To the few of our truly liberal friends, what appeal does Hillary offer you?

[Sleeping in EQ]

Originally Posted by BlueK

Richardson seems like a rational, middle of the road kind of guy. I guess the democratic party is too controlled by the far left to really consider him, although politically speaking he's the closest they have in the race to Bill Clinton.

I don't really like any of the candidates, and it's still early for any of them to really stake out positions, but Richardson isn't too bad. I'd like seeing him on the Dem ticket.

[UteStar]

FWIW, Archaea, in your comment that the civil servants want Hillary because of the bloated governments that come with a democrat in office...the federal government has increased in size under Bush compared to under Clinton. Yes, people can blame the increase on 9/11...but republicans have not been about cutting back on civil servants.

I think Hillary is kinda like Bush--democrats cannot fathom why anyone would support Bush...while republicans cannot understand why anyone would like or support Hillary. Polarizing figures to say the least.

[YOhio]

Originally Posted by BlueK

Richardson seems like a rational, middle of the road kind of guy. I guess the democratic party is too controlled by the far left to really consider him, although politically speaking he's the closest they have in the race to Bill Clinton.

I think the same thing could be said of Joe Biden.

[UteStar]

On another note--Richardson ran the Department of Energy. He was decent. Not terrific and not terrible. Also, coming now from the state of New Mexico...well, he has a lot of work to do to really be a contender.

[Archaea]

What does this say about Obama and Hillary, when I can't get our more socialistic and liberal members to stay on topic?

[Sleeping in EQ]

Originally Posted by Archaea

Is it that she is not conservative, and you are willing to take on anybody who is the antithesis of the uncaring conservative?

Or is it to stick it to conservatives to get them into a lather? I have a friend who loved to argue with a more conservative friend of mine, who, like Pavlov's dog, would become ballistic at the mention of Teddy Kennedy's name. Perhaps, you enjoy our Pavlovian responses to her despicable nature.

Or do simply see her as somebody capable of winning it from the bad moderates and conservatives?

I can see why Richardson, Obama or even Edwards might appeal, but failing the above explanations I can't see an explanation for her appeal.

While I'm not really liberal, I'm far enough from conservative that I think I qualify to answer this.

Here's some of the reasons why Hillary is at least interesting:

Abortion: She's more moderate on this than some would think. She's for it staying legal (and has observed that making it illegal won't end it), but is on the record as wanting to minimize the number of abortions through sex education and birth control. She's fine with abstinance being one of the things taught, and has even praised religious groups for doing this.

Death Penalty: She's for it (I'm not), but has pushed for post-conviction DNA testing. As I understand it, Sam Brownback is the only candidate against the DP of the current crop (and he's against abortion too--sort of the old school conservative line).

Education: She opposes vouchers for private schools and I do as well. Also, we need to make our education system more critical-thinking based (and less, teaching-to-the-test based), and she has advocated this idea.

Environment: This could be a strong suit for Hillary. She's on the Environment & Public Works Committee and wants to find ways to fund alternative energy. Obama has been mostly on the "cap usage of the current sources" side of things.

Faith-Based Initiatives: She's less secular on this than Obama (at least, it seems that she is). She's OK with faith-based programs that address social problems.

Gay Marriage: She's not going to push this. She's on record as opposing Gay Marriage, but in favor of civil unions.

Health Care: This will probably be one of her centerpiece issues and perhaps she's learned from the debacle in the early '90s. If she hasn't, she's in trouble. This is an issue to watch her on.

Immigration: She seems sensible on this. I like how Richardson is talking about why so many illegals are here--corporate jobs in big food and the like--but Hillary's comments have been fine on this issue.

Iraq War: So far, I have more confidence in her ability to deal with this situation sensibly than I do in Obama. Obama seems a little too reactionary, and maybe, reckless. Hillary can get moderates on this issue where Obama won't.

Poverty: This ties in with her health care issues. I'm in wait-and-see mode here.

Stem Cell Research: She's sensible on this. Romney seems a little nutty.

From a strategic POV, I think the GOP trotting out a bunch of highly personal anti-Hillary stuff is a mistake. Republicans are better when they're putting forward ideas, and as a moderate I've had more than my fill of rants full of talking points and personal attacks. This actually might be what some Dems really like about Hillary; they believe the GOP might shoot itself in the foot running against her.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Sleeping in EQ

While I'm not really liberal, I'm far enough from conservative that I think I qualify to answer this.

Here's some of the reasons why Hillary is at least interesting:

Abortion: She's more moderate on this than some would think. She's for it staying legal (and has observed that making it illegal won't end it), but is on the record as wanting to minimize the number of abortions through sex education and birth control. She's fine with abstinance being one of the things taught, and has even praised religious groups for doing this.

Death Penalty: She's for it (I'm not), but has pushed for post-conviction DNA testing. As I understand it, Sam Brownback is the only candidate against the DP of the current crop (and he's against abortion too--sort of the old school conservative line).

Education: She opposes vouchers for private schools and I do as well. Also, we need to make our education system more critical-thinking based (and less, teaching-to-the-test based), and she has advocated this idea.

Environment: This could be a strong suit for Hillary. She's on the Environment & Public Works Committee and wants to find ways to fund alternative energy. Obama has been mostly on the "cap usage of the current sources" side of things.

Faith-Based Initiatives: She's less secular on this than Obama (at least, it seems that she is). She's OK with faith-based programs that address social problems.

Gay Marriage: She's not going to push this. She's on record as opposing Gay Marriage, but in favor of civil unions.

Health Care: This will probably be one of her centerpiece issues and perhaps she's learned from the debacle in the early '90s. If she hasn't, she's in trouble. This is an issue to watch her on.

Immigration: She seems sensible on this. I like how Richardson is talking about why so many illegals are here--corporate jobs in big food and the like--but Hillary's comments have been fine on this issue.

Iraq War: So far, I have more confidence in her ability to deal with this situation sensibly than I do in Obama. Obama seems a little too reactionary, and maybe, reckless. Hillary can get moderates on this issue where Obama won't.

Poverty: This ties in with her health care issues. I'm in wait-and-see mode here.

Stem Cell Research: She's sensible on this. Romney seems a little nutty.

From a strategic POV, I think the GOP trotting out a bunch of highly personal anti-Hillary stuff is a mistake. Republicans are better when they're putting forward ideas, and as a moderate I've had more than my fill of rants full of talking points and personal attacks. This actually might be what some Dems really like about Hillary; they believe the GOP might shoot itself in the foot running against her.

Most of these issues are emotional nonissues but interesting.

I don't see anything that distinguishes her from Obama. So far, you've about convinced me, if the moderates or Reps lose, we'd be better off with Obama as I imagine he's a younger Bill Clinton, more flexible and can learn on the job.

And I've participated in very sophisticated research involving the effectiveness of hit pieces. They are effective, even if an intellectual such as yourself may be turned off by that approach. For the general public, they are necessary to win. And a candidate with too many negatives cannot win. That's why, if you have two very siimliar candidates in terms of policy, i.e., Hillary and Obama, you're nuts if you select the one with high negative reaction.

[BlueK]

Originally Posted by Archaea

I'm beginning to think that any party which tries to win with a Senator is delirious.

The only truly viable candidate is a Governor, or a mayor of one of our largest four cities.

They do seem nuts not to give him more consideration. He's the only Dem with executive experience.

[Detroitdad]

Although I stated that don't give a rats patoot about personality compared to policy and I will support and campaign for whomever the party pushes, I'll reveal some of my thoughts about the current crop. These are based upon a number of factors including where they fit in the political spectrum, viability, intangibles, etc. In order these are my favorite candidates


1. Richardson. Tons of experience. Moderate views. Governor of a swing state in a swing region.
2. Edwards-Name recognition. Personal
3. Biden. Plain spoken. Moderate views.
4. Obama/Hillary-Money!! Name recognition. Hillary brings contact with the Clinton machine and she is less liberal than Barack. I think that his extreme liberalism isObama's biggest weakness in a general election. Examination of his record would allow the Reps. to hammer at him as an elitist. Otherwise he is an extremely charismatic candidate.
5. Gravel-Makes Admiral Stockdale look warm and cuddly.
6. Dodd- Another mid level Senator (zzzzzzzz).
7. Kucinich-If the crypt keeper and Dennis the Menace were able to concieve a child.....Kucinich only matters to organic farmers, G8 protestors, and members of his district.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Detroitdad

4. Obama/Hillary-Money!! Name recognition. Hillary brings contact with the Clinton machine and she is less liberal than Barack. I think that his extreme liberalism isObama's biggest weakness in a general election. Examination of his record would allow the Reps. to hammer at him as an elitist. Otherwise he is an extremely charismatic candidate.
.

Is that a little like asking if Stalin is less of a communist than Mao?

On all main items, she is just as liberal as Obama, i.e., taxes, military, health care [is anybody more liberal or socialist than Hillary on this pivotal issue?], economy. In fact, if it were up to me, I wouldn't discuss anything else but those issues as all others are irrelevant in our daily lives.