Hillary Supporters: Biggest Reason for supporting Hillary for President?

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

This should be interesting. As I'm not a Hillary Supporter, I'll abstain from the vote.

[Frozen Sky Ever Why]

Option 7. I don't care for the rhetoric of the progressive wing.

[Mr. Smith]

Option 8: I have mixed-positive feelings overall with her candidacy

But as things are, she's probably the only one with a chance of defeating the Republicans and coattailing over to the Senate

And ultimately, stopping the Republicans is most important.

[bedstuy]

Hard to distill it into one reason.

On the plus column:
+I basically agree with her on policy, mainstream to liberal Democrat on domestic policy, a bit more hawkish/realist on foreign policy.
+She was an effective Senator and Secretary of State.
+She's intellectually brilliant and of high moral character. 
+She's a political realist with no respect for the media or vague idealism.  Obama's biggest flaw was his respect for the political process and ambition of rising above partisan politics.  Hillary will never be so foolish.  She understands that politics is usually not about transcending the Washington "game," it's about winning the game and getting enough power to enact subtle change.
+She is a better politician than she gets credit for and leads every Republican by a healthy margin in polling.

On the minus column:
-The Clintons have shown a tendency to buy into triangulation or centrism as a political tactic.  Obama had the courage to try and fail sometimes.  Clinton failed by failing to push real change.  However, I think the political moments were so different, it's an unfair criticism to an extent.
-Hillary's 2008 campaign was often tone-deaf and flat-footed. 
-She might fail to run the same smart, high turnout campaign that Obama ran to victory.  Excitement matters and Hillary Clinton has not always conveyed the passion and excitement necessary.
 
Listen, I don't get the vapors when I think about Hillary Clinton, but I don't see that as a problem.  The President is supposed to be your favorite person ever.  Politics isn't curating your support for politicians to show your unique, progressive personality.  That's absolutely childish.  It's about high-stakes power politics and who gets to control the Executive Branch.  It would be incredibly foolish to allow this Republican Party to control the White House, when they've proven themselves to be right-wing crazies.  As much as Ralph Nader types say the two-parties are the same, they're not.  And, if we don't elect Hillary, the past 8 years of work under Obama could be ruined quite quickly. 

[Blue3]

Her policy positions (for the most part), her experience, already being tested under presidential pressure, and her IDGAF attitude to the media spinners.

[IceSpear]

Pretty much everything bedstuy already said, but I'll add a few more:

- She's easily the strongest and most electable candidate the Dems can put up.
- Breaking the glass ceiling.
- She was the first presidential candidate I ever supported (although I "supported" Kerry in 2004 because "Kerry is against Bush and Bush is dumb", I had a very vague concept of politics and barely knew anything). It will be great to see her come back and take the nomination that barely slipped through her fingers last time, which was extremely disappointing.
- I also really admired her record as First Lady. Despite all the flack she gets from the True Left, people tend to forget that she had an instrumental role in crafting healthcare reform. Even though it didn't work out, I still admire her for trying. She also had a great record in advocating for women's rights.
- Her tenacity. Despite all the obstacles in her way (failure of healthcare reform, Lewinsky, all the faux scandals, losing the primary in '08, etc.) she just keeps getting up and fighting again, and I think that's what the Democratic Party needs right now.

[ElectionsGuy]

Her 'record' is full of nothingness. Its pretty much because she's a woman and she's a Clinton.

[IceSpear]

Her 'record' is full of nothingness. Its pretty much because she's a woman and she's a Clinton.

Ironic coming from a Rand Paul supporter.

[Zioneer]

Option 8: I have mixed-positive feelings overall with her candidacy

But as things are, she's probably the only one with a chance of defeating the Republicans and coattailing over to the Senate

And ultimately, stopping the Republicans is most important.

Once again, you and I agree.

[Mr. Illini]

Not necessarily a supporter, but an advantage to nominating her is her electability.

[Thunderbird is the word]

I question even her electability given all the sh**t Republicans can throw at her and the fact that she more then any other Democrat would fire up the GOP base against her while her own base would be less enthusiastic.

[IceSpear]

I question even her electability given all the sh**t Republicans can throw at her and the fact that she more then any other Democrat would fire up the GOP base against her while her own base would be less enthusiastic.

You don't poll as the strongest nonincumbent frontrunner in history without enthusiasm from the base.

As for the GOP base, yeah they despise Hillary and will turn out heavily against her. But they also did against Obama, and would against ANY Democrat once the smear machine ramped up. Remember, the GOP managed to turn dull as dishwater Gore and Kerry into Satan incarnate in the eyes of their base by the time the election was over. If they can do it with them, they can do it with anyone.

[DemPGH]

I supported her in 2008, so a couple of them, but I have to check electability because otherwise it's 2000 again.

But I do see some value in her on her own (it's not like she's some Dem-In-Name-Only):

1) Supreme Court picks, 2) I'm okay with a mainstream liberal Democrat, 3) I don't think she'll cave or run for the hills - or be so easily stymied (I agree that tenacity is a strong suit), 4) I think her record and standing in D.C. will actually serve her well, and 5) I also think that there's really nothing the right can say or make up about her that hasn't already been said or made up many times over. It'll be harder to scare the people who are easily scared.

I don't think she'd be my first choice in an America more to the left than the reality, but reality is reality, and I think we should ride with her.

[Sumner 1868]

I see more than half in the poll picked her because she's "electable" rather than actually liking her.

[MT Treasurer]

I see more than half in the poll picked her because she's "electable" rather than actually liking her.

Yeah.. that says a lot about her and also explains why she lost to Obama in 2008. But to be fair to the Dems, many Republicans also probably only support Bush because he has the best chance of beating her and not because they like him... or at least I hope so lol.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

I see more than half in the poll picked her because she's "electable" rather than actually liking her.

Yeah.. that says a lot about her and also explains why she lost to Obama in 2008. But to be fair to the Dems, many Republicans also probably only support Bush because he has the best chance of beating her and not because they like him... or at least I hope so lol.

At the end of the day, what matters most is not who's likable but who they want to vote for - look at California's 2002 governors race for an extreme example.

[BaconBacon96]

The poll is stupid because it doesn't have an "I like her positions" option.

[Phony Moderate]

The pole is stupid because it doesn't have an "I like her positions" option.

She has positions?

[Beet]

I would probably support her because of all the crap that she goes through and how well she's handled it. I think it takes a very, very, very strong personality.

[IceSpear]

I see more than half in the poll picked her because she's "electable" rather than actually liking her.

There's the fact that you can only select one option, and many potential options are omitted.

The pole is stupid because it doesn't have an "I like her positions" option.

She has positions?

Certainly more positions than certain con artist empty suits that the self proclaimed "true progressives" tend to get snookered by (COUGH JOHN EDWARDS).

[Beet]

Yes, Hillary has always run very honest campaigns thematically. She doesn't try very hard to pander and pretend to be something she's not. In that sense, her and Bernie actually are similar. She has a very pragmatic approach to governing and she's always been quite open about that.

[Sumner 1868]

I see more than half in the poll picked her because she's "electable" rather than actually liking her.

There's the fact that you can only select one option, and many potential options are omitted.

True, but the first thing people say?

[bedstuy]

The pole is stupid because it doesn't have an "I like her positions" option.

She has positions?

Certainly more positions than certain con artist empty suits that the self proclaimed "true progressives" tend to get snookered by (COUGH JOHN EDWARDS).

In 2008, Hillary Clinton released detailed policy papers on all of the major issues.  I assume she will do so again and then we can't argue about what her positions actually are.