home

Hillary, 2008 and the Women Vote

By Jeralyn, Section Hillary Clinton
Posted on Sun Jul 02, 2006 at 11:20:53 AM EST
Tags: 2008 (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

James Carville and Mark J. Penn have an op-ed in today's Washington Post positing that Hillary Clinton is electable and that the key may be women voters.

The X factor for 2008 -- and we do mean X -- is the power of women in the electorate. Fifty-four percent of voters are female. George Bush increased his vote with only two groups between 2000 and 2004: women and Hispanics.

...Hillary's candidacy has the potential to reshape the electoral map for Democrats. ....with the pathbreaking possibility of this country's first female president, we could see an explosion of women voting -- and voting Democratic. States that were close in the past, from Arkansas to Colorado to Florida to Ohio, could well move to the Democratic column. It takes only one more state to win.

They discount her polarization factor ("some people say she is too liberal, some that she is too conservative") pointing out:

We believe that she is squarely in the mainstream of America.

Like many in the netroots, I haven't been thrilled by the prospect of Hillary as the Democratic candidate, mostly because of her position on issues I care about. Example: She's pro-death penalty and has been a vocal supporter of the War in Iraq. But, that's what I see when I view Democratic contenders through an issue-based lens, and I'm trying my hardest to overcome that.

When I view her through a values-based lens, and think about how Democrats can take back the White House so we can restore some balance to our Supreme Court and federal judiciary and better the economic conditions of our poor and middle class, she's much more acceptable.

I think Carville and Simon are right that women voters can put her over the top. If we are going to have a woman presidential candidate, there is no one with more experience, smarts, savvy and fortitude than Hillary Clinton.

Last night at Firedoglake, Parachutec noted:

The biggest electoral strength of the Dems is single women....We need to reach out to single women and get moving on their issues, on their terms. They are consistently the most progressive consituency out there.

But what about Hillary and the War in Iraq? Atrios notes, "Clinton supporters apparently think they can hold a 2008 presidential campaign without mentioning the war. "

Digby notes the result of this recent LA Times/Bloomberg poll l showing:

The survey's results suggested that an old challenge "the gender gap" could pose a renewed threat to the Republican hold on Congress. Although men split about evenly when asked which party they planned to back for Congress in November, women preferred Democrats by nearly 2 to 1.

Digby goes on to give the Dems some key advice:

I would suggest that instead of reacting to the macho posturing bulls*it this time, the Democrats look to where their voters are and figure out what they need to do to get these women to the polls. And keep in mind that it isn't "girly domestic" issues that have motivated this change. It's Iraq. Being less likely to be impressed by all this macho posturing in the first place, after watching it play out over five long years it's quite likely they've just had enough.

Instead of trying to appease to the 25% of overgrown boys (including the media) who continue respond favorably to this GOP foolishness, maybe the Dems should take a look at the other 75% of the population and fashion a message for them. As those of you who read this blog regularly know, I see some ominous signs in the fact that in this political environment, Democrats are being viewed less favorably lately. That translates at least partially to disillusionment among the base and that spells trouble.

Jane at Firedoglake agrees:

I've said it before and I'm sure I'll have occasion to say it again -- the Democrats have a women problem. Everyone from Hillary to Evan Bayh on down in sporting Limbaugh-esque wood (read: unimpressive) to be the 2008 War President, but nobody is factoring in that all this codpiece swinging is looking extremely suspect to the distaff side of the electorate.

The Democrats already had a women problem -- in 2004, 20 million unmarried women did not vote. That was a group that favored John Kerry 2 to 1 and could have put him over the top. If there has been any significant GOTV effort by Democrats with regard to this group, I haven't seen any evidence.

....Rather than play catch-up, it would be nice to see someone with the vision to get ahead of the curve, stop the dick-swinging nonsense and start talking to, and for, women.

Hillary made a smart move in hiring Peter Daou to reach out to the netroots and bloggers. She's behind the curveball in her blogosphere efforts and she'll need our support and the buzz we can bring. But, she has time. She's running for the Senate in November, not the Presidency.

Now, consider this. What if Hillary could get the women vote and the immigrant vote? There may be 14 million new immigrant voters by 2008 -- U.S. citizens who are exercising their right for the first time due to a national campaign to get out their vote.

Hillary introduced the "Count Every Vote Act of 2005'' which would restore voting rights to felons who have completed their sentences (starting on page 52, and from page 56):

The right of an individual who is a citizen of the United States to vote in any election for Federal office shall not be denied or abridged because that individual has been convicted of a criminal offense unless, at the time of the election, such individual--

(1) is serving a felony sentence in a correctional institution or facility; or
(2) is on parole or probation for a felony offense

If this legislation could pass, how many of these potential 5 million votes might she garner?

If Hillary wants the nomination, she has a lot of fence-building to do with progressives. But, I think it's do-able, and if she's the Democrat with the greatest chance of actually winning back the White House come presidential primary time, we need to think about giving her the netroots help she'll need. While the war in Iraq is a huge issue, it's not the only issue. I'm willing to wait and see how she evolves over the next several months.

< Fixing Guantanamo | Military Announces Plan to Study Blogs >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Hillary, 2008 and the Women Vote | 26 comments (26 topical)
    Re: Hillary, 2008 and the Women Vote (none / 0) (#1)
    by Andreas on Sun Jul 02, 2006 at 12:00:22 PM EST
    Talkleft wrote: "While the war in Iraq is a huge issue, it's not the only issue." It is not simply a "huge issue" but a war crime for which leading Nazis have been executed after WWII. Hillary Clinton supports that war crime and Talkleft is annoucing the support for Hillary Clinton if she becomes the candidate. How predictable Democrats have become.

    Re: Hillary, 2008 and the Women Vote (none / 0) (#2)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Jul 02, 2006 at 12:17:51 PM EST
    If this legislation could pass, how many of these potential 5 million votes might she garner?
    If pigs could fly, how many votes would she get? Under what possible set of circumstances could you see the bill passing? It's gone nowhere so far. Democrats are terrified of being painted as soft on crime, so they're not going to rally behind giving more votes to criminals, even if by some extreme miracle they took both houses. And Republicans of course won't support it. But thanks for pointing out that part of the legislation. I'd never heard that before.

    Re: Hillary, 2008 and the Women Vote (none / 0) (#3)
    by cpinva on Sun Jul 02, 2006 at 12:39:53 PM EST
    andreas, you must have idiot genes. hillary "supports" the iraq war like murtha does: those who are fighting it, not the underlying concept, which was deceit by bush. using that yardstick, few of us would escape unscathed: we gave the prez the benefit of the doubt, because we assumed he had knowledge that we didn't. it turns out we were all wrong. all we can do now is continue to support the troops, and pressure our reps to get us the hell out of there as fast as is practicable. carville & penn figured that out all by their lonesomes, did they? i figured that out months ago, without a splashy op/ed. hillary is not the complete polarizing force that the repubs, and the MSM, would have us believe. this is the same group that told us how wonderful george would be, i should take them seriously because? hillary is the smartest of the bunch. which truly pisses off people like limbaugh, rove, et al. i don't include bush, because he's too dumb to figure that out. if she watches jim webb's campaign, she'll smack the crap out of anyone/thing the republicans can muster, which isn't really saying much. but hey, it worked for bush! i'd love to see her wield a stilleto against some hapless opponent; right to the heart, and nary a drop of blood to be seen. hell, i might just order the DVD! the big question is, what man out there is secure enough, in his own masculinity, that he'll be willing to run as her V.P.?

    Re: Hillary, 2008 and the Women Vote (none / 0) (#4)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Jul 02, 2006 at 01:23:17 PM EST
    "acceptable" is not enough for me. I don't care how many famous bloggers try to shift readers toward support of Hillary Clinton-They have an opinion only and are not rock stars-She must address the slaughter she signed up for with her vote and she is trying hard to hide it. Noway can I vote for this woman who is playing the hide and seek game. I don't care how many crystal balls opinionated bloggers look into re what she would do as a president (imo she would do the same thing she is doing now and has done during her tenure in the Senate because that is what the facts are and is what an opinion needs to be based upon) and I don't care how much people will preach "smart strategy" to try an get someone to vote for this warmonger, I will never vote for her--

    Re: Hillary, 2008 and the Women Vote (none / 0) (#5)
    by Kevin Hayden on Sun Jul 02, 2006 at 01:57:35 PM EST
    If Penn and Carville are examples of the only two guys who managed winning presidential campaigns recently, that explains exactly why Dem wins have become so rare and so marginal (sub 50%) lately. Figuring out the possible power of the women's vote is supposed to be an example of their prowess? wow. i'm so-o-o-o-o impressed. Penn and Carville throw in the Latino vote because Hilary's position there is equally clear. What is it? Hilary rates high because Dems have a tradition of dismissing past losers and they remember the Roaring Nineties that Bill presided over, which they think he 'created' out of thin air. (A revolutionary change from an industrial to technological society and the bonus of the post-Cold War downshift in military fund needs were gifts that only a Bush could screw up). After Bush, any Dem with backbone and principle could win in 2008. No one doubts that Hilary's backbone and gender work in her favor. But the principle part remains in doubt. And her botched healthcare effort adds an effectiveness question. Carville and Penn may be correct that she's closer to the mainstream, if the mainstream is moderate Republican. But their dismissal of her high negatives polling is really just whistling past the graveyard. A viable third party movement is likely to doom her chances. Count me among the millions who won't vote for either majority party if the Dems field a nominee like Hillary. Which really is a shame, since I've longed for a woman president throughout my adult life. But competence and morality still matter to me more than gender.

    Re: Hillary, 2008 and the Women Vote (none / 0) (#6)
    by soccerdad on Sun Jul 02, 2006 at 02:05:59 PM EST
    Hillary is Lieberman in a dress. Its too bad I originaly had liked her, but she's proven to be no liberal. She is pro-war, pro-corporate, anti-worker she would be an improvement over the present set of scum but thats not much of an endoresment

    Re: Hillary, 2008 and the Women Vote (none / 0) (#7)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Jul 02, 2006 at 02:19:40 PM EST
    Hilary is not only the most polarizing person the Dems could nominate, but she's not even a progressive. She's a panderer, a truiangulator just like her husband. It was okay when her husband did it. But we have now seen through the magician's act. The trick no longer works. And I don't even think she's all that smart.

    Re: Hillary, 2008 and the Women Vote (none / 0) (#8)
    by cmpnwtr on Sun Jul 02, 2006 at 02:30:15 PM EST
    Hillary is a loser! She's simply trying to emulate that weak "triangulation" mode of politics. It's not what we need. It's not what women or men want.

    Re: Hillary, 2008 and the Women Vote (none / 0) (#9)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Jul 02, 2006 at 03:00:29 PM EST
    et al - From the post:
    There may be 14 million new immigrant voters by 2008 --
    Hey, I thought we had 12 millon now. Are saying the illegals are only coming in at a miilion a year?? Seriously now.... You know, I previously thought Hillary would be hard to beat, but the last poll I saw said she was above 50% in negatives... People don't vote for things, they vote against things. Hillary will win the nomination and lose the election.

    Re: Hillary, 2008 and the Women Vote (none / 0) (#10)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Jul 02, 2006 at 03:03:14 PM EST
    I think I'm the only person in America who thinks Hillary isn't running in 08. She may be pondering it, but she's vey shrewd, and I doubt she'd run unless (she thought based on polls etc) there was a good chance of winning. Besides, who says she's running straight for President? She could be V.P. She's an attorny; she could be going for Attorney General. You never know.

    Re: Hillary, 2008 and the Women Vote (none / 0) (#11)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Jul 02, 2006 at 03:10:53 PM EST
    Jim, the number is a reference to foreign born U.S. citizens who haven't voted in a federal election, not the undocumented. The undocumented can't vote, nor can legal immigrants who aren't naturalized citizens. The program to register and get out the immigrant vote is directed towards those who are citizens. Citizens, just like you and me. Nice try to change the subject, but please don't.

    Re: Hillary, 2008 and the Women Vote (none / 0) (#12)
    by Andreas on Sun Jul 02, 2006 at 03:24:10 PM EST
    cpinva wrote: "hillary 'supports' the iraq war like murtha does: those who are fighting it, not the underlying concept, which was deceit by bush." This is hair-splitting (at best). Ms. Clinton opposes the immediate withdrawal of the US Military from Iraq. She supports the "concepts" of wars of aggression and military occupation by US imperialism. cpinva also wrote: "using that yardstick, few of us would escape unscathed: we gave the prez the benefit of the doubt, because we assumed he had knowledge that we didn't. it turns out we were all wrong." No, you are a lier. Do not use the word "we" when you talk about yourself. The Socialist Equality Party, the Fourth International and many millions (if not billions) of people did not give "the prez the benefit of the doubt". As the WSWS wrote in April:
    The one great advantage enjoyed by Bush--as a flurry of opinion polls show his approval rating dropping to barely a third of the public--is that he faces no real challenge from the ostensible opposition party, the Democrats. These political realities are no revelation. They have been manifested continuously since even before the war began. Then, protests by millions upon millions around the globe failed to sway the Bush White House from launching its "preventive" war of aggression. And the Democrats in Congress--New York's Senator Hillary Clinton prominent among them--echoed the lies of the White House and voted a blank check authorization for Bush to launch that war.
    Hillary Clinton, the Democrats and the Iraq war: A socialist alternative By Bill Van Auken, 29 April 2006

    Re: Hillary, 2008 and the Women Vote (none / 0) (#13)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Jul 02, 2006 at 03:33:55 PM EST
    Jim sez:
    People don't vote for things, they vote against things.
    thus spake the reactionary contingent. very 1972 thinking, jim. that statement is as ugly and outdated as your collection of Arnold Palmer Sans-a-belt slacks. you had an instinct about Hillary, but you read a poll and decided otherwise? where is that good old "Morning in America" optimism? are you conceding to cynicism? we might have to have you fitted for a black t-shirt and get you a Starbucks card. have a nice holiday, jim, and be sure to tip the help.

    Re: Hillary, 2008 and the Women Vote (none / 0) (#14)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Jul 02, 2006 at 03:41:48 PM EST
    I'm sorry, but in my opinion Jim and the others are right about Hillary's negatives. About the only one I'd vote Hillary over on the Dem side would be old Ted Kennedy himself. One reason I voted for Clinton in 96 (holding my nose) was that the Repubs ran Dole and also that Buchanan was in the race. Hate to tell you, but I'd vote Buchanon over Hillary, if they were both running. The Dems can do better. Hell, Al Gore would be a much better candidate for the Dems than Hillary. Alot of people who voted for Bush in 2000 probably wish they had voted for Gore instead.

    Re: Hillary, 2008 and the Women Vote (none / 0) (#15)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Jul 02, 2006 at 03:54:01 PM EST
    Hillary? please o please...good god no. if there is any single candidate that would inspire me to vote for any breathing mammal on the ballot running against them it would be her can you say McGovern?? if this is truly the best the Dems can do then maybe it truly is time for the party to be consigned to the dustbin of history.

    Re: Hillary, 2008 and the Women Vote (none / 0) (#16)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Jul 02, 2006 at 04:30:22 PM EST
    Additionally, if the poles are correct, one must ask why women are against the policies of Bush. No one knows, but in my conjecture, I suspect that the killing of children, the agony suffered by the women who are raped and killed by our warriors, the wanton distruction of the family and the complete contempt toward any Iraqi family member is the reason that women are disgusted with the policies of the warmonger and the destroyer Bush. If that is the case, a women who condones this behavior, who actually voted to give a stupid man (although her husband has drummed up a very congenial relationship with his father and mother, who consders him a "son" and she cannot distance herself from the actions of her husband a former president) Then, why should women from this point of view, the human point of view, the compassionate point of view, be considered to give their vote to a woman who voted for it? Sen. Clinton has backed herself into a corner, and worse, she prefers NOT to address her hapless political pandering vote. If she did, as did Edwards and Kerry, albeit he did it rather behind the scenes, she can NEVER live it down and American women cannot ever condone her political pandering that results in the deaths of tens of thousands of innocent children and women and old men and women who did nothing to us but happened to be born into the country they inhabit and the culture to which they subscribe. I say, HIllary Clinton is a warmonger and is jumping on that bandwagon, believing that the American populace hates Arabs and that we have to "protect" ourselves from their threats. err, what are their threats? What is her postiion on Iran? Bomb the hell out of that country also just because Bush says so in his most propagandist press releases--he named Iran as an "axis of evil" and does she agree? Who the hell knows--she is more concerned with flag burning than foreign policy, or else she is deliberately hiding her aggressive warmongering views from the people. Hillary is old. She is relying upon old techniques and are no longer applicable. Maybe she believes that with enough money and the proper propaganda, (she recently hired the famous Peter Daou to help her and he willing will comply--so much for the blogosphere's wisdom eh?) Whatever--we are being jerked around by money,lots of it and the fame and fortune of a Hillary Clinton and Bill Clinton, who are heroes--NOT We need a third party--because no one will listen to us, not the Democrats, because we are herded into voting for one party or the other and we hold our noses to vote against our most deeplyu held moral beliefs. I have had it with the party and I have pretty much had it with bloggers who support each other, thereby manipulating us all into their point of view, if we are so inclined to be manipulated.

    Re: Hillary, 2008 and the Women Vote (none / 0) (#17)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Jul 02, 2006 at 05:01:22 PM EST
    rogan1313 writes: Whatever the merits of Hillary's campaign, you don't need to be Bill O'Reilly to recognize that any article by James Carville is spin designed to build momentum for her. Well duh! Did the light bulb just go off? Of course it is designed to spin. That is the purpose of every single commentator, whether democrat or republican. Are you trying to imply that only Democrats spin the information they supply to the public? Libby Sosume and cmpnwtr both make reference to Hillary's "triangulation" political mode. Again, I am just not sure what the point of this is? In my opinion the thing that makes both Clintons good politicians (not necessarily good presidents) is that fact that they swing with the voters. They make their issues the same as the majority of their voters. That is what a good politician is supposed to do...how else do you think they stay in office as long as they do. I also don't fully understand why everyone is so completely against the stance that Hillary has made regarding the Iraq war. I did not and do not support President Gooberhead sending our troops into Iraq. BUT...the fact of the matter is that we are there whether we want to be or not. What I have heard from Hillary is that neither Gooberhead's handling of the war OR the suggestion to just pull out is appropriate. Her stance (to my knowledge) has been that we need to develop an actual plan (gee, what a concept) for the withdrawal of our troops. It would be irresponsible for us to just up and leave one day. We need to have an exit strategy and that is what she is trying to propose. I have yet to hear anything coherent come from Gooberhead and his administration about his exit strategy.

    Re: Hillary, 2008 and the Women Vote (none / 0) (#18)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Jul 02, 2006 at 05:24:55 PM EST
    IMO, she voted for it. Period and now when it has been totally a failure, has refused to acknowledge that that vote was a death sentence to thousands upon thousands of innocent people, many of them children left in the streets for the wild dogs to devour. Her problem is not that she is tryuing to make the best of the situatuion, but that she gave this stupid man the authority to do so, and has avoidedc the reflection necessary to admit that the war, or the so called war, actually it was an invasion and occupation and steadfastly sticks by that decsision. If as you say, she is trying to make the best of it, that postion is not admirable. The best thing to do is admit that this fake war, initiated by the Bush regime, was founded upon LIES and that admission would be greatly appreciated by the voters. We are no longer impressed with the cover up "strategy" of a woman seeking to gloss over her hapless vote that is the cause of the deaths of thousands upon thousands, not to mention the deaths of our own warriors who were sent there on HER vote, as well as the votes of other Democrats who were playing the game of politics. I value human life. I happen to think that a tyrant such as Bush, and a stupid one at that, is not the final say in who and what we can "declare war" on. Apparently, Hillary Clinton believed that an invasion and an attack on Iraq was justified and never addressed the LIES, as we all who are familiar with th progression of the propaganda and the lies KNEW. She played politics with the lives of innocent people, our troops included. She does not have leadership qualities, imo and should she be the nominee, she most certainly will lose, because those women who are cited in the polls, will not vote for someone who approved of Bush's fake war.

    Re: Hillary, 2008 and the Women Vote (none / 0) (#19)
    by Steven Sanderson on Sun Jul 02, 2006 at 06:11:17 PM EST
    I believe that cautious triangulators like Hillary Clinton are spineless because they're unwilling to make a principled decision and stand firm amid controversy. To protect their careers they make politically correct/popular decisions which are, more often than not, the wrong decisions. While Hillary's doing her calculatin' and triangulatin' and being indecisive on the occupation of Iraq, people are being maimed and dying over there. I can never forgive a politician who values their career more than they value people's lives and I believe Hillary does just that.

    Re: Hillary, 2008 and the Women Vote (none / 0) (#20)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Jul 02, 2006 at 06:33:14 PM EST
    Talk Left - I guess my attempt at sarcasm when astray... RauolDuke - If you know where I can purchase some sansabelt slacks, please let me know. As men grow older their backend moves to their frontside and their hips disappear, making it difficult to hold up their pants. If you have a solution we can become wealthy... And I'll stand behind my comment that people vote against things rather than for things. Why? Because angry people are more motivated to change things than happy people. Hillary has always had high negatives, only now they have become higher. The question is would people hold their nose and vote for her? I think not to any extent, just as they wouldn't for Bush 41 in '92. Instead they just stayed home. That, plus the Little Admiral, gave Clinton a purality... and the win. But she will get the nomination. No one can beat her. Photobug writes:
    We need a third party--because no one will listen to us, not the Democrats, because we are herded into voting for one party or the other and we hold our noses to vote against our most deeplyu held moral beliefs.
    I totally agree. Leave the Demos immediately.

    Re: Hillary, 2008 and the Women Vote (none / 0) (#21)
    by roy on Sun Jul 02, 2006 at 08:17:44 PM EST
    Look at her flag-burning pandering as more than just a disagreement over policy. It's simply her effort to take away our freedom in order to increase her power. Ditto her anti-video-game work. Ditto her gun control work -- not to open a can of worms, I know that one's contentious. She's also inexperienced. In '08, she'll have about as much time in elected office as the Gipper did when he got serious support for his presidential run. Yeah, she did some work under Bill, but that's not "qualification", it's "nepotism". So maybe she'll get elected on the strength of some women who didn't bother to vote last time, and some immigrants who didn't pay attention in their naturalization coursework to realise they could vote last time. I'm holding my breath for a better option. Oh, and while she may bring out women voters, she'll also bring out misogynist voters. I don't think those dudes vote Democrat.

    Re: Hillary, 2008 and the Women Vote (none / 0) (#22)
    by chemoelectric on Sun Jul 02, 2006 at 09:32:50 PM EST
    Who cares what James Carville says? Ignore him. You know why he married his Bushist equivalent? Because tricking people with words is what they had in common and most deeply mattered to them.

    Re: Hillary, 2008 and the Women Vote (none / 0) (#23)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Jul 03, 2006 at 05:30:21 AM EST
    I agree with soccerdad. I want to be pro-Hillary, but I just can't. What really turns me off is the different "face" she portrays to the group she is speaking to. This has really lowered her credibility for me. I don't believe her. If the DLC forces her as our choice in 2008, I will probably vote independent.

    Re: Hillary, 2008 and the Women Vote (none / 0) (#24)
    by jimcee on Mon Jul 03, 2006 at 05:48:56 PM EST
    Brave, Being one of those who is 'represented' by Mrs Clinton I can tell you that you are absolutely correct about how she morphs into those she is surrounded by. The odd thing is I have never, ever, heard her take a firm stand about anything instead she just mouths crowd-friendly platitudes but never answers a question directly. In otherwords she is a living, breathing Zelig-like character. That TL is starting the 'butter-up' so early is a surprise, less so Messers Carville and Penn. Afterall they are paid for this kind of stuff.

    Re: Hillary, 2008 and the Women Vote (none / 0) (#25)
    by jondee on Mon Jul 03, 2006 at 06:20:53 PM EST
    Its a coding of threat-to-survival signals from the limbic system. Known to some as "the anybody but a neocon" reflex.

    Re: Hillary, 2008 and the Women Vote (none / 0) (#26)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Jul 03, 2006 at 08:28:22 PM EST
    Many Conservatives in the South think Hillary is too liberal because their simple minds process the following: (1) she was married to Bill Clinton, (2) they despise Clinton mostly because he was politically adept with Southerners, (3) Hillary is a dominant feminine figure and thus intimidating unlike, say, Laura Bush the meek Southern Stepford Wife, (4) they automatically despise any Democrat for all the usual reasons (ie. not Theocratic enough, etc.), and (5) they fear her resonating with other American cultures they despise (i.e. anyone that isn't an exclusionary religious conservative). Despite this inane illogic that Southern Conservatives follow, Hillary Clinton has proven she is a DLC Corporatist Neo-Liberal. I personally have no interest in compromising with the handful of powerful elites that believe foreign sweatshops, torture, pre-emptive war, and Corporate media propaganda are good for America. Hillary may say she agrees; however, her actions in the Senate state otherwise. Compromising with people that believe in that crap is a "middle ground" I don't ever care to visit. If you believe you are a Democrat and that the majority of the legislation she has voted for are/were good for America -- or least were good compromises, you are at the very least confused and unprincipled and at the most, a confused yet rabid Conservative (e.g. Zell Miller). Hillary Clinton and I don't belong in the same political party. It's very sad that the first woman to be this close to attaining election to the Executive is someone I must vehemently oppose. Same goes for Condoleeza Rice. [shudders uncontrollably at the thought].

    Hillary, 2008 and the Women Vote | 26 comments (26 topical)