Beltway Dem for Hillary Clinton

I am new here at MyDD, and I thought I would take an opportunity to let people know that I am here in support for Hillary Clinton for the Democratic nomination and for the presidency.   I think Hillary represents the most credible candidate for the Democratic nomination, and a large plurality of national Democrats in poll after poll, month after month, and yes, year after year, consistently have expressed their hope she will be the nominee of our party. Let me explain the three broad reasons why I am for Hillary.

First, there is a simple moral argument, and I think it is hard to dismiss. Hillary is the first Democratic woman, the first woman of any political inclination, who has a credible chance to be president of the United States. Since my earliest political awareness as a young boy in the mid-1960s, I have been keenly aware of the injustice of a male-dominated presidency and have wanted to see a woman be president of the United States. Hillary's election will be a powerful statement by the people of the United States about the real qualifications for the presidency, that is, a combination of experience, toughness, and intelligence, something that has nothing to do with gender. Slightly more than half of all Americans have never had a member of their sex as the leader of the country, and it is well past time that this historic wrong be righted. It may be long years again before we have another chance if we fail this time. I think we have an unprecedented opportunity to transform American culture through her election.

Second, there is the argument of her experience in facing the Republicans. Her encounters with them have prepared her for the campaign and the presidency in a way I believe no other candidate is prepared. Over the last 15 years, the right has pawed at her incessantly, spending millions of dollars of public funds to uncover any kind of mud to throw at her. We can be confident that Hillary has a clean bill of health. After these years of investigation, there will be no surprises. We know the whole story. Moreover, we have someone who understands the way the Republicans work, and I believe that she will be quick on her feet and precise in her responses.

Third, she is, I believe, much more experienced at the working of policy and government than either of her two main competitors. As a public servant, as the wife of a governor and a president who was deeply involved in his administrations, as a lawyer and activist, and as a United States Senator, she already has had an opportunity to see firsthand and up-close what it means to serve the interests of the people and govern the country. There is no contender for the presidency, either among the Democrats or the Republicans, who will require less on-the-job training than Hillary Clinton. After the disaster we have been witnessing these last nearly seven years, we need someone who can get to work fixing the country from her first day in office.

When we have a woman who is the best qualified candidate for the nomination, it is a great day for America and a great day for the Democratic Party.  We are about to start the important work of selecting a president.  The hour is here.  Won't you join me in making history?

Tags: 2008 elections, Hillary Clinton, president (all tags)

Comments

80 Comments

Beautiful diary.

For me, it's a no brainer.  Hillary is the toal package.  

by masslib1 2007-12-29 03:33PM | 0 recs
Re: Beautiful diary.

Thanks, masslib1.  I don't even know why there's a question.

by Beltway Dem 2007-12-29 03:34PM | 0 recs
Well, I had questions...

Because I had bought into all the crap that the Hate Hillary crowd has been throwing at her for 15 years. But over the last couple months, I've really been rediscovering Hillary Clinton. When Obama let me down with his constant capitulation to the right, and when Al Gore decided not to run, I didn't know who I'd support. But when folks like you and alegre and masslib1 wrote all these great things about Hillary... AND BACKED THEM UP WITH FACTS... I just had to rethink... And I had to go with the one true agent of change who will make us all proud. That's why I'm so excited to say now that I'll be voting for Hillary, and that I'll keep doing what I've been doing for the past month or so in promoting her online and offline.

Thanks so much for this diary, and for giving me reason to be excited about the election! :-)

by atdleft 2007-12-29 03:43PM | 0 recs
Re: Well, I had questions...

Wow, ATD. That's exactly like the process I went through last year.  Can't remember what precipitated it but, one day, I simply asked myself why I nodded when others said they hate Hillary.  It was then that I realized I'd been unconsciously absorbing the rightwing nastiness against her and that, in fact, I truly admired her.  It's been a great process, if humbling for me personally -- in that it was hard to admit I could be influenced by the 'wingers without knowing it consciously.

And, this is a great diary!  Thanks, Beltway!

by susanhu 2007-12-29 03:53PM | 0 recs
Last January, after she announced,

I thought to myself, "Wow.  A woman president.  This is really possible.  Wow.  Here is someone who is qualified and in position to be the first woman president.  Wow."

by Beltway Dem 2007-12-29 04:03PM | 0 recs
I know, isn't it weird?

I had thought that I shouldn't support Hillary because "progressives just shouldn't"... But a few months ago, I realized that Hillary is the strongest progressive running. I realized her positions on the issues weren't all that far from mine, and that she has been holding true to the same values for over 35 years. Once I finally looked beyond the right-wing smears on her and the silly "progressives shouldn't support her" argument, I saw a kind, beautiful, compassionate person who would a truly great President. I'm just so glad that I found folks like you and alegre and masslib and Beltway Dem when I did, and I thank all of you for helping me see the real truth about Hillary. :-)

by atdleft 2007-12-29 04:05PM | 0 recs
Re: I know, isn't it weird?

please, please, do research on nafta (and now the US-peru fta) and tell me if it was "progressive".

by liberalminded 2007-12-30 07:37PM | 0 recs
Re: Well, I had questions...

That makes three of us!  I was an Obama supporter until I decided to take a closer look at Hillary's background.  I was impressed by her intelligence, her sensitivity and dedication, and by the hard work she's done over the years for the Children's Defense Fund and the Arkansas Advocates for Children and Families. I like what this woman stands for, and that's why I now support her.

by izarradar 2007-12-29 04:29PM | 0 recs
Re: Beautiful diary.

Oh, just masslib.  I had to add the one becuase they wouldn't let me reg under masslib. :)

by masslib1 2007-12-29 04:53PM | 0 recs
Re: Beautiful diary.

Many folks think that botching the biggest issue of our generation doesn't merit a promotion...

by mcdave 2007-12-29 07:38PM | 0 recs
those of us

who opposed the war from the start are not in the majority.  

by Beltway Dem 2007-12-29 11:23PM | 0 recs
Re: those of us

The majority of us dont run for President either. Plus she took longer than all of the other candidates to offer some kind of opposition to the war. So it wasn't just the initial vote.

She looks very earnest on a lot of issues and will definitely be an upgrade over the republicans. But she is surrounded by a lot of people who are the establishment. She tried to reform education in Arkansas  but couldnt convince the teachers union over there to implement all her reforms. If she could just express how she intends to learn from those mistakes, I might feel better about her potential.

Unless she shows she has the courage not to  sign up for idiotic wars just to prove her toughness as a woman, I can't say how one can say with confidence she can change things.

I just find it unforgivable that she let so many people die without feeling the need to express her opposition to the iraq war for so many years even after it became obvious to even some republicans. She put politics over peoples lives. That is a failure of moral character in my book.

by Pravin 2007-12-30 01:30AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama hasn't opposed the war at all

Well, I expressed my opposition to the war beginning in 2002, by traveling to DC 3 different times, in 2002, in 2003, and in 2006 to march in protest against it. But, here's what Obama has done--nothing. He hasn't blocked funding for it. What has he done except try to exploit the fact that he wasn't in the Senate, so he didn't have to make the hard decision in the climate after 9/11? For him to trade on that now, is really smarmy, in my view. And, he has even tried to walk the fence on it more than once!

Eriposte pretty much says it all about Obama's record on his "opposition" to the war:

Obama "didn't just make the "I don't know how I would've voted in 2002 if I'd been in the Senate" statement once.  

And he was still making it in late 2006.  Speaking to David Remnick (The New Yorker, November 2006), he was asked about differences between himself and Hillary Clinton.  He responded:

"I think what people might point to is our different assessments of the war in Iraq, although I'm always careful to say that I was not in the Senate, so perhaps the reason I thought it was such a bad idea was that I didn't have the benefit of U.S. intelligence.  And, for those who did, it might have led to a different set of choices.  So that might be something that sort of is obvious.  But, again, we were in different circumstances at that time: I was running for the U.S. Senate, she had to take a vote, and casting votes is always a difficult test."

The conversation with Remnick is also available as an audio download.  Casting a vote can be 'difficult.'  

Well, obviously, it has been particularly difficult for Barack Obama, as Eriposte points out:

"Chicago's WBEZ reported (link has text and audio) last week that Obama "missed more than 160 votes on the Senate floor" as a result of "campaigning" and that "Obama's missed more than a third of the Senate's votes this year, about the same tally as two other senators running for the president: Joe Biden and Chris Dodd.  

"Hillary Clinton has missed significantly fewer votes than Obama, while Republican John McCain has missed far more."  

"Bernie Tafoya (WBBM) narrowed it down, "During September and October, Senator Obama missed 71 -- or nearly 80 percent -- of the 89 votes that have taken place in the Senate."  That included the Iran resolution, the one Bambi wants to hiss, "Bad Hillary!  You voted for it!"  But he was a member of the Senate and he knew about the vote and chose not to show up.  

"He says Iran says something about Hillary Clinton.  

"It says a great deal about him: He didn't vote one way or the other.  Is that what he would have done in 2002?  Ducked the vote?"

http://www.theleftcoaster.com/archives/0 11607.php

by Tennessean 2007-12-30 05:21AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama hasn't opposed the war at all

That's a juvenile response.

by BingoL 2007-12-30 01:32PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama hasn't opposed the war at all

Obama is not off the hook either. But like I said, it is not just about the vote, but Hillary's belated course correction on the Iraq war stance. She took way too long to acknowledge enough about the fallacy of the war.

by Pravin 2007-12-30 04:20PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama hasn't opposed the war at all

it is remarkably nihilistic and close minded to defend your candidate by saying that the other candidate does it too.

by liberalminded 2007-12-30 07:38PM | 0 recs
Re: Beautiful diary.

Is that the health care botch in the 90s or the war botch in 2003?

by howardpark 2007-12-30 05:54AM | 0 recs
Re: Get your facts straight, howardpark

Let's not dissemble on who killed that health care proposal in 1993: The GOP. Clinton learned from that experience, and she won't make the same mistake again.

Take Barack Obama for instance: He hadn't even come up with a health care proposal as late as March, 2007. And, on the war, he's dissembled so much, even HE doesn't know what he thinks about it. Moreover, his record of voting in the Senate is strong evidence that he would have just SKIPPED the vote on the AUMF in 2002; and he hasn't cast any votes against funding the war since.

http://www.theleftcoaster.com/archives/0 11607.php

http://www.taylormarsh.com/archives_view .php?id=25329

Who Killed Clinton Care?

http://www.prospect.org/csnc/blogs/ezrak lein_archive?month=07&year=2005& base_name=who_killed_clinton_care

The Timeline of the Health Care Debate in '90s

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/forum/may96/ background/health_debate_page1.html

by Tennessean 2007-12-30 06:14AM | 0 recs
Re: Get your facts straight, howardpark

The Democrats controlled both houses of Congress and the White House in 1993 & 1994 while the Clinton Health Care proposal, upon which he had run on, was botched.

by howardpark 2007-12-30 07:37AM | 0 recs
Again, get your facts straight...

There were still plenty of "conservative Democrats" in Congress in 1993 saying that "Clinton-care" was too "big government", and there were plenty of "progressive Democrats" opposed to anything that wasn't single-payer. The Democrats were split on health care, and that made Bill & Hillary's job tough in trying to craft a proposal to just bring the party together. Oh yes, and let's also remember that Richard Mellon Scaife had begun his "Arkansas Project" then, trying to create faux scandals like Whitewater and Travelgate and the Rose Law Firm "scandals" to derail the Administration. If President Harkin or Tsongas had all of these problems to deal with, he probably wouldn't have been able to make progress on health care either.

But now that Hillary's learned the lessons from the past, she knows what it takes to make UHC happen... That's why I support her now.

by atdleft 2007-12-30 08:06AM | 0 recs
Re: Hey I just registered too.

because your diary was sooooo great I just had to register and recommend it.  I think it worked properly--but it works a bit differently from DKOS.

Gooooooo Hilllary!!

by Norwegian Chef 2007-12-29 04:08PM | 0 recs
I am watching a special

right now on Australia.  "It has one of the world's most urban populations, but it hugs the coast," they just said.

by Beltway Dem 2007-12-29 04:11PM | 0 recs
Welcome, Chef!

It's so great to see you here at MyDD as well. I'm sure we'll all have plenty of fun here. Oh yes... And go Hill! :-)

by atdleft 2007-12-29 04:24PM | 0 recs
Hi Chef. Please post some pics

from your recent adventures when you have a chance.

by masslib1 2007-12-29 04:55PM | 0 recs
Re: Beltway Dem for Hillary Clinton

Agreed on all counts! Thanks for this diary!

by domma 2007-12-29 04:12PM | 0 recs
Re: Beltway Dem for Hillary Clinton

When we have a woman who is the best qualified candidate for the nomination, it is a great day for America and a great day for the Democratic Party.

It is time to make [b]her[/b]tory

by NewHampster 2007-12-29 04:34PM | 0 recs
Re: Beltway Dem for Hillary Clinton

damn codes.

HERSTORY

by NewHampster 2007-12-29 04:35PM | 0 recs
Re: Beltway Dem for Hillary Clinton

you need to use these <>

herstory

by MollieBradford 2007-12-29 05:26PM | 0 recs
Re: Beltway Dem for Hillary Clinton

The reasons you list are all valid.  The first woman president, she can handle the Republicans, and she also has experience that is invaluable, from the Senate, White House and gubernatorial level.   But, to me, her biggest appeal is on the issues:  I like her health care proposal and trust that she will be able to deliver on it.  I trust her on her education proposals, she will be fighting for major improvements.   She just impresses me as someone who will do the right thing for the economy, on and on.    I feel that for the first time in a very long time we have a candidate who combines the best of all worlds, and someone who people trust on the issues important to them.  No way will we squander that opportunity.

by georgep 2007-12-29 04:41PM | 0 recs
Re: Beltway Dem for Hillary Clinton

like pavlov's puppy - expect this myth to be repeated by this hillary hater whenever anything good is ever said about any clinton.

me thinks she has issues with good ol bill that have more to say about her life -

than hillary's.

by Seymour Glass 2007-12-29 05:13PM | 0 recs
Re: Gee, I Don't Know About That, rssrai

How did Hillary Clinton manage to win nearly every district in New York, including upstate conservative districts with huge positives, including military voters, for her second run as a Senator?

Must have been those negatives that kept her from winning a second term as Senator, huh?

They said she couldn't win a first term as Senator. She did. They said she couldn't win again in upstate new york, in conservative districts. She did. They said her negatives were too high. She has a high popularity rating.

Could you please try to come up with something original? This one is just SO tired...so stupid. So patently false.

by Tennessean 2007-12-30 04:44AM | 0 recs
Re: Beltway Dem for Hillary Clinton

Great diary!!!!  

by Mike Pridmore 2007-12-29 05:01PM | 0 recs
Re: Beltway Dem for Hillary Clinton

I've often felt like there was this cool kids mindset working against Hillary.  In addition to any legitimate differences with her on the issues, I feel like in order to maintain their "progressives street creds" bloggers for the most part seem afraid to be seen supporting the "establishment" candidate.  IMO, the poster child for an establishment candidate is Edwards, sans new populist rhetoric. A female presidential candidate, especially one named HILLARY CLINTON, is anything but what the establishment wanted.  The early jibber/jabber by most of the Dem establishment, which was muffled only by her early lead in the national polls, was that she couldn't win.  I use the word muffled, because they certainly have not been silenced (just listen to Dodd), but she keeps on going, convincing one voter at a time.   I truly think she has  roadmap of where she wants her Presidency to go from day one and I hope she WINS, so she can take us forward as a country.

by Kingstongirl 2007-12-29 05:57PM | 0 recs
Re: Beltway Dem for Hillary Clinton

Part of being good liberals is that no one is ever pure enough for us.

That's why we are always demanding new faces, because anyone who has been on the scene for a while has inevitably disappointed us.

by Steve M 2007-12-30 12:32AM | 0 recs
But they get rehabilitated as well.

I remember when Al Gore was THE nasty evil awful DLC Establishment candidate, in bed with every lobby and corporation there was.  No way in hell was Al Gore anything even resembling a progressive.  

Except now he is....

by WMCB 2007-12-30 07:20PM | 0 recs
Re: But they get rehabilitated as well.

You'd think that after burning one person as a witch, only to find out later that they were innocent, you'd think twice about burning the next person as a witch.  Yet liberals are replaying the same script from 2000 with no reservations whatsoever.

by Steve M 2007-12-30 11:47PM | 0 recs
Hillary is a witch !!!???

are you saying Hillary is a witch!!!

how dare you!!

by testing22 2007-12-31 12:39AM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary is a witch !!!???

Your act is already tiresome.

by Steve M 2007-12-31 05:43AM | 0 recs
Re: Beltway Dem for Hillary Clinton

welcome beltway dem! Im with u on hillary as well

by art3 2007-12-29 06:21PM | 0 recs
Re: Beltway Dem for Hillary Clinton

Surprised you don't see the irony in a diary entitled "Beltway Dem for Hillary Clinton." It kind of sums all of the arguments against her in one short sentence.

by dmc2 2007-12-29 06:30PM | 0 recs
It's a geographic designation

I live and work in Washington, D.C. as a researcher for a private company interested in preventive health communication.  Thanks for coming to my diary.

by Beltway Dem 2007-12-29 11:27PM | 0 recs
Re: The Irony's on You, dmc2

Candidates every election say that they're going to change the climate in DC, and then they get there, they find that the governance of this country means they have to actually ENGAGE with people to run the country--in Washington DC!  

I can't believe that anyone buys that old canard anymore, certainly it's the oldest political chestnut around. Yet naive voters buy it every time. Clearly you have bought it, too, as if having experience governing in Washington DC is a negative.

You can't govern this country without being in Washington DC. You can't govern this country without engaging in politics within Washington DC. You can't represent this country unless you know how to operate within the governing bodies of this country within Washington DC.

Or did you think the next president was going to live in St. Louis and run the country from his sprawling manse on the banks of the mississippi?

So, here you are, thinking you're so clever, trying to assert that the oldest political chestnut in the world, is a reason to discredit a DEMOCRATIC candidate.

Did you believe that old chestnut, when G.W. Bush told you in 2000, that he was going to change the climate in the beltway, because being a beltway dem was a bad thing?! You didn't believe him then; so why do you argue now that it's relevant?!

Don't you GET the IRONY of you asserting GOP talking points to attack a democratic candidate?

by Tennessean 2007-12-30 04:37AM | 0 recs
Re: The Irony's on You, dmc2

I don't give a chit about Republican talking points. I know that there is a mentality that tends to affect people once they spend a certain number of years "inside the Beltway." It's kind of a "can't see the forest through the trees" syndrome.

But the irony of "Beltway Dem for Hillary Clinton" is not there whatever you feel about the value of insider experience. Hillary is pejoratively called the candidate of the Washington establishment, the lobbyists, the PAC's, the Democratic Party national big wigs, national union leaders, etc., i.e. the Beltway Democrats.

There's not necessarily anything wrong with that per se, as you note, but it is the narrative that Edwards and Obama are using against her and so I find it ironic that one of her supporters would use the term to describe themselves.

by dmc2 2007-12-30 09:08AM | 0 recs
Re: Beltway Dem for Hillary Clinton

Huge Hillary supporter here.  Thanks for the diary Beltway Dem.

by samueldem 2007-12-29 07:19PM | 0 recs
Re: Beltway Dem for Hillary Clinton

Hillary's the best candidate running for President today.  She's got it all.  

God speed that woman into the Oval Office.

by AUD 2007-12-29 07:23PM | 0 recs
Why you are wrong

1. Hillary is, contrary to your first suggestion, probably the weakest of the top 3 dem candidates. She is the only candidate that starts off with literally half of the country totally unwilling to vote for her. Also, she probably turns off more voters from within the Demooratic party itself than Obama or Edwards.

2. Why is it a positive that she has had so many issues in her past that the Right could take advantage of in the press? Obama/Edwards do not have nearly the same number of political liabilities as Hillary. The fact that you and your husband have opened yourself up to attacks from the Right, should not justify a reputation that you are somehow better equipped to be president. Why not go with the candidates that simply won't have to waste as much time/energy in defending from personal attacks? Hillary's people have been digging in Obama's background and all they've found is a couple of kindgeraten essays.

3. I admit that she has been in politics longer, but why is that such an advantage? By your measurement, we should be supporting Biden or maybe Dodd - they've been in DC for 30+ years. Is it more important to have been in politics for a long time, or that you can point to instances during which you showed presidential judgment/mettle?  

by highgrade 2007-12-29 08:04PM | 0 recs
You can't

isolate points from each other.  This is a composite of strengths.  By the way, I find it peculiar that you say Hillary is the weakest among the candidates when the other candidates no where near match her appeal to the Democratic base (this appeal is real; it is based upon a very well known history.  What is going to happen to the other candidates has the sordid material in their history becomes known through the Republican All Attack All the Time Machine?)

by Beltway Dem 2007-12-29 11:30PM | 0 recs
Re: You can't

I agree with the previous poster.  She is the weakest of the three in a general election.  First and foremost, she has these extremely high negatives that we do not see in either of the other two candidates.  This is a real and strong hatred that people are carrying, not just dislike.  I am a lifelong democrat and if she is the nominee, I do not see her as any worse than a republican.  I'll vote for a third party candidate.

For other men who are unlike myself and perhaps slightly more apathetic but democratic voting will not be inspired by her candidacy and many of those probably won't show up at the polls.  As for women, her obviously strongest element of the voting public, I think she turns off the more educated women who see through her bs.  She is similar to the John Kerry of '04 in a lot of ways.  The worst similarity being that she appears to have no real convictions and just willing to say or do anything to get elected.

by gabejack 2007-12-30 03:07AM | 0 recs
Re: Ridiculous assertions, Gabejack

Gabejack:

This morning on C-Span, Washington Journal, John Harwood who until recently was with the Wall St. Journal, said that in all of their polling, with the brief exception of one period in early spring, Hillary Clinton beat all Republican opponents in every poll they did.

I've watched the polling, and I know for a fact that Clinton beats Republican opponents in polling match-ups. Moreover, her positives will only go up in the general, just as they have in the early primaries, as more people see her and aren't misled by right-wing propaganda as you've obviously been.

So, clearly you aren't aware that Clinton beats all Republican opponents in all of the WSJ's polling, or you wouldn't be asserting such nonsense as "she's the weakest candidate" of the top tier Democrats.

As a woman, a veteran, with a post-graduate degree, who supports Hillary Clinton, I find your assertions about women voters ridiculous, too. You clearly don't know anything about Clinton's supporters, and are just regurgitating propaganda you've been fed. How sad for you that you don't have the ability to think for yourself, or won't take the time to do the research necessary to become an educated voter.

But, you just go on living life in your alternate universe, while the rest of the country moves into the future.

by Tennessean 2007-12-30 04:21AM | 0 recs
Re: Ridiculous assertions, Gabejack

who is not thinking for him or herself?  You just did the same thing that Clinton does.  you quoted a poll that has her winning against all of the republicans, but you fail to mention that the two other candidates score much better against the same republicans.  In any case, I think most would argue that such nation-wide polls are far less reliable at this point of the game than the likeability polls.

You just turned an objective post into a political cry for your candidate.  instead of going hostile and being blinded by your candidate's rhetoric, look at both sides of an argument and let the facts swirl in your mind for a little while.  The numbers suggest she is less electable than the other candidates.

by gabejack 2007-12-30 05:22AM | 0 recs
amazing
nothing you said is true.
Out of all that gibberish please just clarify one thing to help me determine if you have any point at all... what "bullshit" of Clinton's are you referring to that people supposedly see through?
by MollieBradford 2007-12-30 04:41AM | 0 recs
Re: amazing

the BS?  How about what she's saying now in Iowa?  "Be afraid, be very afraid"  you never know when the "unexpected" might happen and you need an experienced politician to keep you safe.  that's the latest bs I'm talking about, mam.  That is republican rhetoric at its very core.  if you deny that, you're lying to yourself.

by gabejack 2007-12-30 05:27AM | 0 recs
Re: amazing

Putting things in quotes that she never said?   I heard her stump speech.  She was in no way fearmongering - just pointing out the very real responsiblities of a president.

by WMCB 2007-12-30 07:25PM | 0 recs
Re: Why you are wrong

"literally half of the country totally unwilling to vote for her."

Utter nonsense.  Right-wing framing at its finest again.  

by georgep 2007-12-30 08:03AM | 0 recs
Re: Why you are wrong

Experience is important because without it you don't know what you are doing.  Obama has shown us time and time again how his lack of experience clouds his judgement.  With more experience he probably would not have committed half the gaffes and made the blunders he did.  Nationally he was extremely close at one point (within 4 points) and then he was largely dismissed instead of soaring due to a series of problems which stem from his relative lack of experience.   Look at Iowa.  9%, 8% leads have evaporated after Iowans took a closer look at him and he committed some more blunders in the closing moments.    

Experience is important.  Obama has none, and it shows in dramatic fashion time and time again.

by georgep 2007-12-30 08:09AM | 0 recs
Re: Another Dem for Hillary Clinton

I actually wasn't a Clinton supporter in the beginning of this year, though I've always respected Hillary Clinton.

But, I've been slowly but surely persuaded that Hillary Clinton IS the "change" candidate in this election. She is the candidate of "hope" for this country.

As I've read and researched her record, and her statements, and watched the other Dem candidates, I've come to believe that she is the strongest, most experienced, most qualified Democratic candidate for the general election. I still like Edwards; but I've really been increasingly disturbed by Barack Obama, who has revealed himself as quite the dissembler.

I'm suspicious of charismatic speakers who can mesmerize the masses with soaring rhetorical appeals to emotion; but who, when they had the opportunity, skipped through the ground work because they didn't feel compelled to learn anything, since they thought they knew it all. When Barack Obama had the opportunity to hold subcommittee hearings as a CHAIR of a committee which encompassed NATO, he skipped the opportunity. That says a lot about his priorities: He was too busy planning his presidential campaign to do the work of a Senator.

The truth about Hillary Clinton is that she has a clear progressive record going back 3 decades. There is no question about her progressive values.

She knows how to fight and win elections; she's won over Republican districts, military voters, and naysayers in New York, including upstate conservatives. She won all but 2 districts out of 60+ districts in NY for her last Senate race. She has high positives among her constituency. That shows she has worked to represent them; they're pleased with her.

The Military districts in her Senate constituency have given her glowing reviews, saying she was always there for them, paid attention to their needs, and delivered for them whenever they asked. She worked hard to win their respect.

As a veteran, I was around during the 90s and I know how hard it is for Clinton to win over those veterans. That she did, shows she's got a work ethic second to none. After 8 years of the lazy, entitled, petulant, spoiled bully we've endured, it's time for a mature adult, who believes in earning people's respect by working hard for it, but putting in the sweat equity to get it.

And, lastly, I'm proud to cast my first vote for a strong, progressive, woman for President; a woman with integrity, who has the experience, the intelligence, and the strength to turn this country around after 8 years of the WORST. President. EVER. I think Clinton's the real "change" candidate; the real candidate of "hope."

by Tennessean 2007-12-30 04:11AM | 0 recs
Re: Another Dem for Hillary Clinton

I think her campaign is the weakest in a general election because of her likeability numbers.  40% of the electorate say they will cast their vote just for the sake of keeping her from winning. That's a disadvantage that none of the other candidates have on either side of the aisle.  

For that reason, she has to constantly be hyper- sensitive about possibly offending the people who she needs to come out and vote and who are already not comfortable with her.  Because of that, I think her campaign is forced to be more poll-driiven than the other candidates.   It also explains why her campaign message has been modified more than any of the other candidates.  The tone of her rhetoric is also eratic, inauthentic and, often noticeably manipulative.  People who watch the campaign closely are already seeing it with the appearances she's doing in Iowa, (i.e., "get to know Hillary" or now with the "be afraid, be very afraid").

The independent voter and many democrats are going to either feel real animosity towards her for that or just not be interested enough to vote for anyone.    

by gabejack 2007-12-30 05:04AM | 0 recs
Re: How Do You Figure, Gabejack?

1. If Clinton's the 'weakest' candidate for the Democratic Party, how do you explain that she has led all other Democratic candidates by 10-20 points in EVERY national poll? Do you think those numbers just come out of thin air? Or can you explain why Democrats overwhelmingly, across the country, answer Hillary Clinton when they're asked who they'd vote for for President?

2. Every campaign is 'poll-driven'. Do you honestly think that candidates don't hire pollsters to tell them what voters think? Right now, Obama is doing robo-calling and push polling in Iowa, calling voters and telling them lies about Hillary Clinton's health care proposal. Now, why on earth would Barack Obama do such a thing if his campaign weren't "poll driven?" Moreover, when Obama was gaining in Iowa, he was posting polls on his website. Every candidate watches the polls; in fact, the polls tell the candidates what voters think. It is simply a reflection of our views--and what is wrong with listening to our views, and heeding them?! Do you actually want a candidate like G.W. Bush who is a dictator, and couldn't give a damn about what the people of this country think?! Well, then, I submit to you, that you should vote GOP.

3. This old chestnut about "negatives" is ridiculous. Clinton has very low negatives in her state of New York after being elected by voters TWICE, the second time winning nearly every district, including conservative districts. Now, what that should tell you is that these so-called "negatives" are in fact a wingnut propaganda lie. She can win. She's won already. Twice. For Senate. No one gave her any chance to win the first time; they thought she'd lose the second time. Not a chance. Clinton has a work ethic second to none. She knows how to win voters.

4. The assertion that her campaign has been modified more than most is simply a lie you've pulled out of your arse, Gabejack. There is simply NO EVIDENCE for such a ridiculous assertion. In point of fact, the candidate who's modified his position the most is Barack Obama. I dare you to inform yourself:

Eriposte pretty much says it all about Obama's record on his "opposition" to the war:

http://www.theleftcoaster.com/archives/0 11607.php

by Tennessean 2007-12-30 05:35AM | 0 recs
Re: How Do You Figure, Gabejack?

1.  those national polls do show her ahead, but i think as many others do, that it is mostly name recognition.  Bill Clinton still has a very high likeability rating.  I think when she has to start concentrating her efforts in the individual states, people are going to see that it's not Bill.  Those numbers will fall just as they have in New hampshire, Iowa, and south carolina.

2.  there is a difference between being cognizant of the polls and answering to the people as opposed to being governed by them; changing the core message of your campaign in response to them and trying to play both sides of the fence on every issue to make sure you get elected.  Such poll-driven politics tells me that she's just saying what she needs to say in order to get into office.  If she is elected, she'll be a continuation of someone fighting for the lobbyists who put her there.

3.  She won New York for two reasons.  i.  It's probably the most liberal state in the country, (therefore, a lame comparison if we're talking general election).  ii.  She beat some guy named Lazio who came into the race three months before the elction.
4.  First, she is the "inevitable one".  that didn't work in the polls after a while, so she changed to "experience".  that began to slip when she showed how inexpereinced she really is when allowed some stupid mistakes to happen in her campaign.  then she goes to "agent of change" which I think any objective listerner would find lacks logic after she goes on and on talking about having 35 years of experience in the same broken and now corrupt political system that we have today.

by gabejack 2007-12-30 06:06AM | 0 recs
Re: How Do You Figure, Gabejack?

1. First of all, here you are, repeating GOP talking points again. Hillary Clinton has NEVER argued that she was the "inevitable" winner. Not once. So, please try to stick to facts, instead of perpetuating myths and lies. She has ALWAYS argued that her experience--which is considerable, and far more than any other Democratic candidate--is what makes her more qualified. And, she has presented her record of progressive voting as evidence that she is the best representative for the Democratic Party. But, she has also worked with Republicans in the Senate and earned their respect. There is ample evidence of that broad-based respect among the entire Senate, since many of those GOP Senators have voiced it.

What "mistakes" did she make? Supporting the Democratic Governor's proposal for New York immigrants to be documented and licensed? There are many other Democratic Governors who've done the same thing: Bill Richardson for one, and he says it has been a complete success. Her statement was misrepresented by the press, which has admitted that they have been tougher on Clinton than on any other candidate.  

Your views are in the distinct minority, gabejack. Apparently, you just ingest whatever the mainstream media tells you. Others of us take the time to find out the facts.

2. New York has a history of electing Republicans for Congress and as Governor, for example, Gov. Pataki, and Sen. D'Amato. So, while as a whole, the state is considered blue, there is an entire section of upper New York State that is conservative--all of which supported Hillary Clinton. Lazlo came into the race late because Giuliani dropped out. He dropped out using prostate cancer as an excuse--because he was going to lose the campaign to Hillary Clinton.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics_of _New_York

3.Getting elected is precisely the point of the exercise. Knowing what the polls say is part of that process. It's a reflection of your ignorance that you think any candidate who looks at polls is "poll driven." I defy you to offer any evidence that there is any candidate who doesn't pay attention to polls.

by Tennessean 2007-12-30 06:43AM | 0 recs
Re: How Do You Figure, Gabejack?

1.  Is every criticism of Clinton a GOP talking point?  That's the problem with you kool-aid drinking Clinton supporters, everything is a great republican conspiracy isn't it?  If you think she wasn't pushing inevitability, you weren't paying attention.  "Turn up the heat" on republicans?  Two months before even the first vote in the primaries?  What the hell is that, if not "I'm the inevitable one?".  you didn't even address the inherently ilogical argument that she's experienced and she's also a change agent.  How do you reconcile that?  and don't use Clinton talking points.  She stole the idea from Obama because the polls told her that's what people want.  so, she tried to change herself into this "agent of change" but she did it so late in her campaign that she had to somehow incorporate her experience into the equation, and it doesn't fit!    

2.  Used cancer as an excuse?  Read that comment back to yourself and try to get a hold of yourself.

3.  I just explained the distinction of being aware of the polls and answering to the people as opposed to being governed by them as your candidate so clearly is.  

by gabejack 2007-12-30 07:00AM | 0 recs
Re: How Do You Figure, Gabejack?

The most poll-driven candidate is Obama.  He has spent the most on polling, and his handlers and Obama himself look at polls for everything they do, which is why their statements often come out bizarre and disjointed, as they look at poll movement first and foremost.

by georgep 2007-12-30 08:12AM | 0 recs
Re: How Do You Figure, Gabejack?

Tennessean did you see the headline on Drudge where her chief pollster Penn announced that she was inevitable and was going to win all the electoral votes before the second debate?

by dogman 2007-12-30 07:32PM | 0 recs
Re: How Do You Figure, Gabejack?

You can't have it both ways.  You can't say that voters know her well and despise her, then turn right around and say that her high positives are people who sort of vaguely recognize the name Clinton.  

She polls well against every Republican in the race, and that is WITH her high negatives, and before she has made her case to the country as a whole.  Her negatives will go down. The others negatives will go up.

Al Gore's numbers at one point showed 57% of the country believing he would say anything to get elected.  That changed by election day.

by WMCB 2007-12-30 07:30PM | 0 recs
Re: How Do You Figure, Gabejack?

Polls do not take into account degree of dislike or like. I think Hillary can win a GE. But don't ignore the hatred the right wingers have towards which they could use as a rallying cry for a big voter turnout on their side. Anyway, let's not get into electability argument until later in the primary. Let's judge all of them based on their own merits and use electability only if you can't decide between two candidates.

by Pravin 2007-12-30 04:24PM | 0 recs
Re: Another Dem for Hillary Clinton

"For that reason, she has to constantly be hyper- sensitive about possibly offending the people who she needs to come out and vote and who are already not comfortable with her.  Because of that, I think her campaign is forced to be more poll-driiven than the other candidates."

Now this is ironic.  You support Obama-the can't we all get along candidate, and you think Hillary is the one that is sensitive to possibly offending people?  Okay then.

by Kingstongirl 2007-12-30 09:05AM | 0 recs
Re: Another Dem for Hillary Clinton

Yes, flawed reasoning and clearly what anyone with any political acumen would consider "rich."  His own supporters claim that Obama can't make too many waves, because if the GOP hangs a bad economy around his neck, it would be poision for him as a black man, and it would take another 50 years before Americans even consider another black candidate again.   With that oft-stated position from his own supporters, who is the candidate who has to tread the lightest, can't "rock the boat," has to be the most conciliiatory?

 That is exactly what we are seeing, unfortunately:  Obama did not offer a truely Universal Health Care system, so we are starting off already way behind, and by the time he caves and compromises, we will end up with nothing.  Obama vows to "change the partisan tone of Washington," which in his case has been code for bashing Democrats as too partisan and talking Republicans up as "not the evil enemy" but also people who care for the citizens, also want what is best for people.  Code for "caving" and compromising to the right.      

by georgep 2007-12-30 09:47AM | 0 recs
Beltway Dem for Hillary Clinton

The title "belt way Dem For Hillary Clinton" is redundant.

by Andy Katz 2007-12-30 05:01AM | 0 recs
Hillary can never win

That is EXACTLY what I'm talking about - you refuse to acknowledge that all of the Dems poll better than the GOP candidates. BUT, the fact of the matter is, and you will not attempt to refute it, is that she has the highest NEGATIVES of anyone else in contention. The general election isn't just another primary - you can have strong support within your party (which ALL nominees will have) and still be so disliked and distrusted by the rest of the country that you're unable to win.

And lastly, anyone on here throwing the term "change agent" around, can probably be dismissed as a Hillary plant.

by highgrade 2007-12-30 06:40AM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary can never win

The Republican attack machine hasn't even begun their rampage on Obama or Edwards. They have been going after Hillary since she preposed universal healthcare 14 years ago. She is by far the most vetted, tested, and politically experienced of the three Democratic frontrunners. She has a toughness and knowledge of the Republican attack machine that no other Democrat has. That's why I think she is our best general election candidate.

If Obama or Edwards get the nomination their negetives will go up in the general election as Republicans hit them, that's not a question. Hillary's negetives will say where they are, or possibly drop when more and more people see her and find out the right wing's image of her was so misplaced. Going by negetives right now for a general election arguement is very flawed.

by Christopher Lib 2007-12-30 08:33AM | 0 recs
Re: Beltway Dem for Hillary Clinton

I was so excited to see this thread listed on the front page. Then I came here and read the comments, then I got sick.....

I'm a huge Hillary fan. I have never, ever gone out of my way to make discouraging remarks about any of the other candidates. I certainly don't trash them. I could just scream when I read things like what gabejack has been posting.

Why get into this whole distracting message crappola? You don't care for Hillary, okay, then go do something positive for someone else. Or better yet get the message out that every single one of the GOP candidates is a complete idiot or douch bag-- or both.

I'm sick to death of people trashing her over Iraq. How many people have died in this country over the past Bush years because of not getting the best medical care? More than in Iraq. So stuff that "how many lost lives" whine. Cost? Not relevant to me compared to human life! The war is bad, no doubt! But, do you really think that Bush et al gave her special privledges into intelligence reports? Bush, who hates her like poison gave her better intell than he gave the rest of congress? What did the people she represents want at that time?

She was elected by constituents and she should be constituent driven......that makes a good elected representative, not the ones who get elected and then basically tell their constituents they're too stupid to decide how they want their representative to vote. She gets it. That's how our government is supposed to work. Not that I think she will blindly follow polls but I think she reacts to public desires in a way that representatives are supposed to. Women in general get that better than men do--yes, yes call me sexist if that's the best you can do.

General election probabilities? Edwards has struggled until just recently, Obama is doing awesome with young people who have rallied with him in the primary.....but how many of their friends and peers are they going to get to go out in the general election that they haven't already tapped for the primary?
Progressives are going to have to choose between whoever wins the dem primary and one of those nasty right winger repubs---they aren't going to repeat the mistake of voting Green like they did in 2000 and they sure aren't going to be voting GOP. They will vote for Hillary if she's the candidate.
African Americans will drive out a huge GOTV for her, and it will be much, much easier than driving out the vote for Edwards. Obama is going to be easy, but not as easy as Hillary because she has a proven track record with minorities.

Older women, who are reliable voters, will go out to vote in record numbers. Republican women who have been feeling pretty guilty over medical care and education -- and the war will vote for her. I'm guessing whoever the GOP candidate is they aren't going to stir the religious right wing enough to drive that buggy very far.

All in all, any our candidates can beat any of theirs. Hillary has the best chance and is the best choice as far as I'm concerned.

by blueracine 2007-12-30 09:52AM | 0 recs
Re: Beltway Dem for Hillary Clinton

There's a lot of positive stuff in the thread.  As blogs go, MyDD is pretty mild in its discussion of Hillary.

by Beltway Dem 2007-12-30 09:59AM | 0 recs
Re: Beltway Dem for Hillary Clinton

First post here. Great presentation Beltway Dem. You have laid the case for Hillary clearly and thoughtfully. Many thanks.

Yes this is mild here at MyDD. I'm one of the ones who got labled a 'campaign operative' by the powers at DKos. So I can't rate there, and may be banned.

The strange thing is I am a Dodd supporter because of his stands for the constitution and leadership in the senate. Having lived in Arkansas I do something about Hillary. Whenever the outragious attacks would come at her, I would post rebuttals. She is an amazing candidate. If Dodd drops out, I will probably support Hillary.

by DaleA 2007-12-30 12:51PM | 0 recs
Re: Beltway Dem for Hillary Clinton

Blue, don't let 'em make you blue.  As others have said, it could be worse.  Try reading the comments section of TPM Cafe Election Central sometime.  It's vicious.  

by Kingstongirl 2007-12-30 11:39AM | 0 recs
Re: Beltway Dem for Hillary Clinton

Hillary voted for the Iraq War in anticipation of her White House run in 2008.  She put her own political ambitions above the lives of good American soldiers.  Unforgivable.  She does not deserve to rewarded with the Dem nomination.

by Will Graham 2007-12-30 10:56AM | 0 recs
Re: Beltway Dem for Hillary Clinton
Actually, I'm not blue over this. Blue Racine is my blogspot.......However, I can't help but be POed over any disparaging remarks at this point over any of our candidates.
I volunteer on every campaign. I cannot speak poorly about any of them and then have to go and back pedal if they win the primary. I actually do the phone calls and door knocking (although not so many doors now with my age and health). I distribute lawn signs--and talk people into taking them.
The thing about the blogs is that all we write now can come back and bite us in the ass next year. It doesn't matter who you are criticizing. When we show that we have a lot of friction in our party--and I'd like to really know how many of you actually attend party meetings-- we fall into a trap.
Sorry for the lecture. I fight with my own county party on a regular basis but have never once criticized a candidate. If someone as snaky and bad tempered as me can do it, then we can all do it.
by blueracine 2007-12-30 12:50PM | 0 recs
Re: Beltway Dem for Hillary Clinton
Racine,
I grew up in Milwaukee(even though I was born in Jamaica), and my best friend from college(Marquette Univ) is from Racine, she now lives in Chicago.  In late 2004, I came back to the states and  was really disgusted with the Nat'l Dems, I felt like they were so weak in challenging Bush and the Repubs.  I turned to the blogs because there was passion and great policy discussions. Then campaign season hit, and it went from  we Dems to that Dem suck, this Dem rules, and it has gotten nastier since.  I can truly say that of the Dem Pres. field, the only one for whom I had negative feelings was Richardson.  I obviously like Hillary the most, but am very interested in the approach each candidate has taken.  It is very hard to critique anything the candidates do, because then you are a schill(SP?).  I do think Hillary gets more than her fair share of crap though, hence my cool kids comment.  I agree that some of the commenters may need to think of the party as a whole, vs. an indiv candidate, but until the Primaries are over, I don't think it's possible.
by Kingstongirl 2007-12-30 02:00PM | 0 recs
Re: Beltway Dem for Hillary Clinton

"First, there is a simple moral argument" that if you tell people that they must vote for your female candidate because it is the only right "moral" thing" to to then you lose. Nobody wants to be told that they are "immoral" for opposing your candidate.

by jeffbinnc 2007-12-30 05:00PM | 0 recs
Good for you

Honest and straight forward, spared of all the finger pointing and paritisan mucky mucky muck as I have seen candidate posts across the blogosphere.  

While I support Edwards, Hillary is my senator and has done a good job for the state.  She has the ability to be President.  

However, questions remain:

Can she establish herself as someone who can escape from her husband's shadow and lead?

Win outside of New York state in red states (ditto for Obama)?

Be more credible on the issues (such as Iraq and Fair Trade) instead of duking and dodging?

Hopefully everyone, regardless of the nominee, will rally around the Democrat and send him/her to the Whitehouse!

 

by optimusprime 2007-12-30 07:09PM | 0 recs
Re: Good for you

Even some people on dailykos say they won't vote for Hillary even if they are democrats.   Plus, there is the she will hurt lower-tier democrat candidates if she wins the nomination.  

by dogman 2007-12-30 07:34PM | 0 recs

Diaries

Advertise Blogads