Hatred of Clinton among forum democrats

[Reignman]

Most $$$ of any candidate from the defense and health care industries. That's an easy one.

[Jake]

Most $$$ of any candidate from the defense and health care industries. That's an easy one.

Can I see the list?

[Harry]

I'll obviously vote for her should she receive the nomination, but I did NOT appreciate her hateful bigoted comments about Mississippians.

[Lіef]

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.

Bill Clinton won because he was charismatic and the media loved him. The opposite was true of his Republican opponents. Despite this, we was never able to claim a majority of the popular vote. "Centrism", which really means becoming Republican lites is the reason we lost and were unable to recapture Congress in the 90s and 00s. Al Gore lost because he ran as a centrist, refusing to touch the bread and butter issues the Democratic party wins on. The idea that he was a populist or left-wing is ridiculous. He played the safest campaign possible, refusing to take strong stands on any issues, and he lost an election he should have won because of it. Same with Kerry. Americans hate the Republican party, but are wary of committing to the Democrats because we've been spineless and cowardly, quickly abandoning the beliefs central to our party, to claim an imaginary, conservative-skewed center.

[Ogre Mage]

I like Hillary Clinton and think she would make a fine President.  However, I like Barack Obama as well which is why I am agnostic in the Democratic Presidential Primary.

I believe Clinton will make a genuine attempt to reform the health care and energy sectors of our economy.  These are areas which badly need reform and I think she has some good ideas about how to get us there.  People criticize her as a D.C. insider but I suspect after all this time she would be able to guide such legislation through the Congress with a high amount of skill and a realistic view of what can be accomplished.  Her first attempt at health care reform taught her the limits of Presidential power and she won't make the same mistakes again.  I think Obama has some good ideas in these areas as well, but I am less certain of his ability to get the legislation through Congress, since he doesn't know the body as well.  However, I think he would make a better attempt at ethics reform than Clinton.

Her many years in national politics also has acquainted Clinton with many international leaders.  Cultivating these relationships is crucial and takes time to build -- and Hillary already has a head start.  I think she would be able to extract more cooperation and generate more goodwill, especially with Bill in roving ambassador mode.  But she certainly would not be some pushover.

Saying that Hillary would be an extension of Bush is nonsense.  Would Rodham Clinton have appointed John Roberts and Sam Alito to the Supreme Court?  Will her future picks be in that mold?

[Secretary Polnut]

I think the reaction to Hillary is irrational and over-filled with venom.

To suggest that Hillary would be a continuation of Bush or a Republican would be preferable is complete and utter nonesense.

[Alaska Thunderfvck]

Theres nothing really special I find about her, shes just there and running for President. I just have more confidence in other candidates than her.

[© Tweed the Younger]

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

perfectly stated.  I actually believe that her presidency would be the most similar to Bush's of any candidate currently in either party's field.

[HappyWarrior]

Plus theres the fact that we would just be rerunning John Kerry, an unelectable partisan hack.

[TheresNoMoney]

Bill Clinton won because he was charismatic and the media loved him. The opposite was true of his Republican opponents. Despite this, we was never able to claim a majority of the popular vote. "Centrism", which really means becoming Republican lites is the reason we lost and were unable to recapture Congress in the 90s and 00s.

Perfectly stated, yet many people still try to deny this. The DLC/"Centrism" damn near ruined the Democratic party for 10+ years and it is only because of the Howard Dean campaign that we have started to recover and prosper.

Yes, Bill Clinton won two terms are president but he did nothing to build the long-term prospects of the party.

[opebo]

right-wing hack

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Beautifully said, BT, but on the other hand, when have we ever had a president who was not a right-wing hack?  I think it is reasonable to consider that a prerequisite.

[jokerman]

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

perfectly stated.  I actually believe that her presidency would be the most similar to Bush's of any candidate currently in either party's field.

Ahh yes, this is the sentiment that I was most concerned about when posting this thread.

Really, how are your values are in line with the Democratic Party if you can make this statement?

[Verily]

Clinton is a continuation of politics as usual in the United States. So are most of the Republican candidates (Paul I will grant an exception for), and a goodly number of the other Democrats, but she embodies what is wrong with American politics more than any other Democratic candidate and possibly more than any other candidate, full stop. She is unscrupulous, changes her stances routinely to win elections, abets lobbyist groups that exert undue influence on our government and uses dirty campaign tactics.

I don't think she would necessarily be a bad President, but I really, really don't want to vote for the continued downward spiral.

[gorkay]

None of the negative attributes that have been cited about Clinton are exclusive to her, but are qualities that most politicians possess. I honestly think, therefore, that some of the negative opinion about her has to do with sexism. Not that she's above criticism or that some of the objections raised to her aren't valid; but when I hear or read people say that they don't like her because she's "ambitious," or "unscrupulous," or "tries to please everybody," it makes me wonder, since you could say this about most politicians.

I don't think people should be scared away by her high negative ratings. One reason she has higher ones than the other candidates is that she's better known than the others. She also has high positives, for the same reason. A lot of winning candidates in the past have had high negatives as well.

[jokerman]

Clinton is continuation of politics as usual?  Look at her plans; she has some really good ideas.  And I'd rather have a President who can master the establishment than one (Obama) who could be potentially swamped and overcome by it.

[Padfoot]

My opinion of Hillary is fairly neutral.  I don't hate her but I don't particularly like her either.  The one thing about Clinton that really bothers me personally is that she doesn't seem to have any conviction that is her own.  Almost all politicians, even the dirtiest ones, have at least one issue that you can tell they would never compromise their convictions on.  Although he is much reviled for it, Joe Lieberman has chosen to stand by his support of the Iraq war.  I disagree with him immensely but I also have a certain degree of respect for him because he has chosen to take a difficult road in order to stand up for what he believes in.  I can't see Hillary doing that for anything.

The thing that I think really bothers people is the nepotism that seems to have settled over the White House.  Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton?  Really?  I think people are just sick of hearing about both of them.  That's where I think you get the "continuation of Bush" arguments as well.  We'd be looking at the same people and issues we have been for the last 16 years.  People want something fresh.

[Verily]

Clinton is continuation of politics as usual?  Look at her plans; she has some really good ideas.  And I'd rather have a President who can master the establishment than one (Obama) who could be potentially swamped and overcome by it.

Does she? Mandatory health insurance is not a good idea, it's a horrible waste of money. (Unfortunately, no one is actually bold enough to stand up for universal health care.) Otherwise, what plans does she have? She certainly hasn't been outlining them.

Clinton won;t "master" the establishment, she'll be a part of it. And, frankly, that's worse than being dragged down by it (which I don't agree with anyway; we've seen in the campaign that Obama is perfectly capable of dealing with ratty establishment politicians like Edwards and Clinton herself, though I had the same reservations back in the spring).

[Ogre Mage]

Does she? Mandatory health insurance is not a good idea, it's a horrible waste of money. (Unfortunately, no one is actually bold enough to stand up for universal health care.) .

 
There are many, many people who would disagree with you on this.  We are already wasting money under the current free market system, spending twice as much per capita on health care than Canada and most western European nations for health outcomes which are no better and possibly worse.  And what do you suppose happens when people without health coverage wind up in the emergency room?  Who has to bear the burden of those costs? 

[Verily]

Does she? Mandatory health insurance is not a good idea, it's a horrible waste of money. (Unfortunately, no one is actually bold enough to stand up for universal health care.) .

 
There are many, many people who would disagree with you on this.  We are already wasting money under the current free market system, spending twice as much per capita on health care than Canada and most western European nations for health outcomes which are no better and possibly worse.

Mandatory health insurances makes that waste of money worse. It doesn't eliminate any of the waste associated with the current optional health insurance system.

The problem is that Americans generally, and American leftists and others sympathetic to universal health care specifically, don't understand that mandatory health insurance is not universal health care but rather basically a reincarnation of the current system without eliminating any of the inefficiencies; all it does is require everyone to have insurance. That's certainly not what the much-lauded system in Germany does, but, happy joy, Clinton will save us all.

[Ogre Mage]

Does she? Mandatory health insurance is not a good idea, it's a horrible waste of money. (Unfortunately, no one is actually bold enough to stand up for universal health care.) .

 
There are many, many people who would disagree with you on this.  We are already wasting money under the current free market system, spending twice as much per capita on health care than Canada and most western European nations for health outcomes which are no better and possibly worse.

Mandatory health insurances makes that waste of money worse. It doesn't eliminate any of the waste associated with the current optional health insurance system.

The problem is that Americans generally, and American leftists and others sympathetic to universal health care specifically, don't understand that mandatory health insurance is not universal health care but rather basically a reincarnation of the current system without eliminating any of the inefficiencies; all it does is require everyone to have insurance. That's certainly not what the much-lauded system in Germany does, but, happy joy, Clinton will save us all.

So I take it you support single-payer?  Because that WOULD eliminate many of the inefficiencies in the current health insurance system.  However, I think there is recognition that that a Medicare For All Program is probably not politically feasible at this time.  Until we can work up the energy to get there we have to do something.  I think a mandate can be part of a patch in a larger framework -- such as providing financial support for low-income people, creating a public program into which anyone can enroll, disallowing health insurance companies to turn people away for preexisting conditions and an emphasis on care for chronic conditions.  We need to avoid the emergency room scenario I described earlier which is where a large portion of our health care costs are incurred.

And Germany DOES require its citizens to join a sickness fund, but those who earn more than the periodically advised income ceiling a year are exempted.  Currently I believe the ceiling is $60,000.