Hatred of Clinton among forum democrats

[jokerman]

Can anyone explain it to me?  What's so bad about Clinton?

[Cubby]

She hurts the party more than she can help it. We have been out of power for 7 years, we can't nominate someone who is hated and despised by 50% of all voters. Its a losing strategy. Even if she wins, she will find it hard to govern.

I like Hillary as a Senator, but we need someone who will attract moderates and independents next year. Any of those 2 types who voted for Kerry will not vote for her, unless the GOP nominates Romney. Giuliani and Huckabee would win over her by a decent margin.

Also, she will hurt moderate Democrats in swing districts if she is on the ticket. (Shuler, Ellsworth, that lady in Kansas, etc.)

[ThePrezMex]

She hurts the party more than she can help it. We have been out of power for 7 years, we can't nominate someone who is hated and despised by 50% of all voters. Its a losing strategy. Even if she wins, she will find it hard to govern.

I like Hillary as a Senator, but we need someone who will attract moderates and independents next year. Any of those 2 types who voted for Kerry will not vote for her, unless the GOP nominates Romney. Giuliani and Huckabee would win over her by a decent margin.

Also, she will hurt moderate Democrats in swing districts if she is on the ticket. (Shuler, Ellsworth, that lady in Kansas, etc.)

That might be a valid hypothesis but a hypothesis none the less. We still can't be sure about that. While Hillary's negative numbers are indeed very high, they have remained stable for a long long time. And I think during the second semester of this year we observed a slight decrease in her negative numbers in most surveys. I believe there's a pretty good chance that during the general campaign Hillary could still lower a little more her negatives. The Republican attacks will bring anything new - everything about her is already known.
If the argument is that people would not like to give Hillary a blank check and vote Republicans for Congress, wouldn't one be able to make a similar argument on Obama saying that people wouldn't want to give him a blank check because he's inexperienced?

[All life is a blur of Republicans and meat.]

I hate her because she's a serial liar and a war monger.

[MarkWarner08]

Once Hillary is coroneted as the nominee, she will be bombarded by negative attacks from the MSM, the conservative blogosphere, and 527's. Remember what happened to John Kerry when he won the nomination too early? He had little time to recover from the grueling primary schedule and he made several blunders (windsurfing and "I voted for the $87 billion before I voted against it.") that hindered his chances. Before Kerry could introduce himself to voters, Bush was on the air with warm and fuzzy ads that soon turned quite negative.

Those boxing gloves given to Hillary by AFSCME were entirely unnecessary -- this Senator was a congenital pugilist. While this character trait will ensure she's never unprepared for the GOP's attacks, her belligerence may also be her downfall. If voters perceive as one who is overeager to reengage in the trivial spats of the 1990's, her negatives will rise even further.

New York is not like the rest of America. 99 out of 100 people would agree with that assertion; the 100th person is a Hillary Clinton campaign spokesperson. When Hillary argues that since she's outperformed Democratic margins in Upstate New York, she can do the same at the national level, she's ignoring a critical reality: the timespan of this campaign is not infinite. 

Hillary cannot condense six years of travels to small towns and years of meticulous attention to spending details into a six week trek that can be repeated in the rural parts fo states like Ohio. When she goes to Schenectady she can say, "I am to proud announce a $400,000 federal grant to aid in efforts to renovate this hospital." This results-driven rhetoric is particularly effective in rural areas. Since she's done little to help in rural Missouri, she can't use this same tact there.

Lastly, do Democrats want to replace the most despised man in American politics with the most despised woman in American politics?  Democrat support for Hillary the person is tepid, at best, most primary voters who support her do so because of her surname, which has become a political brand name. In a general election, this intensity gap could prove politically fatal.

[Meeker]

I like her.

[MarkWarner08]

I like her.

¿Por qué?

[Meeker]

I like her.

¿Por qué?

I don't see anything wrong with her. I think she's a smart, aggressive and passionate woman whose been a good Senator and would make a fine President.

[Jake]

Can anyone explain it to me?  What's so bad about Clinton?

Apparently she's too moderate to be acceptable. Too close to the DLC and she's actually realistic about Iraq and Iran.

[© Tweed the Younger]

right-wing hack

[Boris]

I don't really 'hate' her. Her vote in favor of the Iraq War irks me, and she rubs me the wrong way with her "sh**t I gotta appeal to Iowa voters" stance on NAFTA. As President, she'd probably be fairly competent (certainly better than the current administration), but her entire presidency would be filled with meaningless and asinine personal attacks thrown at her from both the left and the right. GOP will probably gain back at least one house of Congress in 2010 (probably after Hillarycare fails in congress for a second time), and they'll never be able to compromise based upon principle (Democrats may cave in to their political enemies, but Republicans seem pretty headstrong).

One thing I don't understand is why Republicans hate her more than any other Democratic Presidential candidate. She's easily the most moderate and more or less falls in line with public opinion on most issues. I fail to see how she's a threat to their 'values' or whatever.

Oh, and some her attacks against Obama piss me off. But seriously, using her vote declaring the Iranian Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist organization against her is kinda idiotic. That resolution was completely meaningless and hardly indicative of a drive to war against Iran. Dick Durbin, long-known as a staunch supporter of the War in Iraq and Bush's Foreign Policy, even voted for it.

I'd probably support Clinton over Edwards, who is just a complete joke, but I'd take Biden or Obama over her. Although I definitely have issues with Obama also.

[Trilobyte]

Interesting how some people call Clinton a warmonger for her Iraq vote, but they have no problem with Obama saying he would unilaterally invade Pakistan, or his support for labeling the Iranian Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist organization.

Personally I never understood the hatred for Clinton or the hype for Obama. Clinton is electable and poll after poll has indicated that.

[WalterMitty]

Can anyone explain it to me?  What's so bad about Clinton?

Apparently she's too moderate to be acceptable. Too close to the DLC and she's actually realistic about Iraq and Iran.

^^^

[TheresNoMoney]

I don't "hate" her, and she would be miles above any of the Republicans running as our next president.

I am NOT voting for her because she is too tied into the corporate establishment and I don't believe she will bring abour real change in this country. She is too much of a politican for my taste, and she is not someone who can be trusted from her word.

Her support of the Iraq War and the Kyl-Lieberman amendment are two other reasons.

[All life is a blur of Republicans and meat.]

Can anyone explain it to me?  What's so bad about Clinton?

Apparently she's too moderate to be acceptable. Too close to the DLC and she's actually realistic about Iraq and Iran.

^^^

The NIE report shows that she wasn't at all realistic about Iran.

[Secretary Polnut]

I think most reasonable people had less than confident assesments of Iran and its nuclear ambitions.

[ottermax]

I have seen a lot of dislike toward Clinton in the forum, but I don't think she is that bad. I think a lot of people want a better candidate, but we aren't going to get a "best" candidate. Richardson is the best in my opinion. He is moderate, he is a governor, and he is experienced. The places where Obama, Clinton, and Edwards lack are fulfilled by Richardson (although his Hispanic heritage may hurt him, no wonder he isn't doing well in Iowa).

[Jake]

I am NOT voting for her because she is too tied into the corporate establishment and I don't believe she will bring abour real change in this country.

Define "too tied". Have Obama and Edwards accepted donations from big shots like Clinton has? Yes, duh.

[Snowguy716]

I don't hate Hillary Clinton.  I won't support her in the primaries because I like other candidates better.  I was supporting Richardson, but now I'm swaying towards Obama.

If Hillary wins the nomination, I will proudly cast my vote for her.

[Lief]

She's a corporate, right-wing warmonger who has some insane crusade against video games and flag burning. She's a continuation of the DLC/New Democrat thinking that's led us to defeat since the 90s. She does nothing to grow the party and differentiate it in the eyes of Americans, when we have a huge, huge chance to turn this into a realigning election.

[Thanks for all the fish!]

In addition to being a typical corrupt and calculating politician, she's made it personal:

Exhibit A: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/05/15/politics/main1618081.shtml--Clinton says that college students 'think work is a four-letter word.'
Exhibit B: http://desmoinesregister.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071203/NEWS/71203018/-1/politics

In a jab at Obama’s efforts to encourage out-of-state students who attend college in Iowa to caucus, Clinton said the caucuses are only for people who live in this state.

“This is a process for Iowans. This needs to be all about Iowa, and people who live here, people who pay taxes here,” she told the Clear Lake crowd.

Apparently, she doesn't want the younger generation's vote. It's a damn shame she can win without it.

[Ebowed]

Hillary Clinton will be an extension of the Presidency of George W. Bush.

[ThePrezMex]

She's a corporate, right-wing warmonger who has some insane crusade against video games and flag burning. She's a continuation of the DLC/New Democrat thinking that's led us to defeat since the 90s. She does nothing to grow the party and differentiate it in the eyes of Americans, when we have a huge, huge chance to turn this into a realigning election.

With due respect, this does not make any sense. It was the DLC which brought the Democratic Party back from defeat in 92 and 96. And Gore became a populist left winger again in 2000 and... lost. In 2004 the primaries were dominated by Howard Dean's left wing rhetoric and the Dems... lost again.
Most moderates would never vote for the old labor union dominated, naively pacifist democratic party.

[So the Heroes Fall]

1-She's the most right wing candidate.
2-She's the least electable.

She just sucks. No reason whatsoever to nominate her, so f**k her.

[ottermax]

I don't hate Hillary Clinton.  I won't support her in the primaries because I like other candidates better.  I was supporting Richardson, but now I'm swaying towards Obama.

If Hillary wins the nomination, I will proudly cast my vote for her.

Wow, that is exactly my train of thought entirely.