When I was younger I bought into a lot of Noise Machine lies about Democrats, even though I still voted for them. I think this goes for a lot of other Democrats as well. In particular, I am thinking of Hillary Clinton hatred among the netroots. Sometimes I wonder who hates Hillary Clinton more, wingnuts or blogosphere commenters:
Today, the following rumor surfaced:
"You don't have to take it from us about Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton 's desire to run for president," says
Washington Whispers. "Her brothers, Hugh and Tony Rodham, say it's true. Friends tell us that the two are cheering Sis on and say she's making all the moves to get ready for the race -- presuming she is re-elected by New Yorkers in 2006."
Now, just watch the heads explode
over at dailykos.
First, diarist GregNYC writes (linked above):
She's got loads of negatives.
Actually,
her favorable / unfavorble ratio is not that bad at all, and has even been improving recently. Certainly, her ratio is better than
Kerry's, and
comparable to Edwards's. In fact, she has as good or better favorable ratio as any Democrat eligible to run for President.
Next, HowardBeade:
To put it into perspective, Hillary has a lot in common with Nader, in that they are both %100 UNELECTABLE.
Since when?
An Opinion Dynamics poll in December showed her with a clear lead on Bill Frist, who is probably the Republican frontrunner, and a double-digit lead on Jeb Bush. I like any Democrat who has a double-digit lead on a Bush.
A Q-poll from December showed her losing to Guliani by only 45-43. All polling shows her getting crushed by McCain, but that goes for any Democrat. Clearly, she fares very well in head-to-head matchups with every other well-known Republican.
Jen Atlanta writes:
It's the right blogosphere that wants her to run.
If that is true, then this information
from the Q-poll is difficult to decipher:
Would you like Hillary Rodham Clinton to run for President in 2008 or not?
Rep Dem
Yes 18 67
No 75 28
Paleo writes:
The thought of Clinton running and winning the nomination brings smiles to the faces of every Republican. She can't win. Plus, I wouldn't support her even if she could. The last thing we need is a reprise of the DLC/"third way" 90s, which led to us becoming the minority party.
While I never liked the way in which Clinton's trade and other policies worked against labor and working people,
Hillary's voting record is very progressive. In fact,
she ranks eighth among all Senators according to Progressive Punch, including 1st among "Health Care," "Housing" and "Corporate Subsidies." She ranks second on "Government Checks on Corporate Power," and third on "Aid to Less Advantaged People at Home and Abroad." She is tied for eighth on "Labor Rights." This is not the voting record of a corporate tool--it is the voting record of one of the greatest opponents of corporate power we have. The only area where she clearly strikes out on being a progressive is "War and Peace," which admittedly is a top issue for many these days. In her overall rankings, she is ranked as more progressive than liberal icons such as Frank Lautenberg, Tom Harkin, Charles Schumer, Patty Murray, Patrick Leahy, Barbara Milkulski, and, yes, Russ Feingold, who actually ranks behind everyone listed here.
jiacinto writes:
1) Too many people hate her:
While Hilary has a lot of supporters there are also many people who don't like her. She is a polarizing influence. At the outset a good 40-45% of the electorate WILL not vote for her under ANY circumstances.
2) She would motivate the GOP like no one else:
She would motivate the far right. They would be super-motivated to come out and vote against her in droves. She brings lots of negatives and there are people who still want to take her down electorally.
3) She represents the past/her husband's adminsistration:
Rightly or wrongly any race with her in it would bring back the issues of her husband's administration. Whitewater, Lewisnky, Travelgate, and anythingelsegate would be the issue of the campaign. They would attack her for her role in the health care debacle.
4) She would lose all the red states:
She would not win one red state. She would hold onto the states Kerry and Gore both won, but she would not be able to win one red state. She would not sell in that part of the country and not get the electoral votes to win.
Oookkayyy:
- 1. Polarizing figures have done horribly in recent Presidential elections. Just horrible.
- 2. Since when has the blogosphere become afraid of pissing off Republicans? And to think we criticize Democrats for not fighting hard enough.
- 3. Yeah, those Clinton years sucked. And he wasn't popular at all during them.
- 4. We know this based on what? Her leads in the polls? Her husband's success in the red states?
So to summarize, I'd like it if we stopped swallowing right wing lies about Hillary Clinton, including:
- Everyone hates her.
- She is unelectable.
- Republicans want her to run; Democrats don't.
- She is not a progressive.
- People did not like the Clinton years
And I would also like it if we stopped being so hypocritical about demanding that our leadership fight hard against Republicans but grow squeamish at the thought of their most hated figure being our standard bearer. Quite frankly, I really like anyone who can piss off Republicans as much as Hillary does.
Now, I have big personal plans for the 2008 Presidential race. In particular, I would like to hold a certain Mathew Gross-esque position for the candidate I decide upon. I have not decided whom I want to work for yet, although I am nearly certain that I do not want it to be Hillary. However, that does not mean that I can stomach it when the netroots swallows Limbaugh-esque lies about her. It has to stop. I for one refuse to carry water on behalf of the Noise Machine.
