Name: Tess
Home: St. Louis
Poll: Hillary Clinton
The topic of Hillary Clinton's possible presidential candidacy came up recently in a discussion with online friends. Several of them had immediate, strongly negative reactions to the mere mention of her name. Those kinds of reactions make some people argue Clinton's candidacy would be a disaster for the Democrats.
So today I'm asking my readers: What do you think of Hillary Clinton? Would you vote for her for president? Why or why not?
Don't hold back!
So today I'm asking my readers: What do you think of Hillary Clinton? Would you vote for her for president? Why or why not?
Don't hold back!
posted by Tess | 8:54 AM
9 Comments:
I'll just say this.
While I'd have to research more carefully, at this moment, I wouldn't vote for her. And I think naming her as a running mate would hinder a Democratic Presidential candidate.
I have bad memories of her tenure as First Lady. Yes, she worked hard for the betterment of America. I'm just not sure I agree with many of her tactics. And I'll admit I'm rather judgmental of her marital decisions before/during the Clinton presidency.
On a somewhat unrelated note, a rose by any other name?
Apparently not.
No. Go Barack!!
I think her credentials would be utterly obscured by the fact that millions of Americans have an automatic, visceral, negative reaction to the name Clinton. I disagree with them, but that's neither here nor there. I think we would all waste a lot of time dredging up old news.
I heard there are signs around New York City that say: "He's ready. Why wait? Obama '08!" Or perhaps John Edwards should take another shot at it.
For the past several years, and continuing up to the present day, thoughtful Democrats have been trying to come up with someone credible to stop the "Hillary juggernaut." Initially, many of us backed Sen. Russ Feingold of Wisconsin (who is still probably my favorite candidate--although I also have a soft spot for the less conventional "Bill Moyers for President" idea). Then everyone was hot on Al Gore running again. Now the talk is all about Barack Obama.
The electability problem with Hilary Clinton is that she starts out with so many negative impressions to begin with. Much of the knee-jerk anti-Hilary reaction is undeserved, based on right-wing bashing during her partner's Presidency. But it is what it is.
The deeper, substantive problem with Hillary Clinton is that she has cozied up too much to corporate America (much like Bill) and has little or no record of taking on tough and important progressive issues in the Senate during her time there. What is her record? Other than trying to raise the most money among top wealthy and corporate donors, what has she done?
Personally, I will definitely NOT vote for Hillary Clinton in the Democratic primary. However, in all likelihood I would support her for President (or Vice-President) in the general election, because she is still much better than any leading Republican I can think of. John McCain? He used to be perceived as a "maverick" but he has supported Bush's agenda so much--and, truth be told, he has always been rather right-wing on most issues--that I can't see him looking like a good alternative, even to Hillary Clinton. The Republicans have controlled the Presidency, both houses of Congress, and (indirectly, through appointing most of the Justices) even the Supreme Court. They have screwed up (or failed to do anything constructive in) just about every area--foreign policy, health care, education, wages, civil liberties, etc., etc. Faced with that, I would have to support Hillary Clinton for President if she were the Democratic candidate (barring some kind of miracle Republican, Independent, or Third-Party candidate emerging with a credible chance of winning and who is completely different from any of the current Republican leaders).
not in a primary, but if it was her against a republican, yes.
(and i'm not really anti-hillary. but i don't like that we had a father-son thing going, and i don't thing a husband-wife thing would be better... keeping it in the same dynaties makes me nervous...)
but then, i've considered canada (or at least the UK) as a viable option a couple of times in the last 3 years...
and i think i still have the clinton poster you drew on that says "hillary" on it... i liked her better before she embraced corporate america...
I see how Bush got "elected". The left are hopelessly divided. They cannibalise their own and engage in a "purity" debate when the reality is that any effective President is going to have to govern from the centre (Bush didn't...one of the many reasons he is a disaster). A certain amount of co-operation and conciliation is necessary in order to achieve anything...you can't govern entirely from the left.
The comment regarding the "purity" debate is not really reserved for this blog but for the tiresome Republican talking points one reads about Hillary Clinton on supposedly left-wing blogs like the Huffington Post and Kos. Honestly, most of the remarks belong on Republican sites. The criticisms are generally ad hominem unsubstantiated drivel.
The underlying assumption is that "women aren't leaders" or "can't be elected" and that any man (no matter how obscure) is a safer candidate regardless of their fundraising ability (I'm sorry but money is important folks...however it might sound, that's politics folks...in one sense...small donations reflect popularity so there's a democratic aspect but of course it's otherwise the rotten heart of the system - money buys elections) until that changes it's a reality that has to be acknowledged.
Common sense regarding necessary centrism (must appeal to the middle to win) or prudent politics, name-recognition, and poll results are ignored in favour of demonisation in favour of unelectables.
I'm sorry if this sounds harsh, given the above largely well thought out comment but I've read too much negativity on left/democratic sites to avoid this rant.
good site
good site
good site
Post a Comment
<< Home