman.   He found me a house that was exactly what I was looking for.  He did it quickly and he helped me get a great price on it.  He did it by listening and learning what I wanted, and finding houses that met my criteria, and not wasting time on improbables.  If I need to buy another property, I would give him a shot at it, even though we'll never "click".  There was another realtor who was a very nice woman, and I enjoyed talking to her.  We "clicked".  I was much more comfortable in her presence.  But, she wasted my time and didn't find me the right house.

  Lots of people warmed up to Bush.  He seemed like an average guy, that they would like to sit around with and shoot the breeze.  But, was he a good President?    

  So, what is the criteria for choosing a President?  Is it a certain warm feeling you get when you see them or hear them speak?   Is it their record and accomplishments?   Everyone has their own answer to this.   One good piece of advice, though, is to ask yourself what people used for criteria in electing Bush, and don't do that!

  by DFWmom on Mon Mar 05, 2007 at 03:17:58 PM PDT

  •  This was the most thoughtful, most insightful

    post I have ever read on this website...  I just don't think that I could equate a realtor to a Prez but that was a great post...  Besides picking a Prez buying a house or marriage is probably the biggest decision that we make in our life time...

    by fromdabak on Mon Mar 05, 2007 at 06:24:23 PM PDT