Guest HopeFor2008 Posted July 16, 2007 Posted July 16, 2007 Here's an article I just came across - what do you think about the points raised? Memo to Democrats: Independents won't elect Hillary Clinton As a "swing state" Independent voter who does not want to see any of George W. Bush's failed policies dragging on past 2008, I feel compelled to offer Democrats my two cents on the next presidential election. And I hope that Democrats will listen, not just to me, but to Independent voters in general, because the votes of Independents will ultimately decide which party's nominee will become the next President. My point here is simple: Hillary Clinton does not represent the change that Independent voters are looking for, and we will not make her the next president. This is not simply my own perspective - polls have shown that, although voters would prefer a Democratic president in 2008, Hillary Clinton does very poorly in head- to-head matchups against all of the major Republican contenders [1]. For example, a recent Zogby poll indicated that Hillary Clinton would lose against Giuliani or McCain, while Barack Obama would defeat any potential Republican candidate [2]. And when Independents choose among Democratic primary candidates, Obama leads Clinton 31% to 22% [3]. The message from the American electorate is quite clear: if Democrats nominate Hillary Clinton, Republicans win in 2008 and the White House is GOP-occupied territory until 2013. Even if Democrats insist on ignoring polls like these, there are other practical reasons why nominating Hillary Clinton would be a strategic disaster. One concern is that she has already alienated far more voters than the other Democratic contenders. Polls have shown, for example, that 46% of American voters say they would definitely vote against Hillary Clinton [4]. A more serious concern yet: no other Democrat's candidacy has as much potential to re-unify the GOP and mobilize the conservative base in opposition. For that reason, the head-to-head polls may even underestimate the difficulty that a Hillary Clinton ticket would face in 2008. Hillary Clinton has long been despised by Republicans, but more recently she has lost the support of most liberals (by voting to authorize the Iraq War and the Patriot Act, for example), and the polls above suggest she isn't very popular with Independents either. The only group that seems to like her are Democrats who don't belong to the passionately anti-war bloc. This support may make her a serious competitor for the Democratic nomination, but when it comes to the general election, Hillary Clinton's narrow support base renders her unelectable. Aside from the pragmatic arguments, there are deeper issues that make me doubt that Hillary Clinton is the best candidate for her party or for the country. I realize she often does a good job of talking the "party line", but when the money is on the line, will she stand up for everyday Americans or will she shift with the winds of political expedience? I think one good predictor of Hillary Clinton's loyalties as president can be found in her fundraising - to whom would she owe her election? Revealingly, Hillary Clinton relies on relatively fewer but larger political contributions than her Democratic adversaries. She has taken more of her money from $2300+ donors than any other candidate from either party, and her percentage of money from small donors (< $200) is lower than Obama, Edwards, or Richardson [5]. But more disturbingly, unlike Obama and Edwards, she freely accepts money from corporate PAC's and lobbyists [6]. Clearly these donors must believe that Hillary Clinton will support their interests if elected. And while Hillary Clinton did try to reform the health care system 15 years ago, the fact that she has now become the largest recipient of health industry dollars in the senate [6] makes me wonder if she would act with much boldness on that issue as president. But perhaps the most worrying source of Hillary Clinton's recent fundraising is none other than the owner of Fox News, Rupert Murdoch, who hosted a fundraiser for her last summer [7]. I can understand it from Murdoch's point of view: of course he'd prefer to have a Republican win in 2008, but that looks difficult, so it makes sense to also support the Democrat who is least threatening to his ideology and interests. Of course, Hillary Clinton's ties to conservative corporate elements don't end there. She served on the board of directors of WalMart from 1986 to 1992, a time when that company was expanding, along with its union-busting policies and dismal wages without health care [8]. And it's said that Hillary Clinton "was a part of those decisions". The campaign staff she has surrounded herself with are even more entwined in the interests of big business. Her top pollster, who has worked on Enron-style energy deregulation, continues to work for a very un- progressive PR firm which has helped tobacco companies fight new regulation and coached companies on how to resist unionization efforts [6]. Can Independents be blamed if they view Hillary Clinton as a continuation of the same dysfunctional and special interest controlled government that we have endured for much longer than just the last seven years? If the picture I paint above seems to contrast with the public image Hillary Clinton has tried to cultivate, that's a big part of the problem. Who is the real Hillary Clinton? Character and trust go a long way toward winning the votes of many Independents, and I think this is where many people are uncertain about Hillary Clinton. From her I hear carefully rehearsed and crafted soundbites, lacking in both substance and sincerity. I would like to see a woman president in the near future, but I think American women deserve a better first president than Hillary Clinton. Even though I don't like any of the likely Republican candidates, I wouldn't vote for Hillary Clinton either, and the numbers suggest I'm not the only one who finds her lacking in authenticity. Hillary Clinton is unelectable as a presidential candidate, and probably for good reason. I hope that Democrats will think very carefully about the merit and the consequences of nominating her in 2008 before they make their decision. [1] http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-dems17jun17,1,1842149,full.story?ctrack=1&cset=true [2] http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1316 [3] http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2007-06-04-poll_N.htm [4] http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/poll_giuliani_has_biggest_base_of_support_lowest_base_of_opposition [5] http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/index.asp [6] http://www.thenation.com/docprint.mhtml?i=20070604&s=berman [7] http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/10/nyregion/10hillary.html?ex=1304913600&en=ff6d1ba374427b83&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss [8] http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-hillary19may19,0,5168474.story?coll=la-home-center Quote
Guest Kickin' Ass and Takin' Names Posted July 16, 2007 Posted July 16, 2007 On Jul 16, 5:04 pm, HopeFor2008 <sunwol...@aol.com> wrote: > Here's an article I just came across - what do you think about the > points raised? > > Memo to Democrats: Independents won't elect Hillary Clinton > > As a "swing state" Independent voter who does not want to see any of > George W. Bush's failed policies dragging on past 2008, I feel > compelled to offer Democrats my two cents on the next presidential > election. And I hope that Democrats will listen, not just to me, but > to Independent voters in general, because the votes of Independents > will ultimately decide which party's nominee will become the next > President. My point here is simple: Hillary Clinton does not > represent the change that Independent voters are looking for, and we > will not make her the next president. This is not simply my own > perspective - polls have shown that, although voters would prefer a > Democratic president in 2008, Hillary Clinton does very poorly in head- > to-head matchups against all of the major Republican contenders [1]. > For example, a recent Zogby poll indicated that Hillary Clinton would > lose against Giuliani or McCain, while Barack Obama would defeat any > potential Republican candidate [2]. And when Independents choose > among Democratic primary candidates, Obama leads Clinton 31% to 22% > [3]. The message from the American electorate is quite clear: if > Democrats nominate Hillary Clinton, Republicans win in 2008 and the > White House is GOP-occupied territory until 2013. > > Even if Democrats insist on ignoring polls like these, there are other > practical reasons why nominating Hillary Clinton would be a strategic > disaster. One concern is that she has already alienated far more > voters than the other Democratic contenders. Polls have shown, for > example, that 46% of American voters say they would definitely vote > against Hillary Clinton [4]. A more serious concern yet: no other > Democrat's candidacy has as much potential to re-unify the GOP and > mobilize the conservative base in opposition. For that reason, the > head-to-head polls may even underestimate the difficulty that a > Hillary Clinton ticket would face in 2008. > > Hillary Clinton has long been despised by Republicans, but more > recently she has lost the support of most liberals (by voting to > authorize the Iraq War and the Patriot Act, for example), and the > polls above suggest she isn't very popular with Independents either. > The only group that seems to like her are Democrats who don't belong > to the passionately anti-war bloc. This support may make her a > serious competitor for the Democratic nomination, but when it comes to > the general election, Hillary Clinton's narrow support base renders > her unelectable. > > Aside from the pragmatic arguments, there are deeper issues that make > me doubt that Hillary Clinton is the best candidate for her party or > for the country. I realize she often does a good job of talking the > "party line", but when the money is on the line, will she stand up for > everyday Americans or will she shift with the winds of political > expedience? I think one good predictor of Hillary Clinton's loyalties > as president can be found in her fundraising - to whom would she owe > her election? > > Revealingly, Hillary Clinton relies on relatively fewer but larger > political contributions than her Democratic adversaries. She has > taken more of her money from $2300+ donors than any other candidate > from either party, and her percentage of money from small donors (< > $200) is lower than Obama, Edwards, or Richardson [5]. But more > disturbingly, unlike Obama and Edwards, she freely accepts money from > corporate PAC's and lobbyists [6]. Clearly these donors must believe > that Hillary Clinton will support their interests if elected. And > while Hillary Clinton did try to reform the health care system 15 > years ago, the fact that she has now become the largest recipient of > health industry dollars in the senate [6] makes me wonder if she would > act with much boldness on that issue as president. But perhaps the > most worrying source of Hillary Clinton's recent fundraising is none > other than the owner of Fox News, Rupert Murdoch, who hosted a > fundraiser for her last summer [7]. I can understand it from > Murdoch's point of view: of course he'd prefer to have a Republican > win in 2008, but that looks difficult, so it makes sense to also > support the Democrat who is least threatening to his ideology and > interests. > > Of course, Hillary Clinton's ties to conservative corporate elements > don't end there. She served on the board of directors of WalMart from > 1986 to 1992, a time when that company was expanding, along with its > union-busting policies and dismal wages without health care [8]. And > it's said that Hillary Clinton "was a part of those decisions". The > campaign staff she has surrounded herself with are even more entwined > in the interests of big business. Her top pollster, who has worked on > Enron-style energy deregulation, continues to work for a very un- > progressive PR firm which has helped tobacco companies fight new > regulation and coached companies on how to resist unionization efforts > [6]. Can Independents be blamed if they view Hillary Clinton as a > continuation of the same dysfunctional and special interest controlled > government that we have endured for much longer than just the last > seven years? > > If the picture I paint above seems to contrast with the public image > Hillary Clinton has tried to cultivate, that's a big part of the > problem. Who is the real Hillary Clinton? Character and trust go a > long way toward winning the votes of many Independents, and I think > this is where many people are uncertain about Hillary Clinton. From > her I hear carefully rehearsed and crafted soundbites, lacking in both > substance and sincerity. I would like to see a woman president in the > near future, but I think American women deserve a better first > president than Hillary Clinton. Even though I don't like any of the > likely Republican candidates, I wouldn't vote for Hillary Clinton > either, and the numbers suggest I'm not the only one who finds her > lacking in authenticity. Hillary Clinton is unelectable as a > presidential candidate, and probably for good reason. I hope that > Democrats will think very carefully about the merit and the > consequences of nominating her in 2008 before they make their > decision. > > [1]http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-dems17jun17,1,1842149,full... > > [2]http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1316 > > [3]http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2007-06-04-poll_N.htm > > [4]http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/poll_giuliani... > > [5]http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/index.asp > > [6]http://www.thenation.com/docprint.mhtml?i=20070604&s=berman > > [7]http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/10/nyregion/10hillary.html?ex=13049136... > > [8]http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-hillary19may19,0... This article is clearly planted by Republicans as a false-flag operation. Quote
Guest lorad474@cs.com Posted July 16, 2007 Posted July 16, 2007 On Jul 16, 2:39 pm, Kickin' Ass and Takin' Names <PopUlist...@hotmail.com> wrote: > On Jul 16, 5:04 pm, HopeFor2008 <sunwol...@aol.com> wrote: > > > > > > > Here's an article I just came across - what do you think about the > > points raised? > > > Memo to Democrats: Independents won't elect Hillary Clinton > > > As a "swing state" Independent voter who does not want to see any of > > George W. Bush's failed policies dragging on past 2008, I feel > > compelled to offer Democrats my two cents on the next presidential > > election. And I hope that Democrats will listen, not just to me, but > > to Independent voters in general, because the votes of Independents > > will ultimately decide which party's nominee will become the next > > President. My point here is simple: Hillary Clinton does not > > represent the change that Independent voters are looking for, and we > > will not make her the next president. This is not simply my own > > perspective - polls have shown that, although voters would prefer a > > Democratic president in 2008, Hillary Clinton does very poorly in head- > > to-head matchups against all of the major Republican contenders [1]. > > For example, a recent Zogby poll indicated that Hillary Clinton would > > lose against Giuliani or McCain, while Barack Obama would defeat any > > potential Republican candidate [2]. And when Independents choose > > among Democratic primary candidates, Obama leads Clinton 31% to 22% > > [3]. The message from the American electorate is quite clear: if > > Democrats nominate Hillary Clinton, Republicans win in 2008 and the > > White House is GOP-occupied territory until 2013. > > > Even if Democrats insist on ignoring polls like these, there are other > > practical reasons why nominating Hillary Clinton would be a strategic > > disaster. One concern is that she has already alienated far more > > voters than the other Democratic contenders. Polls have shown, for > > example, that 46% of American voters say they would definitely vote > > against Hillary Clinton [4]. A more serious concern yet: no other > > Democrat's candidacy has as much potential to re-unify the GOP and > > mobilize the conservative base in opposition. For that reason, the > > head-to-head polls may even underestimate the difficulty that a > > Hillary Clinton ticket would face in 2008. > > > Hillary Clinton has long been despised by Republicans, but more > > recently she has lost the support of most liberals (by voting to > > authorize the Iraq War and the Patriot Act, for example), and the > > polls above suggest she isn't very popular with Independents either. > > The only group that seems to like her are Democrats who don't belong > > to the passionately anti-war bloc. This support may make her a > > serious competitor for the Democratic nomination, but when it comes to > > the general election, Hillary Clinton's narrow support base renders > > her unelectable. > > > Aside from the pragmatic arguments, there are deeper issues that make > > me doubt that Hillary Clinton is the best candidate for her party or > > for the country. I realize she often does a good job of talking the > > "party line", but when the money is on the line, will she stand up for > > everyday Americans or will she shift with the winds of political > > expedience? I think one good predictor of Hillary Clinton's loyalties > > as president can be found in her fundraising - to whom would she owe > > her election? > > > Revealingly, Hillary Clinton relies on relatively fewer but larger > > political contributions than her Democratic adversaries. She has > > taken more of her money from $2300+ donors than any other candidate > > from either party, and her percentage of money from small donors (< > > $200) is lower than Obama, Edwards, or Richardson [5]. But more > > disturbingly, unlike Obama and Edwards, she freely accepts money from > > corporate PAC's and lobbyists [6]. Clearly these donors must believe > > that Hillary Clinton will support their interests if elected. And > > while Hillary Clinton did try to reform the health care system 15 > > years ago, the fact that she has now become the largest recipient of > > health industry dollars in the senate [6] makes me wonder if she would > > act with much boldness on that issue as president. But perhaps the > > most worrying source of Hillary Clinton's recent fundraising is none > > other than the owner of Fox News, Rupert Murdoch, who hosted a > > fundraiser for her last summer [7]. I can understand it from > > Murdoch's point of view: of course he'd prefer to have a Republican > > win in 2008, but that looks difficult, so it makes sense to also > > support the Democrat who is least threatening to his ideology and > > interests. > > > Of course, Hillary Clinton's ties to conservative corporate elements > > don't end there. She served on the board of directors of WalMart from > > 1986 to 1992, a time when that company was expanding, along with its > > union-busting policies and dismal wages without health care [8]. And > > it's said that Hillary Clinton "was a part of those decisions". The > > campaign staff she has surrounded herself with are even more entwined > > in the interests of big business. Her top pollster, who has worked on > > Enron-style energy deregulation, continues to work for a very un- > > progressive PR firm which has helped tobacco companies fight new > > regulation and coached companies on how to resist unionization efforts > > [6]. Can Independents be blamed if they view Hillary Clinton as a > > continuation of the same dysfunctional and special interest controlled > > government that we have endured for much longer than just the last > > seven years? > > > If the picture I paint above seems to contrast with the public image > > Hillary Clinton has tried to cultivate, that's a big part of the > > problem. Who is the real Hillary Clinton? Character and trust go a > > long way toward winning the votes of many Independents, and I think > > this is where many people are uncertain about Hillary Clinton. From > > her I hear carefully rehearsed and crafted soundbites, lacking in both > > substance and sincerity. I would like to see a woman president in the > > near future, but I think American women deserve a better first > > president than Hillary Clinton. Even though I don't like any of the > > likely Republican candidates, I wouldn't vote for Hillary Clinton > > either, and the numbers suggest I'm not the only one who finds her > > lacking in authenticity. Hillary Clinton is unelectable as a > > presidential candidate, and probably for good reason. I hope that > > Democrats will think very carefully about the merit and the > > consequences of nominating her in 2008 before they make their > > decision. > > > [1]http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-dems17jun17,1,1842149,full... > > > [2]http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1316 > > > [3]http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2007-06-04-poll_N.htm > > > [4]http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/poll_giuliani... > > > [5]http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/index.asp > > > [6]http://www.thenation.com/docprint.mhtml?i=20070604&s=berman > > > [7]http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/10/nyregion/10hillary.html?ex=13049136... > > > [8]http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-hillary19may19,0... > > This article is clearly planted by Republicans as a false-flag > operation. I agree.. way contrived. Ain't NO republican (with the possible exception of Ron Paul) that's gonna be elected in 2008. But I ain't gonna vote for Hillary either. Here's why: 1) She supports illegal immigration. 2) She hasn't stated that she would end US military presence in Iraq. 3) She appears to be a NAFTA and WTO supporter. Quote
Guest Peter Principle Posted July 16, 2007 Posted July 16, 2007 HopeFor2008 wrote: > Here's an article I just came across - what do you think about the > points raised? <snip of rightard stupid bullshit> Er, the facts are rather, er, divergent from the claims in this rightard shill rant. Quite different, in point of fact. So different as to paint your source as either a filthy liar, stupid fool or, very probably, both. The truth is current polls show Clinton beats any of the GOPhool candidates quite handily. Given that she polls around 50%, and given that only about 35% of likely voters are registered Democrats, OBVIOUSLY quite a few independents - find someone competent in basic arithmetic and you'll see it's actually a strong the majority - would, indeed, vote for Clinton. Witness the FACTS, from more than a dozen odd polls... http://www.pollingreport.com/wh08gen.htm http://www.pollingreport.com/C2.htm#Hillary Logic: It's not just for breakfast anymore... -- Welcome to reality. Enjoy your visit. Slow thinkers keep right. ------ Why are so many not smart enough to know they're not smart enough? http://www.apa.org/journals/features/psp7761121.pdf Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.