Hillary's most significant negative is two-fold: She will a) unite the gop, and b) divide democrats.

Posted by bednarik at 02/27/2007

Those people who think that Hillary has no potential problems running for president need to lay off the kool aid and join the reality based world. Her war vote continues to be a problem and while there some pluses to the 90s and being married to Bill there are some negatives tied in with that as well. Hillary wants to talk about the good parts of the Clinton years but say everything is off the table. Even if no Democrats brought up Bill and impeachment, there is no way a Republican canidate would not in the general.

Posted by Glenr1031 at 02/27/2007

If Hillary becomes the Democratic nominee, I will vote third-party. She represents everything that is wrong with the Democratic party: corporations over people, support for interventionist/imperialist foreign policy, "free trade", and on and on. In other words, everything the Democratic Leadership Council stands for as is indicated by their past chairs - Bill Clinton, Gephardt and Lieberman.

Posted by srjenkins at 02/27/2007

Hillary is not a progressive in any way, shape, or form. She is a centrist. Like SRJENKINS, I will vote third party if she gets the nomination, at least if there is a truly progressive third party candidate. I used to like Bill Richardson as a candidate until I read about his views on free trade. He still sounds too much in the pockets of big bizz. Kusinich or Gravel? In a heartbeat. They are true progressives.

Posted by douginslc at 02/27/2007

Count me among third party voters if Hillary is the Dem nominee

Posted by noparty at 02/27/2007

PROUD TO CAST MY VOTE WITH THE PLURALITY AGAIN...

In a recent column, Nora Ephron reminds us that, at one point in her original Senate campaign, Hillary Clinton declared something like "We don't make mistakes." Scary, that. What other well-known, powerful figure suffers from a total and absolute incapacity to admit mistakes?

Posted by w_m_bear at 02/27/2007

Not jumping on the Bash Hillary band wagon here! She's in to win, and win she will!

Posted by denisec at 02/27/2007

While Senator Clinton is not my first choice (Obama is), I think she can win if she gets the democratic nomination. I planning on supporting the party's nominee.

Posted by mgroves at 02/27/2007

Senator Clinton is indeed a centrist. However, in case many people have missed the last six years, many of the goals of the progressive movement ranging from health care, the environment and poverty (to name just a few) are now centrist themes thanks to the Bush/right wing fiasco we have been subjected to. Like it or not, history proves that the country works best when it is governed from the center. I will support Senator Clinton even though she is not as progressive as I would like her to be. I do believe that she shares many of the same concerns that progressives do (especially on health care) and I believe the chances of moving forward on a progressive agenda are better with her then the other candidates because of her experience. Third party candidate… no thank you! I will place my vote were it will do some good not help a Republican get elected.

Posted by allent at 02/27/2007

The poll needs another option to choose: "All of the above negatives and none of the positives."

Posted by Zero at 02/27/2007

If Hillary becomes the Democratic nominee, I will vote third-party. She represents everything that is wrong with the Democratic party: corporations over people, support for interventionist/imperialist foreign policy, "free trade", and on and on. In other words, everything the Democratic Leadership Council stands for as is indicated by their past chairs - Bill Clinton, Gephardt and Lieberman.

I couldn't have said it better myself ... count me out if the Dem's run Hillary. I've had it with sacrificing my principles for mediocre Repulican-lite types.

I will vote for: Kucinich, or certainly Gore if he can be drafted. Save that, I'll be a Nader's raider.

Power to the people!

Posted by EnviroVarmint at 02/27/2007

KEEP HER!

I'll add my name to those who will vote for someone else should she win the Democratic nomination.

No thanks, Hillary, I'll go elsewhere!

Posted by srsjones825 at 02/27/2007

Hillary's problem is she has no convictions. She voted for the war because she perceived that would be the popular thing to do. And remember a while back when Rupert Murdoch became her new best friend? I'm not foolish (idiotic?) enough to vote for a repulsivelican or a third party candidate in '08, but I pray neither Hillary or Obama (too inexperienced) gets the nomination. Why, oh why didn't Feingold run? He is the only Senator who didn't turn into a spineless weakling whenever Bush committed some crime or other.

Posted by mrpoizun at 02/27/2007

My prediction: Just like in 2000, Gore will be the "I'm not Clinton and I'm not Bush" candidate. This time, however, this stance will be perceived as a good thing by a very grateful electorate.

Posted by wmkostak at 02/27/2007

Is there an option for everything except "She has no significant negatives: This woman is going to win"? Because let's face it, each and every negative Mrs. Clinton has going for her combine to kill her candidacy, whether she gets the nomination or not.

Posted by ARCHANGEL_M at 02/27/2007

I don't think it's so much can she win or not, but being that running for president means everything you have done is put under a microscope and examined. Can she overcome potential problems and run a good campaign. Everybody running has negatives of some kind. Both Republican and Democrat canidates have something in their personal or professional life they have to answer for. To say Hillary has no negatives is not only bit naive, but simply not true.

Posted by Glenr1031 at 02/27/2007

Look carefully at where her money comes from as well as sources for the other candidates. That will pretty well predict a candidates priorities. I suspect the war business and the lobby of Israel will be major backers?

Posted by Cranston at 02/27/2007

Hillary is a terrible, lousy person, however - she would be a good president. You Naderites know this is true.

You Naderites said Al Gore was as bad as George Bush, you were lying, you were liars. You said that Democrats are very nearly as bad as Republicans. You lied, and Ralph Nader with his last minute campaigning in Florida in 2000 where he got 90,000 votes, 90,000 stupid people, 90,000 ignorant people.

You Naderites accused Democrats of being as bad as Republicans, only a hair better. THE TRUTH IS THAT NADERITES ARE AS BAD AS REPUBLICANS, IF NOT WORSE.

Posted by conshame at 02/27/2007

I highly recommend everyone read the article on recent national polls in today's WP (it's available for free on line).

The most interesting stat to me is that, out of Democrats, 52% believed she didn't make a mistake with her war vote. While the blogosphere might be livid about her tactless machinations regarding her war vote (as am I), it would appear that Dems in general aren't, even though polls show a vast majority of Dems that loathe the war. What gives? The X Factor here is women voters that want a woman in the White House for the first time (it appears James Buchanan doesn't count). They're going to cut her a lot of slack because of this, and even if Obama starts building his support among Blacks (as he definitely is), he's going to have a tougher time convincing women to vote for him over Madame Clinton.

The reality is, though, that a HRC nomination will doom the Dem majorities in the House and Senate, will likely lead to another Nader spoiler candidacy, which will lead to four more years (at least) of Republican Power, during which they will be able to appoint another justice to overturn Roe. Dem hopefuls should start telling this narrative: a primary vote for Hillary is a vote to ban abortion. That might bring some women voters around. Also, Hillary would be an awful, Carter-esque gridlock kind of President. She has no vision for the country, no real principles or values, no courage aside from the manufactured Bush kind, and no support among the left wing. At this point, the only candidate who can unite the Democratic Party (and the left) is Al Gore, and he likely isn't running.

Posted by adukovic at 02/27/2007

Can we select all the options but the last one in your poll?

Posted by OneVote at 02/27/2007

A note to you Nader supporters. Your logic of voting for a third party as a demonstration against the Republican and/or Democratic nominee is ill-conceived and potentially dangerous. A vote for Nader will only take away a vote from a Democrat, and in a close race (like Gore vs Bush and Kerry vs Bush) you're only improving the Republican's chance of winning. Think about it; of those people who voted for Nader in previous elections, how many had Bush as a second choice? I would venture to say that NONE of them did! Therefore, a vote for Nader did not take away votes from Bush, it took away votes from Gore in 2000 and Kerry in 2004.

Posted by Roccklobste at 02/27/2007

Gore was a weak candidate, that's what gave the White House over to Bush, not Nader. Adding to this was Bush's political conspirators in vote counting. It seems foolish to me to attack the one person who actually cared to speak the truth and work for real change in the US government. And if a certain number of votes in Florida for Nader contributed to Bush II, then why aren't we screaming for a change in the elections process that only allows two corporate parties rather than pointing fingers at a good person and a good candidate? Seems ridiculous. We deserve a great leader, not the lesser of two evils.

Posted by heathero at 02/27/2007

PS - That goes for Kerry too, weak candidate. Now even he admits that he gave over the election too quickly to Bush.

Posted by heathero at 02/27/2007

It's kind of funny, how stupidly angry the Nader-bashers get. Their biggest complaint appears to be "he took votes away from Democrats!"

Well, oh no! Golly gee! Lo and behold, he did! It's called "running in an election". The goal is to take votes away from the other guys. The people who are offended that Nader "took votes from Democrats" are simply offended that someone other than a Democrat or a Republican has the basic right to run for office in America. And what a silly position that is, too -

Posted by Zero at 02/27/2007

It is 100% certain that if Hillary is the general season nominee I will not only vote for Nader or whichever Nader-like candidate emerges, but I will work AGGRESSIVELY on getting word out about the candidate and his positions. That's what Hillary For President means to me: time to work on another Nader candidacy.

Posted by Zero at 02/27/2007

I can't vote. You don't have an all of the above. All the reasons are why I would never vote for Hillary and what her negatives are. They are all equal to me.

Posted by vwcat at 02/27/2007

To Conshame: What foul language for such an intelligent person that I'm sure you are. George Bush most definitely is the biggest threat to our national security. Just ask all the people in the world who he's kicked in the teeth.

Posted by JanetCorrel at 02/27/2007

Hillary has no negatives; she is my goddess.

She remained consistant with the policies of the Clinton administration, with her war vote. She was acting on the information that she had. For her to change now; what would she be telling us?

She remained the cream of the cream.

Patrick Buday

Posted by Patrick Bud at 02/27/2007

(those of us who oppose the war AND don't need a "goddess" to worship, as the Bush worshippers need a god to worship, will vote "all of the above" on the negatives.)

Posted by Zero at 02/27/2007

All you people bashing Nader clearly do not see the real problem. It was electoral fraud, an illegal Supreme Court ruling that stopped the vote-count, and a weak Democratic candidate that put Bush in the White House. Seriously, Nader got only a fraction of the vote in 2000 and 2004. He got what, 2.74% in 2000. That's nothing compared to the 19% of the popular vote Perot got in 1992, or the 8.4% he got in 1996 which, while not as high as his first run, nevertheless received far more of a percentage of the vote than Nader did in 2000. So Perot may be correctly given credit for siphoning enough votes away from the Republican Party to hand Bill Clinton the election in '92 and '96; I don't see any of you attacking Pat Buchanan (who got 449,225 votes), or Harry Browne of the Libertarian Party (who received 384,516 votes). And I don't see you blaming the Constitution Party's Howard Phillips for getting 98,022 votes in 2000. Why aren't you blaming these guys for throwing the election to Bush? But no, you want to blame Nader for doing what he has every right to under the Constitution. We all know Bush stole the election, and that had the Supreme Court followed the Constitution and the rule of law Gore would now be half-way through his second term. That is who you blame. To attack Nader for getting less than 3% of the vote, when Bush's dogs in Florida and Ohio clearly misused their state secretary positions to rig the elections in those states, is both ludicrous and counterproductive. Focus on running an actual liberal for the presidency (like Kucinich), or someone with experience as a high-ranking executive (like Richardson). If we go with another conservative Democrat who is as much the hawk as Bush and Cheney, and who has all that baggage for GOPers to attack relentlessly between now and November 2008, we'll lose. Worse, having failed to impeach Bush and Cheney Democrats will probably lose control of Congress again.

So enough Nader-bashing. Place blame where it belongs, and start asking yourselves if it isn't more important to get a true Progressive in the White House who will undo the damage the Bush regime has done to this and other countries.

Posted by ARCHANGEL_M at 02/28/2007

Enough Nader bashing? No. The man is meglomaniacal, verging on psychotic. Fine, in 2000, he claimed that there was no difference between George W. Bush and Al Gore -- perhaps understandable, given that the election between them was positioned (like most general elections) as a race to the middle. But to reiterate that after the results of the disasterous Bush Administration became clear was appalling.

It's too bad, really. He had a fine career in public service before he became personally responsible for the worst administration in the history of the republic. Talk about going down in flames.

Posted by johndrue at 02/28/2007

Enough Nader bashing? No. The man is meglomaniacal, verging on psychotic. Fine, in 2000, he claimed that there was no difference between George W. Bush and Al Gore -- perhaps understandable, given that the election between them was positioned (like most general elections) as a race to the middle. But to reiterate that after the results of the disasterous Bush Administration became clear was appalling.

Posted by JOHNDRUE 02/28/2007 @ 10:18am

YES, ENOUGH NADER-BASHING. You're so bent on attacking him that you're not bothering to think about making sure the Democratic candidate represents Progressive values. If you're just gong to waste time and energy better spent supporting Progressive Democrats running for office on attacking Nader, who didn't cost Gore the 2000 election and whose vote totals in 2004 didn't even appear on the radar, you deserve to watch the GOP keep the White House and seize back control of Congress. Grow up already. As long as you continue to attack Nader, Progressies whose votes will be sorely needed to take back the White House next year will stay home or vote for another party's candiate out of spite. And it will be on your head, not Nader's or anyone else's.

Here's a wacky idea; why don't we focus on why Hilary Clinton will end up killing the Democrats' chances of winning back the White House, how we can make sure she doesn't, and how we can get a true Progressive the nomination? I know, I know, that's an "unrealistic" goal isn't it? God forbid we should do something other than bash Progressives and compromise our principles by backing conservative, "electable" candidates.

Posted by ARCHANGEL_M at 02/28/2007

What is it the religionoids say..."by their works ye shall know them"? Consider the life accomplishments of Nader, Kerry,Bush..Gore uh ,oh yeh..both Clintons. Which do you think has a resume fit for a decent presidency?

Posted by Cranston at 02/28/2007

The third party canidate can work both ways. One of the reasons Clinton won in 92 was that Perot had cut into H W Bush's voting base. So a third party canidate does not always hurt Democrats. It is more about who the people would be voting for normally.

Posted by Glenr1031 at 02/28/2007

All these factors contribute to the weaknesses inherent in Hillary Clinton's campaign. I will attempt to explain why they are weaknesses, and what the senator may do to eliminate them.

- Her refusal to apologize for her vote to authorize the Iraq invasion.

This is the most obvious, and the one early critics have made a big issue out of. This is a major weakness because it shows that Mrs. Clinton is incapable of accepting responsibility for her own part, however deceived she may have been, in helping the Iraq war to come to fruition. As Michael Tomasky writes in The American Prospect, "don't believe for a second that any of them thought that handing George W. Bush the authority to launch a preemptive war was in any conceivable way a good idea. And many represent states where political blowback wasn't a remote possibility. Al Gore won 60 percent of the vote in New York in 2000, and 56 percent of the vote in Connecticut that year. There's no way Schumer, Clinton, and Dodd can plausibly argue that in-state political pressure was too great to fight." Tomasky goes on to write, "[t]he WMD argument was just one of several lies the administration was peddling at the time. Anyone with the eyes to see and the nose to smell knew that an invasion of Iraq was the longstanding intention of the people who filled key White House, Defense Department, and State Department posts in the administration, and that once 9-11 happened, they were handed a forgiving rationale. It was obvious from about December 2001 that Iraq was the end, and war was the preferred means."

Clinton must demonstrate that she is capable of recognizing that, although deceived by the Bush regime over Iraq, she is just as culpable for the death and destruction inflicted by this war. And given that most Americans now realize it was a mistake to wage it in the first place, it would help immensely if they could vote for a Democrat for president who demonstrates she can at least admit she was wrong, be properly apologetic, and be able to form a plan to get us out of Iraq. But how can she do this if she so casually dismisses real concerns by voters over a vote that has had such horrendous consequences? If Clinton wants the nomination, she needs to wake up to reality, and stop letting stubborn pride dictate her actions. We already have one executive who does this, we don't need another coming to power in '09.

- Her association with the anti-progressive Democratic Leadership Council.

A conservative Democrat is a Republican in denial. This means we've been stuck with an unbroken line of Republicans in the White House for twenty-six years. And after the disaster that has been the current GOP regime, a truly progressive candidate must win the nomination. Hillary must do one of two things: admit she is a conservative Democrat (in politics, there is no such thing as a "middle", only degrees of liberalism and conservatism) and drop out; or break away from the DLC and run on a progressive platform. Alas, she has made it all but impossible to choose either option. And it will cost America its biggest chance to change course.

- Her rigid, poll-driven political style.

Do I even need to explain this one? Hillary is in a unque position as the wife of a former president and prominent senator to use the stump this gives her to speak what's really on her mind. One of the reasons the 2004 election was so close was because the GOP successfully portrayed John Kerry as a flip-flopper. Part of the reason for the ease with which the Bush/Cheney campaign is that Kerry was too concerned with polls; he worried that if he had just been himself, his poll numbers might drop. So he tried to tailor his image to appeal to rural voters. Remember how he was ridiculed by the gun-nut lobby when he staged that PR stunt dressed like Elmer Fudd? So stop worrying about polls; the GOP wll be using every opportunity to attack Hillary over anything and everything. She should just be herself, and say what she really thinks. People can't stand pandering phonies, and they respect candidates who come across as being true to themselves.

- Her tendency to stomp all over her critics.

This can be a plus for someone who is usually in the right on any given issue. But it can be a serious weakness when adressing honest, constructive criticism from allies. Clinton's problem is that she is so dismissive of allies' criticism that she alienates them. Just ask that Geffen guy.

- The baggage Hill and Bill carry from their sojourn in the White House.

Need I go into this at all? Yes I do. Bill's impeachment will be used against her, as will his affairs; attacks on Bill, including the Sudan-bin Laden lie, will surely be dredged up by the Republican Noise Machine; the GOP will likely even bring up Whitewater. Hillary will face two options: tell Bill to stay home and keep him out of the campaign, thereby losing a very strong campaigner; or keep him and in so doing invite the inevitable attacks from the far right. Neither option is very good, but keeping Bill on the campaign may actually be better because people like him more than they do her.

It may be better for Hillary to drop out now, rather than lose the general election. Obama isn't very experienced, and his sucking up to the Israel lobby is a negative, but he doesn't have the attitude problem Clinton does nor does he have the political baggage. And Edwards, despite his own pandering before the Israel lobby, has done what few candidates have the stones to do--go into some specifics about how he will fix health care. Either of these two candiates could pull ahead between now and the primaries, relegating Hillary to also-ran status a la Howard Dean.

Posted by ARCHANGEL_M at 02/28/2007

The idiots who try to blame Ralph Nader for the Bush administration are really fooling themselves, and one is left to wish that they could get over their dribbling angst and sour grapes. These people's outrage at Nader's candidacy begs the question of whether or not they believe that anyone who is not a D or R and, furthermore, part of the plutocratic Beltway establishment, has any right to run for President. Is American democracy just a vehicle for dynastic political families now? But I digress. Depending on the situation, these foolish whiners blame entirely for the existence of the Bush administration:

* Ralph Nader, if he has been mentioned.

* Kathleen Harris, if she has been mentioned.

* The Supreme Court, it it has been mentioned.

* Al Gore, if his deficiencies and poor decisions in 2000 are the topic.

* Voting machines, if voting machines are the topic.

* Corporate media, if media is the topic.

The sad and true fact of the matter is that more registered Democrats in Florida in 2000 voted for George W. Bush than voted for Ralph Nader, by a large multiplying factor. Were talking a 1000% difference here. And never, never, never do you hear a single bitch, whine, or moan from these diehard Nader bashers about this reality. The Democrats who voted Republican in Florida are OK with the Nader bashers. They voted Republican. That's allowed. It's OK to vote Republican, because Republicans are part of the two-party system. But vote for Nader? No! No! Evil!

I have truly had it with the "debate" about Nader because there is none. You have on the one hand mindless, partisan Democrat voters and True Believers who have decided that they have seen Heresy and they denounce and demonize without any consideration of fact and reality. On the other hand, you have people who are sufficiently awake to realize that American democracy is not just a vehicle for the two parties to advance themselves, but actually is about representation of the public. And, finally, some of us really do believe that we have a right to vote for someone who actually represents us, and that a bunch of screaming, whining children who think that their party affiliation is all takes to be on the right side in American politics can't take that right away.

Posted by Zero at 02/28/2007

Que lastima! Hilary has too much baggage to be an effective uniter of Americans. Sad, but true. What we need most now is someone to unite as many of us as possible behind humane universal appeals as possible. Too many Americans will never overcome their prejudices and see her as that person.

Posted by dmbones at 02/28/2007

I am for Pelosi's presidency, RIGHT NOW. That the Democrats placed this happenstance "off the table" is, frankly, not what the majority of the voters want. We want Bush/Cheney out. Now. There are quite enough smoking guns, aren't there? Especially for Cheney.

Posted by motamanx at 02/28/2007

Hillary's problem in the primaries will be her Iraq war vote. In the general election her only real problem is that she's ... gasp! ... a woman!

The American people may not be ready for a Mormon, but they'll vote for a tall, handsome-ish while male before they'll vote for a woman. If Hillary is nice, she'll be called weak, and if she's strong, she'll be called shrill. It'll take a woman running and losing -- and four years of hand-wringing over the sexist media coverage -- before a woman can be a credible candidate in this backwards country of ours.

Posted by pcsa at 02/28/2007

Hilary? No. Bednarik (above) is right. I prefer Pelosi and I prefer her right now. Cheney/Bush have trashed this country perhaps terminally. We cannot afford to allow them to continue. Putting impeachemt "off the table" was and is a mistake. Hilary does not follow her conscience--only the polls.

Posted by motamanx at 02/28/2007

I tried to mark all but the last choice, as they are all valid. As far as I'm concerned, she is divisive and unelectable. She would be a gift to the GOP. I think we need to impeach Bush and Cheney and then we would have a woman president, Pelosi.

Posted by Deanne Thom at 02/28/2007

If Seymore Hersch is right that Bush/Cheney are running and funding an "off the shelf" covert action supporting the Sunnis, it certainly is time to impeach. Bush daddy did that and then pardoned all involved. Read the Walsh report on Iran/Contra. It truly is disgusting. To let Junior go down that road (and many other evil roads) is immoral. Didn't the Sunnis just blow up a bunch of university students? Of course, paying the terrorists (with our tax dollars) helps create more terrorists, which in turn gives Bush/Cheney more control over spending money and creating fear. Even the Dems are afraid of impeachment, too many rats would go down with that sinking ship.

On the plus side for the Dems is the fact that Nancy Pelosi would be President and we could (finally) forget Hillary.

Paul Marioni

Posted by Paul Marion at 02/28/2007

He constant vacillation will doom her to failure; aggresive posturing notwithstanding

Posted by Greg Manche at 02/28/2007

none of the above, you forgot...her relationship to AIPAC and the Tri-Lateral commision.

Posted by c52 at 02/28/2007

Proud to cast my vote for Hillary. Stop going with this lame stuff and support the Democratic Party! You Naderistas are so out in left field, and you are as responsible for the devastation this country has seen since 2000 as Bush/Cheney won due to your misguided votes. Vote Responsibly.

Posted by denisec at 02/28/2007

I am not sure whether or not I would bid adios to the Dems. if Hillary got the nomination. It would depend on a. How close she remains to the DLC and her centrist ways and b. Did she make a clear and unequivocal statement (statements) during the campaign.

On Nader: C'mon you guys. Give it a break. It was as much the Dems and their candidate's fault as it was repugnicans ability to get out the vote and hold their coalition of kooks and scum together. Nader, lets face it, is a great social activist...one of the best to ever hit the trenches BUT he is not a very smart politician. Had he been he would have used the time that he ran more productively in helping to build the Green Party's base and followed up after the election by further supporting base building, leadership development and FUND RAISING. He is not a villain or any sort of a bad guy, he's just a shitty politician.

Joseph

Posted by outsideag at 02/28/2007

What an appropriate name for the person who calls her/himself "zero" above. Nader GAVE US BUSH-LIVE W/IT UBERLEFTIES-Bush carried New Hampshire & the 2000 election by about 1200 votes out of hundreds of thousands-if nadertraitor had shown the same class and patriotism of, of all people, Pat Buchanan, who essentially withdrew when he saw he was hurting Bush, the Florida mess wouldn't have mattered, and we would be living in a signifigantly better country & world now. And the pathetic naderistas, like the (Eugene) Mcarthyites before them (remember when he endorsed Reagen over Carter-Bob Kennedy would have shot HIMSELF in the head before he ever did THAT) still whine on. A vote for Nader was a vote for Cheney/Rove/Iraq etc etc-live with it all you zeros! For God's sake Hillary has a real shot here. Lets stop the leftyloonie nonsense and make it happen before we wind up w/President McCain & Secretary of Health & Human Services Bay Buchanan.

Posted by eadie85 at 02/28/2007

Gotta agree with C52 below: Hillary's relationship with AIPAC is the #1 reason I will not vote for her. I hope Obama doesn't let me down in that regard either.

Posted by samar at 02/28/2007

This "poll" is a stupid thing to do unless The Nation is a publication of the Republican National Committee (or an insert to the NY Times). The categories (except for the last one) are RNC/FOX "News"/Frank Rich/Maureen Dowd headlines and talking points. This type of nonsense from The Nation, which the mag did in the 2000 election (e.g., Alexander Cockburn's political pornography "Gore and His Reinventions" in the Oct. 16, 2000 issue), helped put Bush-Cheney in the White House, our brave armed forces' members in Iraq, and the Roberts-Alito duo on the Supreme Court. To be part of the attack machine against decent people like Al Gore, John Kerry, and Hilary Clinton is reprehensible.

Posted by Jim Murphy at 02/28/2007

I, for one, am sick and tired of the whining from simple-minded dolts who blame Nader for Bush. Here's a fact for you: more than 200,000 registered Democrats voted for Bush in Florida in 2000. You want to blame someone? Blame Gore, who ran a campaign that pushed the right wing of the Dems into Bush's arms and the left into Nader's. He snatched defeat from the jaws of victory. It wasn't until he announced that he wasn't running in 2004 that he began to look and sound like a winner. Go put that in your bong and smoke it, you ignorant simpletons.

Posted by bookmanjb at 02/28/2007

Hillary Rodham Clinton is one of the smartest women in the U.S. and has many times been selected as the most admired woman in the world by huge margins. She is the only candidate who has actually lived in the White House and has a real idea of what is involved in being President. Obama is like a "mere schoolboy" in comparison with her experience. Some of you may have forgotten what this country was like during the Clinton presidency. It was so much better than today that there is no comparison. Remember the first thing King George did was abolish the office of women's affairs in the White House....I mean the VERY FIRST THING!!! Have y'all forgotten that 51% of this country is female and oh how we would like to have a woman President. To get one with the intellect and experience of HRC is like icing on the cake. Look at that precious Chelsea....Can you put her up beside those awful brats (the Bush twins?) Obviously, Hillary had the largest part of rearing Chelsea and she did a fine job. We can always judge a person by the way her children turn out and in that aspect, once again Hillary is a big winner. Some of you write as if you live in a dream world. No liberal like Russ Feingold can be elected President....just like Howard Dean - a fine man, but he will never be President. When you have such a diverse population, you will have an easier time of electing someone who is more centrist. And y'all can quite dreaming about a Gore run....he is not going to run this year so just forget it. Susan B. in Nashville, Tennessee

Posted by almasanford at 02/28/2007

The Nation Staff and those deep in politics know that no candidate or politician, especially Hillary Clinton leads with or is driven by polls, But that is a good question, because there is a perception that she is driven that way and that she decides based on public opinion. Look at her actual voting history and who she is, and take a look at her public life as an aggregate and she is far from a person who is swayed by opionion polls. That is why she is both an incredible leader, but also someone who is going to be hard to elect. Incredible becuase she can make hard decisions and be responsible for them, difficult because she is not likely to apoplogize for her mistakes...and Iraq is a HUGE one...perhaps the biggest of our lifetimes.

Posted by bodean525600 at 02/28/2007

I pretty much agree with srjenkins (see third post in this thread) and would seek a third party or independent candidate to vote for should Hilary get the Dems nomination. Given the current stumbling by the Dems in Congress in recent days, they apparently do not have the gumption to take a stand against anyone or anything that appears to wield a lot of power. Therefore, they will nominate Hilary just like they aquiesce to Bush's policies. What a shame.

Posted by cascadian at 02/28/2007

She is bought and paid for, like most of the candidates, by corporate interests.

Posted by Anne Scott at 03/1/2007

How much has shse taken from She wouldn't take money from foreign nations or AIPAC would she? After all her loyalty is to America...right?

Posted by Cranston at 03/1/2007

We are in no better condition in this nation with the disparity between the haves and the have mores than we were 200 years ago. If history were to repeat itself, our current White House occupant would be strung up at an Esso station by his ankles along with his mistress, Jeff Gannon Guckert.

Hillary will have her work cut out for her once the masses learn that Gulliani married his second cousin. That by itself will seal the "git-er-done" vote.

Posted by jarjarbush at 03/1/2007

the way she got on the anti-arab bandwagon re the ports sale to Dubai was really disappointing. America needs ( now more than ever) politicians who can rise above the (poll-driven) "immediate", and lead by example. again you have a candididate with no apparent public convictions. If u have someone who wants to be all things to all people, you end up offering nothing to no one.

Posted by pimmscyp at 03/1/2007

Given Hillary's voting record on the Iraq war, her aggressive and enthusiastic support of Israel's bombing of the Lebanese, her most recent lack of any support for measures to ban anti-civilian weapons such as cluster bombs, I could never vote for her either in the primary or in the presidential election. I would have to vote for a third candidate.

Posted by annferguson at 03/1/2007

Hillary would be an excellent President, absolutely! Nader is an idiot ego-maniac and his followers need to stop smoking the hashish and enter reality. The Nader followers are those people you see driving 1971 Omnis, eating macrobiotic diets, and killing their TV. Not that any of those things are terrible in themselves, but it's just not how most of us choose to live in the real world. Get real and vote for a real person. Vote Hillary!!!!

Posted by denisec at 03/1/2007

I like the Nation overall. But I am disappointed with your Treatment of Hillary Clinton. You are joining the other left wing bloggers in Hillary Bashing, and I think it is entirely unfair. So she voted for the Iraq Resolution. So did most. Obama didn't because he wasn't even in the Congress and didn't have to cast a vote. Edwards apologized - who cares!! I am very happy Hillary didn't cave and apologize - that would do absolutely nothing for anyone. And, you don't even know what an Obama Presidency would look like - Gore isn't running...so get that through your head. Besides, the left wing bashed him last time in 2000 - contributing to the rise of the Bushists. But how since he's a Dark Horse, he's looking good to you. I think the left wing has a savior complex...looking for some virgin candidate who looks amazing until...he/she actually gets in the race.

Posted by denisec at 03/1/2007

I think that Ms Rodham-Clinton would be an excellent President and I would vote for her in a heart beat. UNFORTUNATELY, her gender is against her (I am male). There are too many men on testosterone overload who would not vote for her. I can't picture archaic VFW and/or Amer. Leg.types (of questionable testosterone level) accepting a woman as President, as I can't imagine the majority of the "shop rats" (there aren't so many as there used to be)or Fox News/Limbaugh/Hannity male type fans voting for her. So many men are so puffed up with their "manhood machismo" that they can't appreciate a female president. Testosterone loaded "He-men" still consider women as an "untermensch" sub species and consider ladies to be incapable of functioning as a Chief Executive. Sorry.

Posted by gmcvanguy at 03/1/2007

Just a note on the whole "apology" issue . . . An apology from Senator Clinton for her vote to authorize the war on Iraq is irrelevant. It is a diversion by common-taters who are not interested in meaningful examination of her qualifications to be president. What is relevant, and what I'd like to hear more about, is what her vote says about what kind of senator she is, and what kind of president she would be. Consider: - Prior to the Senate's vote, there was ample credible doubt about the administration's claims and rationale for war. It wasn't found on mainstream media newscasts or op-ed pages, but it was there for anyone willing to read sources with more heft than USA Today. -Several Senators, including some on the Senate Intelligence Committee, found the rationale weak enough to warrant a dissenting vote. -Millions of Americans and millions more world citizens were not convinced. -Mainstream and weak-kneed Dems have long fretted over a manufactured "perception" that Democrats are weak on defense. Adding those up, I can only conclude that Senator Clinton, along with Edwards, Kerry, and all the others who supported the resolution to wage war on Iraq, are intellectually lazy, easily fooled, or political cowards - and I must say, I'm skeptical Senator Clinton is slow-witted or gullible. Political cowardice is not a quality we need in a President, nor one we need in a Senator for that matter. Who cares if she apologizes? We should care only that she withdraw from the race and resign from the Senate - and maybe stop at Arlington on her way out of town to look at the consequences of unbridled ambition.

Posted by Sopper14 at 03/1/2007

I wish I could vote for Ms. Clinton but how can anyone support what Israel is doing to the Palestinians in their own country/? Outright murder, cluster bombs ,building that wall to imprison ,,withholding their aid money ..anything no matter how inhuman to drive them out of their homeland. How can you not be ashamed that billions of American tax dollars are being used to support this "holocaust"?

Posted by Cranston at 03/1/2007

Well like so many supposedly "progressive" websites here we have it all, don't we? The ridiculous Israel-haters who would contribute to flight training school for the next generation of 9-11 "pilots" but deny a holocaust survivor the right to die in peace in the land his people first "occupied" six thousand years ago. Then theres the nadertraitors-the poor losers, in the definitve, and ETERNAL meaning of that word, who STILL think they should vote for a 3rd party candidate, instead of Hilary if she is the democratic nominee, because....well WHO CARES WHY???--THE IMPORTANT THING IS WHAT!!!--what we will have have for the following 4, 8, or spirit-knows how many years-ANOTHER REPUBLICAN PRESIDENT. I cannot applaud enough the comments by folks like "genisec" or "dmcvanguy" who clearly not only live on this planet, & at this time, but are are also apparently out of patience with these other utter imbeciles who are not, but still claim to be "progressive," like "zero," "cranston," et al. Everyone please--just get it through your heads, unless you are completely insane and it is therefore hopeless--GORE WOULD HAVE BEEN BETTER THAN BUSH; HILARY WOULD BE BE BETTER THAN McCAIN OR GIULIANI; YOU DO NOT HAVE ANOTHER CHOICE, JUST AS IN 2000!!! THIS IS THE REALITY whether or not you can accept that Nader is a hopeless egomaniac still looking for that next Corvair, to put him back in the limelight, and that by comparison Gore in his sleep would have done a better job as President. Dennis Kuchinich is a great guy-if he had Hilary's political acumen & personality he might be a great man-but he ISN'T going to be the next president, or president EVER. For God's sake we are truly running out of time here-Anna Nicole Smith would probably carry a few states in the next election if her name was placed on the ballot, at least based on the coverage she gets, and she's dead, which was no signifigant change in her qualifications for the job. But hey--she would have been a THIRD PARTY CANDIDATE to vote for. All kidding aside-everyone who cares about this country needs to unite behind a Democratic candidate WHO CAN WIN THE ELECTION. Otherwise what we've seen the last six years is just the tip of the iceberg. Parenthetically, is it just me or does nader bear a striking resemblance to the BIlly Zane character in Titanic-you know-the sniveling egofreak who saves his own life at the expense of others, because he just KNOWS HOW MUCH MORE IMPORTANT HE AND HIS PERSONAL CAUSE ARE.

Posted by eadie85 at 03/1/2007

Already the fingerpointing and arguing has started and it's a year before any earnest campaigning. The idea of elections is that we decide what we want based on reason and solid information. Now, it use to be that Democrats had everything going for them. We had the sense of humor, we had facts, we had better policy. The first of the three went out the window some time ago. We want to choose who represents the Dem's in the upcoming election. All of the candidates so far would be better than the president we have now. That much we agree on. Clearly the people on this board have already made up their minds as to who they would support. They're not persuading anybody. Why don't you save your vitriol for the real fight and, while your at it, what you're going to do with your time once you don't have GW to blame?

Posted by marconiplein at 03/2/2007

The Democratic party would exercise bad judgement in naming Hillary. To cleanly win this election a clear break of thinking needs to be established and Hillary sits at the right of Bill, not the left. The reasonableness of the Democratic party has made it fall pray to the cynicism of the radical right, Hillary is among those caught on the murky waters of submission to Republican redefinition of language. Morally, the question that must be asked is one that hasn't been seriously asked by the political establishment in centuries: what effect on the world will this next president have; a lot of fixing needs to be done to undo the disaster that these past few years have brought. We ask always, how will Americans benefit, and is this in the interest of Israel. But, what about the rest of the world? We wont survive without them and morally we are all sibling, the repair order is tall. Will a Hillary fix this? I think not. She is too tied to the double faced standard of morality and profits to do it.

Posted by reivaj at 03/2/2007

I don't believe she has baggage, but that's because I'm not mentally deficient. Others may see her aggressive appearance as a liability, but those people merely justify the misogyny that originated that idea.

Posted by fastfood15 at 03/2/2007

Groundhog day. Every four years a Clinton or a Bush shows up and demands to be made President. I'll bet Iraq is looking forward to 2012 when it's Jeb"s turn. Actually I would vote for Ms. Clinton if It weren't pretty clear that she is a toady for Israel. I once voted for Bill.

Posted by Cranston at 03/2/2007

Thank you so much for EADIE85, Fastfood 15, and Sopper14, who seem to live in this reality. You guys have it nailed. I fear that Democratic lefties just didn't learn from 2000 and 2004, when they gave their votes away to Green Party candidates or Nader. Maybe they have 8 years to wait and hope for the perfect candidate, but I don't. While you're waiting, the rest of us are suffering the ineptitude and insanity that another Republican President continues to and will bring us. Life is too short, and our country is crumbling here. Work with the system you've got, and try and make positive changes from within. That's the only way to go...anything else is just Magical Thinking.

Posted by denisec at 03/2/2007

Baggage or not, my concern is the detrimental effect Hillary will have on the rest of the ticket (other Democrats) in those areas where she is not held in high regard. I would love for her to be elected, but cringe at the vigor of the backlash here in the South. The Nation recently ran an inspiring article about how our region is becoming civilized. Wait for chapter two - after Hillary heads the ticket. Though few can articulate a single fact against her, their zeal is unmatched.

Posted by Billd94 at 03/2/2007

Unfortunately, as hard as they try, the Nader voters will never be able to wash the Bush blood off their hands. The two party system is institutionalized in this country by the simple fact that it is winner take all. If Nader really thought he could win the election then he should have picked one of the two parties and stuck to it. If he can’t win one of the two groups of voters in either of the two parties then he has no business running in the general election unless it is for his ego or to ‘send a message’. There is nothing barring any eligible voter from voting in either the Republican or Democratic primaries. The primaries are the time to send a message! I personally voted for J. Jackson in the primaries, but I dutifully voted for Dukakis in the general election. If you are going for a group of voters that traditionally doesn’t vote, then nothing would stop them from voting in a primary. This isn’t Rocket Science! The simple fact is that Gore was a billion times more palatable to any one of the Nader voters than Bush, yet they wanted to ‘send a message’. Well, your grandchildren will be paying for your ‘message’ for 100 years to come. Think about that tonight when you try to fall asleep or the next time you try to ‘send a message’. The message you sent was GW Bush’s smirk for 8 years. Please don’t make that mistake again. There are many election systems that would allow for a third party. It’s just that this one isn’t one of them.

Posted by D1od1o at 03/3/2007

Hillary Clinton was a proud architect of our welfare "reform" policies that so effectively tranferred tax dollars from fundamental humanitarian aid for Americans into a years-long string of "tax breaks" for the very rich, setting back all the social progress made in the US since the days of FDR, and (for a range of complex reasons)creating the unprecedented economic disparities we see today. And to put the icing on the cake, the demonization of the poor begun in the Reagan era was "legitimized" for otherwise-progressive Americans by the Clinton stamp of approval. This has resulted not only in tremendous hardships for America's poor, but has been instrumental in driving down wages, opening the door to dismantling Social Security, etc.

Posted by DHFabian at 03/3/2007

So what are you saying, DHFABIAN, that you would have preferred an extra eight more years of another Bush-type instead of Bill Clinton? Welfare Reform has had some good outcomes and some bad outcomes. I think we needed it, but it needs to be tweaked. With a National Health Care safety net, for example. Because of the Democratic Party loss of the House, Senate and Presidency for the last six years, we haven't had the necessary Part II of Welfare Reform. My point is that Bill Clinton wasn't perfect and neither will Hillary, but our electoral system doesn't allow perfection. We just can't afford another four or eight years of trying to achieve perfection and instead getting another Bush look-alike. I would have thought that eight years of Bush would have taught the more progressive side of the Democratic Party a lesson. I guess it is hard to teach old dogs new tricks!

Posted by D1od1o at 03/3/2007

What is an effective response to the Republicans and Democrats playing "goodcop-badcop" against the American people? The Democrats seem to shovel money into the pockets of the rich a little more slowly than the other mob but there is definitely a movement towards the loss of People power and even what we used to call humanity. Can Hillary or anybody else reverse the trajectory...and do any of the "Privy Class" chosen candidates want to?

Posted by Cranston at 03/4/2007

I cannot support a candidate that is s beholden to the DNC. Hillary is better than ANY Republican, don't get me wrong, but she is going to do what the corporate interests tell her to do.

Posted by elmo99 at 03/4/2007

It is 100% certain that if Hillary is the general season nominee I will not only vote for Nader or whichever Nader-like candidate emerges, but I will work AGGRESSIVELY on getting word out about the candidate and his positions. That's what Hillary For President means to me: time to work on another Nader candidacy.

Posted by ZERO 02/27/2007 @ 9:25pm | ignore this person

I'm inclined to take this route too. The hell with the argument that one is "throwing away one's vote" by voting Green or even (gasp!) Socialist. Voting is basically a form of self-expression anyway, as well as an expression of support for the Democratic process itself. If everyone thought this way, maybe the American would elect fewer Bushes (or Hillarys) and more Naders.

Posted by w_m_bear at 03/4/2007

Some of you don't understand that the general election is 'winner take all'. Your time to 'vote your conscience' is during the primaries. I would absolutely vote for Nader if he ran in the Democratic Primary. During the general election, I will vote for Obama, Clinton, etc. Until we do something to change the electoral system in this country, I not stupid enough to vote for a third party.

Posted by D1od1o at 03/5/2007

I appreciate the intelligence and integrity displayed in the comments by D10D10, denisec, and a few others, and also appreciate how he mindless response of w-m-bear reflects why, as D10 said-the Bush blood AKA the blood of our service people in Iraq, out sister & brother citizens in New Orleans, everyone who suffers or dies for lack of ability to pay for health care, ALL OF THAT BLOOD STAINS THE HANDS OF THE NADER NITWITS. The issue ISNT "WASTING YOUR VOTE" ON A 3RD PARTY CANDIDATE--THE ISSUE IS WHO IS GOING TO BE ELECTED PRESIDENT! If Gore (or Bush) had been well-ahead-hey all you Zeros (obviously in every sense of the word) go ahead and vote for Ralph, or the kid from Different Strokes (probably a better, certainly a saner, choice) or whoever you want. Nader, and the starry eyed babes in the woods, who have since come back to earth, or especially the utter idiots like zero, bear etc, did't merely waste their vote--THEY ELECTED BUSH!! Anyone who would give us Romney, or McCain, or Giuliani, by indirectly voting for them in a close election, by voting 3rd party, AFTER THE NADERTRAITOR EXPERIENCE OF 2000--truly is a traitor. Utter ignorance/stupidity/or even probably insanity(if we get 1 more repug supreme court appointment) is no defense anymore.

Posted by eadie85 at 03/5/2007

Forget about an apology for her vote for the resolution authorizing the invasion of Iraq, I'm still waiting for her to apologize for being the person most responsible for bringing us Speaker Newt Gingrich, Tom DeLay and their little Dick Armey.

Her grave miscalculations, vanity and plain bull-headedness surrounding the health care debate/debacle contributed more than any other single factor to the Republican sweep of the 1994 mid-term elections.

Couple that with the the Clintons' transformation of the DNC from a national party committee (however ineffective) into an entity of, by and for the Clintons (odd how it seems this happens to most institutions with which they become affiliated); and you got twelve years of GOP control of the House.

A prediction: If she is the nominee and elected (and I'd vote for her), history will record those 12 years as a brief and moderate interlude in contrast to the Repbulican control of Congress that began in 2010.

Posted by jeffersonian at 03/5/2007

Hilary's greatest weakness as a candidate? It's Israel , stupid. If she has the cajones to doublecross AIPAC I'll be on board if she is nominated. If not, not.

Posted by Cranston at 03/5/2007

Israel is the albatross of most politicians currently running for any national office. I don't think Hillary is more susceptible than the average. Unfortunately, until we are an honest broker of peace in Palestine, there will always be mistrust from the Muslim world. I actually credit Hillary for attempting to give us National Health care. There is no politician that could have withstood the pounding that the media and the corporate world unleashed on her. She is still trying to recover. What saddened me the most was the lack of support from the middle class. She was ‘Harry and Louise’ed by big money interests and I will continue to support her for sticking her neck out for us. Military defense is designed to protect against the transfer of wealth. National Health care is the true defense of the middle class in more ways than one.

Posted by D1od1o at 03/5/2007

Everybody else in doin' it so it's acceptable? There are lots of politicians representing Israel from the Zionocrat Liberman on down to that guy from Kentucky. We don't need to give them the Presidency too, tho' the DNC almost did with the Gore-Liberman ticket. Israel is about 60 years old and I don'k know what they give to the U.S. or the rest of the world but they have complete health care They take billions from us every year for "defense".....which means conquest. I'd like some loyal American politician to require them to use their health care money for their own defense and let us use our tax dollars for some health care of our own. I hoped it would be Ms. Clinton because she was head of the effort toward health care when President Clinton was first elected. But apparently all the "chosen" candidates have to be in Israel's stable. Both parties I think. Google "Does your vote count in America?" by John Anast for some money facts re politicians.

Posted by Cranston at 03/6/2007

The tragedy isn't that left-wing Ann Coulters like "cranston" will never learn; they were never capable of learning in the first place. Its that they, like the people still contributing to Ted Haggard's church, or hoping a "real" Republican will show up in Arizona, unlike that flaming lefty McCain, or hoping Nader comes back trying to see if he could actually hit 3% of the vote--hey 3rd times the charm right. (O, except this would actually be about the 6th time he ran-just couldn't find enough loonies to support him, or media coverage to sensationalize him in 96, 92 etc)

There are surely politicians whose support of Israel might not be quite so enthusiastic but for AIPAC. Sen Clinton, like so many democrats, and even a few republicans, in the long, great tradition of democrats supporting Israel against evil and terror, isn't one of them. Doesn't mean she won't take their money; just means that unlike Cheney, Bush, Nader, cranston etc-she knows what's right. Israel's made no shortage of mistakes, especially lately. But they never hijacked planes to fly into buildings, blew up school buses, or like cranston's apparent soulmates within the last year, placed rocket launchers in Beirut residential neighborhoods and when Israel defended its people and territory from yet another mindless-religious fanatic-bloodthirsty terrorist attack, whined about Israel's bombing innocent noncombatants.

People who are so out of touch they support Nader over Gore, or blame AIPAC(entirely anyway) for America doing at least 1 right thing among so few others in its foreign policy, are like the Brits of the 30's depicted in the film "Remains of the Day"-Neville Chamberlain et al, camouflaging their anti-semitism, or outright admiration for Hitler, by saying well its Jewish money thats buying all this, they've brought it on themselves etc etc. Could there be a more suicidal move by democrats than to start doing the same?

Posted by eadie85 at 03/6/2007

Her weakest point: being tied to the most charismatic fraud in modern history, Bill Clinton. He can talk some shit but anyone who could find a progressive bone in his body would be guilty of mutilation by tranplanting it there from somewhere else.

Anyone who finds affinity for the DLC is a crypto-reactionary. We may have to vote for Shill-ary because of the greater evil on the other side but let's not be coy about a progressive agenda.

Posted by Henry Queve at 03/7/2007

OMG! I tried to get through this thread. Really, I tried. But come on people, do you really think Nader Voters have "blood on thier hands"? Because they voted their conscience? I didn't vote for Nader, but I do vote third party! The two parties will only change when they see a reason to change. And as for the "blood" thing, read Richard Clark's book 'Against all Enemies'. Some interesting stuff that. And lest we forget, Clinton dropped a few bombs too.

Posted by Tht1Gy! at 03/7/2007

People need to understand that we will never change this system until we deal with campaign election reform. We must limit moneys role in electoral campaigns. I suggest we have public financing of elections with one twist(I'm taking about federal elections).Any candidates who opt out of public financing will do so with the understanding anything they raise will be matched and given to those who stay in the system. This will negate any reason not to stay within the system. We also have to start voting 3rd party and stop voting for the lesser of two evils.

Posted by Richardoe at 03/7/2007