Does anyone actually like Hillary?

[bascule]

I'm continually appalled when I read that Hillary is the frontrunner for the Democratic nomination in 2008.

 

Yet I'm also confused, because I'm still yet to meet a Hillary supporter. Who are these people and why do they support Hillary?

 

Do you support Hillary? If so, why?

[foodchain]

I'm continually appalled when I read that Hillary is the frontrunner for the Democratic nomination in 2008.

 

Yet I'm also confused, because I'm still yet to meet a Hillary supporter. Who are these people and why do they support Hillary?

 

Do you support Hillary? If so, why?

 

I think there is some monkey business going on also. Personally you best bet is to attend a "go hillary" convention or something.

 

As to who I will vote for yet, I don’t know, I think I might sacrifice personal choice for something going against the current grain, or has the best shot at winning really.

[Reaper]

I'm continually appalled when I read that Hillary is the frontrunner for the Democratic nomination in 2008.

 

Yet I'm also confused, because I'm still yet to meet a Hillary supporter. Who are these people and why do they support Hillary?

 

Do you support Hillary? If so, why?

 

Less than 50% of the people in the US actually vote, so what you will find is that all of the candidates represent the interests of the few. It actually doesn't really matter who gets up there nowadays, because the only people who will benefit from this will be the richest 1%....

 

Personally, I don't support her at all.

[Sisyphus]

I'm not a Hillary supporter (I'm not an anyone supporter, yet), but I do find all the massive amounts of irrational hatred people have for her kind of silly. I have yet to hear a non-lame answer when I ask why people dislike her. It's always "she seems insincere" or "she's too ambitious" or something. Oh really? And a politician, you say? The truth is 1) she lacks personal charisma (but is able to make up for it by being a shrewder political strategist than most) and 2) she has had powerful PR machines trying to turn her into a caricature for 15 years now, and lots of people buy into it. The truth is she's an extremely smart, moderate liberal pragmatist, she's less cynical than most of her colleagues, and she's very impressive in a debate. You could certainly do worse.

[Severian]

One reason why a lot of people don't like her is because she is a strong woman. There is still a large part of the population that thinks a woman should be demure and placid, staying in the home, and don't like a woman who takes charge.

[YT2095]

no not particularly, she doesn`t seem to have the bollocks that Lady Thatcher had/has.

[Reaper]

One reason why a lot of people don't like her is because she is a strong woman. There is still a large part of the population that thinks a woman should be demure and placid, staying in the home, and don't like a woman who takes charge.

 

 

That's certainly true of some people, but that certainly isn't my view.

 

Basically what we are seeing here is something similar to a dynasty if she is elected, where the power of presidency is concentrated in the hands of a couple of families (e.g. Bush, Clinton), or other special interest groups. The first Bush was the vice president of Ronald Reagan by the way.

 

Plus, she was so quick to "forgive" Bill Clinton about the whole Monica Lewinsky incident, which makes me question her morals.

[geoguy]

I don't in particular like her but I think she'd make a good President. Bush junior and Carter were likeable... Carter was a poor President and Bush is a disaster. Reagan was disliked by many but was a good President.

 

At this point in history the USA could do with a sargeant major...someone to piss some folks off but get the ball moving. Bill clinton would be a great asset in international affairs where the USA needs to rebuild its image.

[jackson33]

Guess its irony, but I remember 92 to 96, you could hardly find a person who acknowledged voting for or intended to vote for Bill Clinton. Then I looked at the Red/Blue layout and realized just how few areas or concentration of voters it takes to win an election. Even California where Clinton won in a landslide, his voters were in 10% of the total states area.

 

Hillary, IMO is the strategist in the family. Although again IMO she will be very bad for the Nation in general, she is competent, at least as a politician. She does offer those that liked the 90's, a chance to relive the glory days of the extreme elements in our society. She is no Thatcher and certainly not another Reagan, but the overall current sentiment would not NOW consider these folks as we did in their time. Frankly I think Bush Jr. is along the philosophy of them and that sentiment is nearly non-existent, today.

[geoguy]

Guess its irony, but I remember 92 to 96, you could hardly find a person who acknowledged voting for or intended to vote for Bill Clinton. Then I looked at the Red/Blue layout and realized just how few areas or concentration of voters it takes to win an election. Even California where Clinton won in a landslide, his voters were in 10% of the total states area.

 

Hillary, IMO is the strategist in the family. Although again IMO she will be very bad for the Nation in general, she is competent, at least as a politician. She does offer those that liked the 90's, a chance to relive the glory days of the extreme elements in our society. She is no Thatcher and certainly not another Reagan, but the overall current sentiment would not NOW consider these folks as we did in their time. Frankly I think Bush Jr. is along the philosophy of them and that sentiment is nearly non-existent, today.

 

Some good points with the exception that Bush is along the philosophy of Thatcher and Reagan. Reagan was a product of the Democratic party and understood that a lot of that philosophy didn't work and moved over to represent the same the 'silent Majority' that Nixon understood so well. Reagan built his base out of the American people and not on religious whackos. Reagan's appeal was speak to the american people (and the world) and call a spade a spade....whether or not one agreed with him or not. Reagan was a realist whose philosophy was found in the practical world. Thatcher was the same. Bush, in contrast is a muddler who doesn't grasp consequences and finds his pholosophy in a black and white world of inspiration from god.

[Realitycheck]

People are ready to elect a female president. People equate females with being anti-war. People are really tired of war. Survey says!

[Reaper]

People are ready to elect a female president. People equate females with being anti-war. People are really tired of war. Survey says!

 

Yeah, and its a great example on how misinformed and stereotypical Americans are with differences between genders.

[jackson33]

geoguy; One problem I have had with Bush II, is what religion may play in his decisions. The *New Tone* just get along theory with Congress and his reluctance to use his *Veto* power to serve his election platform, which has been trashed. However IMO his work ethics (Oil field to the Rangers), his management of Texas and his foreign policy has a *no nonsense* ora which I felt in Reagan and Thatcher. I honestly feel both Thatcher and Reagan, if in charge on 9-12-01, would have acted and followed up in very much the same manner, even to the policies of today.

 

The Democrat Party of Truman/Reagan/Kennedy was in total a very different entity. Each believed in lower taxes, a strong military and limited government, especially along the line of social programs.

 

Agent; Americans have long been ready for a lady leader. One major problem is we have few strong minded, thick skinned women who have chosen a political career. If Hillary has a problem its going to be in defense/security. So far she has stayed centered but the reality is what was/was not done, during Bill's 8 years. IMO, the voters will reject a return to the Pacifist/Isolationist notion or treating Terrorism as a problem for *Law Enforcement*.

[Sisyphus]

a chance to relive the glory days of the extreme elements in our society.

 

What do you mean by that? You think Clinton is an "extreme element?" How so?

 

One problem I have had with Bush II, is what religion may play in his decisions. The *New Tone* just get along theory with Congress and his reluctance to use his *Veto* power to serve his election platform, which has been trashed. However IMO his work ethics (Oil field to the Rangers), his management of Texas and his foreign policy has a *no nonsense* ora which I felt in Reagan and Thatcher. I honestly feel both Thatcher and Reagan, if in charge on 9-12-01, would have acted and followed up in very much the same manner, even to the policies of today.

 

The Democrat Party of Truman/Reagan/Kennedy was in total a very different entity. Each believed in lower taxes, a strong military and limited government, especially along the line of social programs.

 

Agent; Americans have long been ready for a lady leader. One major problem is we have few strong minded, thick skinned women who have chosen a political career. If Hillary has a problem its going to be in defense/security. So far she has stayed centered but the reality is what was/was not done, during Bill's 8 years. IMO, the voters will reject a return to the Pacifist/Isolationist notion or treating Terrorism as a problem for *Law Enforcement*.

 

I agree with the first sentence of this post and completely disagree with every subsequent sentence. They aren't really things I feel like arguing about, I just thought it was funny.

[bascule]

I'm not a Hillary supporter (I'm not an anyone supporter, yet), but I do find all the massive amounts of irrational hatred people have for her kind of silly. I have yet to hear a non-lame answer when I ask why people dislike her.

 

I dislike her because I find her platform is abominable. She supports troop increases in Iraq, above and beyond the levels of the present surge. She thinks that our new tactics in Iraq are working:

 

"We're just years too late changing our tactics. We can't ever let that happen again. We can't be fighting the last war. We have to be preparing to fight the new war."

 

She continues to trumpet the same "war on terror" rhetoric that the Bush administration uses, instilling fear of a nonspecific phantom enemy forever lingering in the shadows. Obama is guilty of this to a certain extent as well, whereas Edwards has decried it (there was a thread here earlier about that) and prefers to focus on the complex and nuanced nature of specific groups that we should be addressing.

 

She's lodged a number of baffling and hypocritical attacks against her opponents. She downplayed Obama's foreign policy experience when he suggested meeting directly with the leaders of foreign nations. What foreign policy experience does she have? She's much in the same boat as Obama... but I guess she wants people to believe that an additional four years of Senatorial experience somehow gives her an edge on foreign policy.

 

But really, that's all just a bunch of piddly nitpicking. I can go on about the specific issues in her platform with which I disagree, such as support for the death penalty. She's painting a picture of a rather totalitarian state, and she will be inheriting unprecedented executive power from the current administration. That's not an idea I find particularly comforting.

 

But there's one real underlying issue:

 

She's a divisive person with a grating personality. We're living in a country which has been in a rather extreme state of political polarization for some time, perhaps culminating in the 2004 election. Hillary would just be a continuation of that same trend, which I think is damaging to our country.

 

In terms of my personal choice for an ideal candidate who reflects my views on the issues, I'd support Kucinich. But I don't. I support Obama, even though he differs in opinion on a number of issues I consider important. This is because I see Obama as someone who can actually reach out to the other side, perhaps even make some friends over there.

[iNow]

I guess we all need a target for our anger and hatred.

 

 

Thank goodness for politicians.

[Pangloss]

There's a lot of personal thought and feedback in this thread, which I think is great, but I wouldn't mind seeing more analysis in answer to the OP. Why is it that she continues to be perceived as the front runner? Bear in mind that this is more than just media opinion. She's got the support of key party people and specific polls, and she's got the money. That answers some of the technical aspect of the question, but I'm really more interested in the perception issue. She has a lot of detractors, certainly, but she also has a lot of support. Why?

 

Jackson33 had an interesting comment above about Bill Clinton's detractors during his first term. I would also point out George Bush's increase in voter support for his second term. Is this just a matter of 51% of a two-entry vote being a winner? People having to pick between two sorry choices? Or is there more to it than that?

 

Just to toss one more point out there, a lot of hay has been made in recent weeks (especially following the most recent Democratic debate last Sunday) about special interest groups. Hillary has a lot more support in this area than Obama, but that is rapidly becoming a negative. What will the long-term impact be here? What happens when Obama starts to win support from special interest groups? What happens if he doesn't?

[john5746]

Hillary is the front-runner because she wins the polls. I think Obama has the charisma, but is seen as not experienced enough for the old guard. I think if he can just pull in one state, it might help him win. Otherwise, he may become a running mate for Hillary.

[Pangloss]

Yeah I don't know about that Vice President stuff -- the symbolism is pretty raw. I can already see the jokes and caricatures of Obama fetching lemonade for the rich white lady in the Oval Office. It could happen, but I think it'd be a tough sell.