Ok, so this is the problem. From what I have seen so far Hilary Clinton has been lead or close to the lead in the polls. I have searched quite a few forums, and I just joined this one. I can not find anyone that supports her for any other reasons then "she is a good women", "A woman will do what men can't", "I think she is a good candidate", "Bill did a good job, she will too". These answers for supporting her are poor at best. Although I have not heard all of the speeches she has given, I have heard quite a few. If you do support her then you also support her ideas. So how do supporters support these ideas? :

1. Supporting socialized Medicine

2. Her support of the patriot act

3. Supporting making flag burning illegal

4. Supporting banning semi-auto firearms

5. Her ideas on eduction(against the voucher system)

6. She is against gay marriages

7. She wants to censor video games

8. "The unfettered free market has been the most radically disruptive force in American life in the last generation."(not her quote but she has used it)

9. "We must stop thinking of the individual and start thinking about what is best for society."

10. Many of her ideas lean more toward income redistribution.

11. She is against the Fair Tax Act. She is against changing our tax system in any way. It is a communistic system that needs to be changed. It is also a waste of millions of dollars. Many politicians want to keep it because one thing the current system is good at is buying votes.

12. Against free trade.

13. Supports the McCain-Feingold act.

14. Wants to invade Iran.

15. I could go on, but that seems good enough.

Or are all of her supporters feminists or stupid. Maybe there is some profound reason I do not see. If so point it out. As long as it isn't "America needs change that only a woman can bring.".

People support Hillary because:

* She's a woman
* They don't think Obama is electable because he is inexperienced
* They don't understand why other people hate Hillary

I do not support Hillary and although I want any Democrat to win, I do not want to actually soil my hands by voting for her. That will be entirely possible for me, since if Hillary gets the nomination, New York is going to go for Hillary, freeing me up to vote for a 3rd party candidate.

__________________
Formerly W.E.B. Du Bois (you can still call me "WEB")

Current Diplomacy thread
WEB Music Playlist
Protest Animal Cruelty

I have really grown not to like Hillary either. Even talking about it makes me depressed.

Unlike Pelosi or Barbara Boxer or Tammy Duckworth, at least those women made it on their own, and they didn't have a yellow brick road paved for them because they were married to the President. Then you got the bitch sending out her dogs to knee-cap Obama while she pretends to be above the fray. Fuck Hillary, man.

__________________
Formerly W.E.B. Du Bois (you can still call me "WEB")

Current Diplomacy thread
WEB Music Playlist
Protest Animal Cruelty

Here's a good read on why Hillary:

Home / Globe / Opinion / Op-ed John Sasso

Why Clinton will prevail
John Sasso


SOME RAINDROPS have started to fall on Senator Hillary Clinton's parade to the Democratic presidential nomination. In the early primary races of Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina, rival Barack Obama has pulled even or ahead and the longstanding Clinton badge of elective inevitability has come under question.

I was more uncertain a year ago when she announced her candidacy. Then she had recognizable strengths but at the same time possessed familiar handicaps both political and personal. She was routinely portrayed as contrived, a woman whose high intelligence had an impersonal edge and whose real identity was difficult to locate.

That was then. Today Clinton has forged herself into a formidable political leader. She has undergone a remarkable journey. In the face of unending autopsies on her personal and political past, unrelieved targeting at both Democratic and Republican debates, the punishing demands imposed on a woman candidate, she is still standing unflinchingly in place.

This is the mark of thoroughbred candidates. They take the fire. They survive the wounds. And while voters relish the spectacle of office-seekers squirming under adversity, something else happens at the same moment. If candidates demonstrate they can bear that kind of public barrage with conviction and ready composure -- and Clinton has done that -- they cross a crucial threshold in the public mind. They are viewed as able to compete and win a national election and able thereafter to govern in perilous times.

Why the most electable Democrat? Because after a year of being tightly measured, Clinton has won a public acceptance that she has the intellect and inner confidence to do the job. She has reached beyond her political inheritance and shaped a political presence all her own. Hillary belittlers still abound, to be sure. She is still caricatured as calculating. But the senator has taken on some different markings. Gone is the defensive bite, on hand is a new openness to concede mistakes, often with glints of humor.

If she does capture the nomination, she will see her standing soar overnight. Nomination is a transforming passage. What was viewed by some as calculation becomes smartness, impersonalness becomes thoughtful deliberation.

Once nominated her campaign will undergo another transformation. Her candidacy will take on an historic aura as it confronts an historic question -- can a woman, this woman, be elected president? Americans will be caught up in crossing one of the country's great divides. Voters of both parties, not just proud women, will be favorably disposed to make that crossing. Americans like the good feeling of removing barriers.

This gender phenomenon showed up in the Geraldine Ferraro campaign, which I managed. At every stop, huge crowds turned out, eager to be part of history in the making. By campaign's end, two things seemed clearer to me: there is inherent goodwill for a woman seeking power but a far sterner demand she be up to the challenge. That higher bar asked too much of Ferraro. Clinton has already cleared the bar.

Why the least vulnerable Democrat? The day the Democratic nominee becomes obvious the Republican attack machine will spring to action. Always, the opponent is a target to be eviscerated. If Obama is the Democratic nominee, a man less intimately understood and less defined, Republicans will rush to manufacture their own brutal definition. Can Obama withstand that kind of barrage? Does he have the personal makeup to be as relentless as his opponents? Do past political positions leave him vulnerable? Because the risks are sky-high, these questions need to be reasonably raised and answered beforehand.

Clinton is well past negative redefinition. Unlike John Kerry's 2004 campaign in which veterans opposed to Kerry's candidacy challenged his war record, it will be difficult to ram a Swift Boat into her candidacy. If there is a convict in her political past, as with Willie Horton during the Dukakis 1988 campaign, he will already have been exhumed. Besides, the Clintons are veteran enough to mount a withering counterfire of their own.

The most vulnerable Democrat, Clinton is not. The most electable, she is. America's political landscape, this time around, looks fertile for the right Democratic candidate. But one day, surely, the country will elect a woman president. I sense that moment - and that woman - has arrived.

John Sasso was John Kerry's general election manager at the Democratic National Committee in 2004 and manager of Michael Dukakis's presidential campaign in 1988.

If you vote for a 3rd party candidate and the republican nominee should win the election, you will have to shoulder the blame for that. You might as well just vote republican.

I guess I will have to wait a while for a Hilary supporter to try to back her up. Last forum has been up for 2 months with no responses, other then people agreeing with me. I don't think it is right to vote for someone because they are a woman. You should vote for someone because you agree with them and think that there ideas are what is best for the country. Voting for her because she is a woman is like voting for someone because the are white or black or asian. All are irrelevant and just stupid pointless discrimination.

Who has said they are voting for anyone because they are white or black or asian, male or female?

I support Hillary because she is the only one who can beat the republicans.

Those are not issues. Every candidate gets attacked by the other party. The republican attack is the same as the democrat attack. All candidates get attacked. They mostly all brush off the attacks. All the candidates are strong intelligent leaders also. Doctors lawyers ect. That article was a load of crap. Really defend her stances. Do not say she is a strong intelligent woman.

I personally do not care about party. Pick the best candidate, that is all that matters.

I still don't see where anyone said they are voting for a candidate because of their gender or color although I am sure there are many who won't vote for a Black person or a Woman because of their color or gender.