Make the case for or against Hillary Clinton.

[last1standing]

Good old Hillary's become the most polarizing figure here at DU and to be honest, I really don't understand why. From what I've seen, she's not been as progressive as I'd like but she's not been as reactionary as some other Dem senators, so why the worship by one crowd and animosity by the other?

Can people, without the usual "Hillary is the only one who can save us" and "Hillary's the devil" posts, tell me what they either see in her or don't? I'd love to keep this discussion civilized, if possible, but please tell me what in her voting record makes you love her or hate her more than the other possible candidates.

[MH1]

1. I used to be open to supporting her - until she threw Kerry and the Dem Party under the bus.

She knew what Kerry said. (If she didn't, her comment is even worse). She knows his lifelong career commitment and sacrifices to help veterans. She knows his personal relationship with war and serving in the military and leading and supporting veterans' causes.

Even if she didn't want to back Kerry, she could have plausibly given a "no comment." Which would have been weak, but not hateful, soulless, and republican-enabling.

Her comments gave air to the smear against Kerry and the Democratic Party. It probably cost us some votes. I know some will blame Kerry for muffing the line in the first place, but it's something that happens to everyone. It's not surprising that the right-wing spun it as hard as they could to hurt Democrats. It is horrifying that Hillary helped, and now thinks Democrats should support her presidential bid.

[mdmc]

21. what comment? what did she say?

nice sig!

[MH1]

29. Here ya go

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2921617&mesg_id=2921617

It was worse than that. The link doesn't include the part where she snidely said "people don't want to re-fight the 2004 election" or words to that effect. Why the f*** bring in 2004?

I wish I had a video clip for you. She looked positively eager to denounce Kerry (just days before the mid-term election, remember). She must've thought we'd all just forget about it in 2008. Fat chance. Now I know what kind of person she is, and I will work hard to deny her the nomination, whether Kerry runs or not.

[MH1]

31. Just to be clear, it is the political opportunism displayed,

that makes me think Hillary is unfit to be pres.

Will she ALWAYS put herself first, even above common decency?

Do we want that in a president?

[Ellis Wyatt]

2. Unelectable

She supported the Iraq War.
She supported the Patriot Act.
The Right despises her, for among other things, pushing universal healthcare, and it will energize their base against her.

She will not win the Democrat nomination b/c of supporting the IRW and more importantly the Patriot Act. Once the luster of "her name" wears off and people actually have to look at the votes she's made, and the positions she takes, there will be another Democrat to get the nomination.

If, by some miracle, she gets the nomination, she will have to find some way to overcome the 60million+ votes that the republican will get (regardless of who it is) for the sheer reason that he will be running against Hillary.

[La_Fourmi_Rouge]

17. Ellis, the word is "Democratic".

Get it straight:

Democratic Party.

Democratic Party nomination.

Democratic Underground.

Democratic candidate.

Democratic.

[truedelphi]

3. Said it before will say it again -

Bill and Hillary are the best that the Republican party can offer America.

But they are Corporatists -and what is wrong with this country, in my opinion, will take a progressive to fix it.

If what you are Jones-ing for in 2008, is to make America LOOK better - then Hillary is it.

She is smart (no more stumbling speeches, cross-eyed moronic gestures as we are forced to witness daily under Georgie-Porgie)

With Ms. Clinton, We'd feel better here, and look better abroad.

She is organized - if a Katrina would occur again, the help would be immediately air-lifted in.

Corruption might even go down a bit.

But will the banking industry (credit cards offshoots at their side), and military still be running things?

Of course.

WIll the 1996 Telecommunications Act that Clinton supported still allow the five companies that own the media and use it like a Goebbels-style propaganda machine still hold sway?

I mean, in case you DID NOT notice, the 2004 STOLEN election was a communications industry sponsored coup! And the corporate media still does not discuss the STOELN-NESS part of it!)

So mass media still remaining as propaganda tool...?
Of course.

Will we still be in Iraq?

That one is harder - reports are coming out now that in part due to the tremendous loss of ammunition at Camp Falcon, that mutiny is a HUGE WORRY right now for the current Administration.
I don't mean that the people in this country are turning against it. (though they are!@) I mean that the men and women inuniform over there are SICK OF IT!

So we may be out of Iraq before Hillary would even win a priamry round. (And Cheney going into Iran soon would trump getting out of Iraq!)

Will health insurance - or so-called Universal coverage become a done deal?

With Hillary, yes but BUT BUT she will keep it a mass industry pay-out scheme rather than Single Payer.

So 36% to 50% of every dollar spent on health in America will continue to wend its way through coffers of the Insurance COmpanies - keeping it atrociously expensive.

ONE OTHER BIG IMPORTANT QUESTION... If she WAS the candidate: Can she win? No way! Progressives like me don't like her - and anyone who is Republican hates her.

So she is starting out with too much negative and not enough positive.

[elehhhhna]

4. NO MORE FAMILY POLITICAL DYNASTIES. Period.

[nini]

30. even if someone from that family is the best choice for the time?

I'm not saying she is or isn't. I'm saying is it not possible but which family someone comes from shouldn't be the reason.


We need to judge on how they will serve the country. Being related by blood isn't always a defining factor.

[katsy]

5. Neutral.

I don't think it matters who the Democrats run from the top tier candidates as it stands now.

The gop will lose.

[still_one]

6. For me it is quite simple, her vote on the IWR.

In my view today, anyone who voted for the IWR doesn't deserve to be President

That may seem harsh and stubborn, but those that voted for that resolution, violated the intent of the Constitution, AND THE WAR POWERS ACT, and they knew it. They did it only for political expediency. They knew Iraq was not a threat, and definitely not involved with 9/11

There are enough Democrats, that lean left or right, that were against the IWR

[last1standing]

8. I feel the same way about the MCA of 2006 so I can't blame you there.

But it also narrows the field down considerably.

[still_one]

10. I assume you are referring to the Miltary Commision Act of 2006, and if so, I agree with you /nt

[last1standing]

11. That's the one.

If you voted for the MCA, you won't get my vote for dogcatcher.

[still_one]

13. you are right on

[WilliamPitt]

7. OK

For:

She's one of the smartest people in politics, someone who has been involved in one way or another for her entire adult life. She spent eight years in the White House as arguably the most powerful First Lady in our history, and knows the process. Her years in the Senate have likewise given her great insight into the second branch of government and its functions, and the allies she has made there would make her a formidable president in any Executive-Legislative standoff. Despite some of her crappier votes, she is infinitely better than any Republican you can name on virtually every issue dear to Democrats. Also, she's married to the most astute political mechanic we are likely to see for years.

Against:

She is severely damaged goods because of the Whitewater/Impeachment nonsense. Any GOP campaign against her will bring all that old crap to the fore again - the stained dress, the land deal in Arkansas, and you can be sure the wingnuts will dredge up Vince Foster and drug-running at the Mena airport. Those stupid state troopers will do the media rounds again, and the Weekly Standard wil piss itself with joy at being able to vomit out all the crud in their files. Basically, if she runs, the campaign will wind up being about the 90s, just as the Kerry campaign wound up being about Vietnam. It'd be nice to have a national campaign focused on the now, which we won't have if she runs. At a minimum, we should have a candidate the forces the GOP to make up new shit, instead of allowing them to simply dust off the old shit.

How's that?

[last1standing]

9. Good points but I have to wonder if the Whitewater crap would work for the repubs.

It didn't help them a whole lot with their attempt to remove Bill Clinton, in fact he had a 70% approval rating the day they impeached him, I believe.

I'm really wondering why the extreme feelings one way of the other with Hillary. The kind of hostility and worship that she's receiving is usually reserved for those with a great deal of personal charisma, which I just don't think she has. Is it her voting record? I can't think why it would be since she's been pretty much middle of the road, occasionally veering to the right, but even Feingold did that once in a while.

[warrens]

12. How about just waiting until the primaries are at least on the horizon?

All this hammering at Dems because you prefer someone else is less than healthy. We have at least six good prospective candidates, and only one will win. The other five are still good people and good candidates.

[last1standing]

15. Did you even read my post?

I'm not trying to flame you, I'm honestly curious, because I wasn't trying to "hammer" anyone. I'm asking why so many have such strong opinions of a potential candidate who, in my opinion, doesn't seem to warrant them either for good or bad.

I also don't disagree with there being five other good candidates. I can't think of a really bad one as yet.

[Nite Owl]

14. Not Hillary because:

1. We have had enough of the family dynasties. If Hillary were to win and be in office for 4yrs we would have had only a Bush or a Clinton in the WH for nearly a quarter of a century. Just doesn't seem American, we need a new face, new blood. While the Clinton years were better for everyone his policies have wrought the effects on jobs we see today, he wholeheartedly passed trade agreements that were bad for the American workforce.

2. The right really hates her, she is their prime fundraiser. The research is done.

3. She hasn't shown leadership qualities, she waits until it is safe to come out and say something on an issue. Not only is that very political we need someone who has firm progressive convictions and is not afraid to lead with them. A leader is someone who has the ideas and then convinces others that they are right, she isn't that.

4. We have her vote on the war which is my prime reason for not considering her. How could she have trusted him to do the right thing? And only this week it dawned on her to say that 'if she knew....' It was a huge mistake of judgment, everyone one can make mistakes but the sooner one admits it and works to change the better. It took her too long.

5. We would never achieve a decent health care plan with her. When she had her chance it was still private insurance and I hold the strong belief that single payor is the only way to go. I'd like to see someone running that would give us that chance and she wouldn't.



Anyone would be better than what we got, I don't think she is 'evil' or a bad person of ill intent. I just don't agree with her being the person I would pick for our President. We can do better.

[truedelphi]

23. Abt the war - Kucinich knew, Barbara Lee knew,

Lynn Woolsey knew, Cynthia McKinney knew

WHile Clinton, she lap dogged for the Bush Cheney regime

[HughBeaumont]

16. IWR.

And the fact that she's not sorry about it

She voted for NCLB, long proven to be an abyssmal and costly failure to our children. Then again, it was from her husband's admin.

Her alliance with Rupert Murdoch doesn't sit well with me.

The back-breaker from where I stand, however, is her continued support of free trade, NAFTA and job offshoring, which she's unrepentant on.

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/GC01Df03.html
http://www.whereistand.com/HillaryClinton/16959
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3827/is_200408/ai_n9414293

Sure, you say, "she at least acknowledges the issue." So does Sherrod Brown. And Byron Dorgan, Dennis Kucinich, John Kerry . . . hell, even wingnuts like Tom Tancredo acknowledge it. The difference between all of them and DLC Free-Trade mavens like Hillary, however, is that they don't support mass job offshoring and correctly see it as only benefitting the rich while underpaying and exploiting the working and poor classes of all nations involved.

I'd like a logical explanation from Hillary how destroying one nation's working class to lift another helps working classes from both countries involved. Does she take in account unemployment and closed plants and businesses means less tax money going into the local and state communities, less income going into the economy, more secondary businesses such as bars, local stores, etc, closing because of all the lost revenue they once had when people are gainfully employed? Does she take into account the cost of retraining and the greater cost to the overall economy of likely underemployment (i.e. going from $25 to $13 dollars an hour)? Does she take into account the toll on the physical and mental health of the worker and the stress placed on families and relationships due to displacement? These are only some of the many reasons why offshoring and layoffs are unnecessary and economically detrimental.

Damn it, OFFSHORING ONLY BENEFITS THE RICH, NOT THE MIDDLE CLASS. We aren't creating better jobs for the displaced workers as a result of it. Lower prices don't matter when you can't buy anything and wages aren't keeping up with the cost of living and inflation.

Book after book after book provides more than enough real life examples of how this predatory and zero-sum practice is killing the livelihoods of everyday people, dismantling their hard work through no choice of their own. The Government and Corporate America does absolutely NOTHING to research, quell or cure this issue except brush off concerns and stunningly blame the WORKERS for their bad fortune.

Playing the eternal game of employment musical chairs seriously takes the bolts out of a strong infrastructure. The economy is painfully inadequate if it cannot accommodate anybody except the heavily degreed and privileged. These are the proverbial elephant-in-the-room sides of the issue Hillary (and really, everyone else who sides with free trade) takes no stand or has no opinion on.

That, and I'm just plain SICK of political monarchies. 300 million people in this country and only TWO families are fit to run it? We're potentially going on 32 (possibly 36) years of either a Bush or a Clinton sitting in either the VP or Presidential seats.

[truedelphi]

25. Great post

Can I just add (and very humbly -how eloquent and knowledgeable everything that you say is positioned!) that the media frames this debate in terms of the blue collar worker -tht the factories are closing down, and the blue collar guy or gal will just have to go to college and get more education

What isn't emphasized is that we are losing American jobs across the board - People with masters degrees in chemistry, computer programming, statistical analysis.

People who headed data base centers and held MBA's They too Are out of work while call centers and information base centers in Pakistan handle what well paid middle management people did jud ten years ago.

This isn't jsut the manufacturing base of the country - it is everything.

Except for a few jobs - restaurant businesses, teachers, UPS drivers, doctors, nurses and other health professionals, the computer techs still needed to wire thing s up physically -we ae losing every type of job out there in some form or another.

Meanwhile, the carpenters, plumbers gardeners and other trades people now in California are increasingly newly arrived immigrants.

[HughBeaumont]

28. Yet ANOTHER issue they don't want to touch.

The fact that they ONLY consider the problem affecting the blue collar workers is another case of them missing the point AND the big picture. I don't wish to be the one to break this to our free-trade supporting politicians, but there ARE people in this land that are not cut out for college. This isn't a knock on their intelligence; it's simply a matter of desire. Not everyone is meant to sit in a lit classroom for hours on end studying a career only because of the monetary value. Then there are others who are more acclimated to work with their hands.

Those people used to not have to worry about their futures because there was always SOME kind of blue-collar work for them, whether it be factories, warehouses, industry, manufacturing, mechanics, tool-and-die, etc, etc. Some of these jobs often paid more than their white-collar counterparts did and had better retirement/health care to go with it. The downside is that you had to live in the plant to make this kind of money, but it was there nonetheless.

What do you say to people like my cousin, who this past August had to take a buyout from Packard Electric, which will last him only so long, or risk getting laid off for good because the plant will close? He has nothing other than a high school diploma. It's naive to think that at 35, he and his SO can just go to community college and "start over". What would they do? Where would they get the money, go into more debt? Where would the on-the-job experience come from?

They didn't used to have to worry about this sort of thing before. It used to be that we were able to gainfully employ people who aren't meant for college; these people were our industrial and manufacturing base and they built the quality products we used and bought. A strong economy should be capable of employing EVERYone at a fair wage regardless of education level, and when you cannot do that, all the talking points in the world aint'a gonna mask the reality that you do NOT have any such economy on your watch.

"You simply HAVE to go back to school!" Uh, OK. Sounds like a plan. Oh wait, there are people who HAVE Master's degrees who are being fired from their jobs as a cost cutting move. Oh, and there's this other thing - it's not as simple as taking a few college courses at the local juco . . . retraining takes TIME and Money. LOTS of time and LOTS of money. People can't exactly put their lives on hold for 4 to 6 years. There is only NOW and the bills in front of them from companies who want their money.

So do you tell the degreed individuals it's THEIR fault for doing everything they were told to do in life; picked out the career they love doing, worked and sacrificed dollars and free time only to find out they're being fired for not being cheap enough?? Strangely enough, many free-trade supporting politicians very much think it IS indeed the worker's fault; that THEY indeed made the mess they're in, degreed or otherwise.

Any politician who feels this way is a classless asshole and an insufferable puppet to their handlers. We are fast failing the workers of this country through inaction and appeasement of the ultra-rich.

[Speck Tater]

18. The ONLY reason Hillary is not right for us is...

the simple fact, right or wrong, justified or not, that she is a polarizing figure at a time when we needs a uniter, not another divider. No other theoretical considerations outweigh this single unfortunate fact of life. End of discussion.

[WI_DEM]

19. ok

Pro: She is unquestionalbly intelligent and well qualified after spending eight years as First Lady, up close to see how the mechanics of the White House run, so she is less apt to fall in the traps that somebody who hasn't had that kind of experience. She will have almost eight years of experience as a US Senator of one of the biggest and arguably most influential state in the Union. She would have as her primary surrogate on the campaign trail one of the most gifted orators/political strategists around, Bill Clinton. He would be a big asset among the Democratic faithful and African Americans. As the first woman nominated many women, probably younger more activist women, would support her. It would be a historic first.

Con: She comes in with a lot of baggage. Her disapproval rating is almost as high as her approval rating. She is well known and she has ardent supporters and fervent foes. There is very little neutral ground with Hillary Clinton. Most people have formed an opinion and so there will likely be less of a pool of neutral or undecided voters. Many people who like her husband, don't seem to like her. As a public speaker she lacks charisma, however effective she may be in smaller group settings. While her nomination and election would be a historical first and excite many women, as Geraldine Ferrarro proved in 1984, it doesn't mean that excitement will transpire to votes. Her nomination wouldn't excite the progressive wing of the Democratic party.

That said she could win if nominated. Most recent CNN poll gives her in a statistical dead-heat with both McCain and Guiliani, about as well as Gore performs against them.

[mdmc]

20. Bill Clinton beat the right at every turn... Hillary can win

I mean, not in 2008, but hell, she will seal the deal as Gore's veep.

If I was to pitch her, I would say -
She has name recognition, and cash. There is no other candidate that brings the Bid Dog to the table.

:kick:
I hope we don't get stuck with her, but she can win.

[nealmhughes]

22. The answer my friend, is blowing in the wind, the answer is blowing in the wind....

[Crazy Janey]

24. whichever way the wind blows

Hillary lost me when she refused to give up her support of the war in Iraq. And unlike Kerry and Edwards, who at least admitted they'd made a mistake in voting for the resolution giving Bush the power to go to Iraq, Hillary never did that. Then, suddenly, now that it's popular to hate the war, she says we need to get out.

She's a panderer. Too calculating for me. We need someone who'll stand up for what they believe in, not someone who'll flap in the breeze.

[La_Fourmi_Rouge]

26. The case against in a word:

Gore.

[WI_DEM]

27. but is he running?