I think that the race may be hers to lose. We had 10 times the turnout for dems than there were for republicans in this county....I just saw an email from the county dem headquarters. A huge number of republicans just didn't feel like voting for anyone. They just don't care about any of these guys and I have to think it is because they feel pretty betrayed by Bush and the party.

Degsme, that is a fair question. Let me try to answer it -- not actually from a GOPer, but from the standpoint of an independent who votes GOP more often than Democratic.

First, although there is little difference between Clinton and Obama in domestic policy, IMO there is a distinct difference on Iraq. Clinton voted the US Senate to authorize executive action; nearly contemporaneously, Obama spoke sharply against it. One can speculate on how Obama might have voted had actually been in the US Senate at the time, or account for the role of misinformation in Clinton's vote. What one can't say, however, is that their positions are nearly identical with such a substantive difference on this large an issue.

But this policy difference doesn't address your question on the visceral reaction against Clinton. I personally do not care for Clinton, but my feeling is not as visceral as some. I think I know the answer, though. There are an awful lot of people who do not care to experience another four or eight years of the "Clinton Soap Opera." (If you think Bill's going to remain primly in the background, just look at the campaign.) Though I liked several of Bill's policies, I don't care to repeat the soap opear either.

For the record, I voted as an independent in the CA Democratic primary. I voted for Obama. If the race is McCain-Obama, I don't know how I'll vote; but if it's for McCain and he loses I want the best person from the other party. If it's McCain-Clinton - well, no contest.

Carville is shrill but not prone to dirty tricks. I guess Karl Rove didn't get the memo either.

You claim to be asking for responses, yet you argue with every response. Several people have claimed that HRC would be more of _______. You then argue that Repubs are doing _______ too, so what's the problem? This argument from you misses the point of your own question. Apparently the only "honest thoughtful response" that you will accept is that HRC is OK.

So here's my response: If Guliani had won for the Repubs, I might have considered Obama, but never Clinton. Why? Well, it isn't my viscera, it's my memory. Whitewater. Travelgate. Making huge $$ on futures with a single trade. Trying to foist nationalized health care on us (as Bill's unelected personal rep), while telling us that our coverage wouldn't change and our health care costs would actually go down. Vehemently opposing any form of school choice, while sending her own daughter to the swankiest private schools she could find. Arguing that "it takes a village to raise a child" in order to support increased federal control over families. (A 300-million-person village?) "Standing by her man" repeatedly when she knew quite well he was a state/federal official committing perjury repeatedly. Then (when we all thought the Clinton nightmare was over) buying a house in NY so she could get elected on Bill's popularity. Voting for the Iraq war, but not having the balls to see it through, but then having the balls to claim it was Bush's war and that she was LIED TO (the irony is just too good), but then not having the balls to admit that things are improving lately. (Sexist slang unintentional.) I could go on for pages, but you get the point. Or if you don't, you never will.

To sum up: HRC has demonstrated repeatedly that she is a lying, scheming, hypocritical power-seeker. Obama has yet to demonstrate that. (Give him time.) And don't tell me how the Repubs are just as bad. That wasn't your question.

To our shame, a lot of my fellow Christian conservatives can't figure out the difference between moral conservatism (e.g., pro-life, sanctity of marriage) and other kinds of conservatism (e.g., lowering taxes, balancing the budget, reducing the federal government, controlling our borders). Even more sad, they can't figure out which kind of conservatism is most important.

Have you considered the possibility that Huckabee is shooting for the vice presidency (with a long-range goal of a future presidential run), that he continues to improve in the polls (despite every prediction), that he is proving he is better than Romney at getting conservative votes (a McCain weakness), that he is the only remaining candidate not owned by Wall Street, and that his relative liberalism on non-moral issues will be a strength in the general election?

I predict that by the end of the primaries, people will be complaining that Romney's campaign is pointless.

I have my own reasons for not wanting Hillary as my first choice, but my reasoning still puts her ahead of any of the republicans....

In my opinion, White Water was a small time fraud that the Clintons had a fairly minor part in and they lost money in the deal. McDougal is the guy who made money and he died in jail.

Travelgate? The president fires people appointed by other administrations all the time. The fact that Hillary came in the door and saw a report from the auditors that she then used as justification to fire them was unnecessary, but legal. The first time there were allegations of financial impropriety in the travel office was in 1988, but the Reagan administration basically ignored them. The KPMG audit of the travel office had been ordered by the Bush folks as they were preparing to leave. One thing you'd have to agree with is that Billy Dale was out of control. Mixing government money in his own checking account and writing personal checks to pay expenses for traveling media was amazingly stupid.

The amount of money she made on a single trade is pretty irrelevant unless there is evidence of wrongdoing. I bought a stock at $27 and sold it at $57, not very long afterwards. That was just plain luck and was based on reading a stock tip that was available to anyone with a PC.

The health care plan she tried to get through never made it to a vote. It never got out of committee. I have tried to find information on that plan and haven't been able to dig up the text of the bill, so I don't know if it would qualify as "socialized medicine". To my way of thinking, if the doctors are working for the government...it is socialized. Hillarycare was certainly no worse than some HMOs, in terms of controlling your access to care.

School choice is available to you or anyone who has the money to send their kids to a private school. I have yet to read an acceptable school voucher program. I checked into schools here, when my son started kindergarten. I sent him to the public school up the road, because I found it to be the best of all the schools nearby and that included 4 or 5 religious schools and one private academy.

He started college in Sept. and has a 3.4 gpa and is doing very well.

The rest of your post is debatable as far as her accomplishments or lack of them, but I see nothing at all wrong with her buying a house in New York and running for office. The voters there didn't either.

I wish we could stick to issues that matter, instead of making stuff up or working off of rumor and inuendo to slam a candidate.

degsme:

What would "core principles" look like to you? How would you expect someone to demonstrate them?

I'm also curious if that's all there is to it. Afterall, the response to HRC seems to be an almost visceral hatred - Witness Sean Hannity's "Stop Hillary Express" that he has had going since 2005. Yet someone like Mitt Romney, who has a track record of many more changes in position, actually garners his support.

Core principles does not mean you can never change your position on an issue. A person can hold the principle that america must defend itself vigorously against potential threats before they fully emerge and still disagree whether or not, for instance, we should pre-emptively attack Iran if they build a nuclear facility. A person can believe in the principle of the 4'th amendment protecting against unreasonable search and seizure and still debate what protections are needed to ensure the government doesn't abuse wiretapping.

However, a person cannot, if he has true core principles, change his stated position merely based on political expediency. When the Clintons improperly aquire the FBI files of political opponents and wiretap foreign companies to give information to favored US firms, they cannot claim to oppose Bush wiretapping suspected overseas terrorists' phone calls on principle.

You cannot vote in favor of the war in Iraq, defend the intelligence used to make that war, support it vigorously for two years, and then change your position conveniently timed to match when the polls show the US public no longer supports it.

Obama is against the war in Iraq. I think he's wrong for that position, but I respect him for it because he held that position even when it was unpopular. Obama is pro-abortion. I think he's wrong, but his stand is principled. He didn't campaign for pro-life causes and then immediately switch his position when he decided to get into politics.

I would much rather have a president who was determined to do what he thought was right regardless of the fallout then I would one who will sway with whatever political breeze is blowing at the moment.

p.s. I never supported Romney either, btw. He may very well have had a conservative change of heart as he claims. But I prefer he demonstrate it before I trust him with the presidency.

I can't speak for Republicans who wouldn't vote for Hillary, but I'm a Democrat who wouldn't vote for her either. If she's nominated I'm voting for McCain.

Perhaps the biggest reason is her vote to authorize the war in Iraq. I can respect McCain for doing so because he's been consistent and stuck to his position even when it seemed to doom his candidacy. By contrast Hillary supported the war when it was popular, and when she needed to show that a liberal woman could be militaristic enough to be commander in chief. Once it became unpopular, she changed her tune. And unlike Edwards, she refused to even admit she made a mistake. Well it seems to me she made a mistake somewhere along the line, but this is a woman who can simultaneously be for and against drivers licenses for illegal immigrants, so maybe I'm not sophisticated enough. I guess I'll just stay tuned for updates as the wind blows.

The decision to send the country in a war is the most important decision a politician will ever make. As far as I'm concerned, Hillary sent thousands of troops to die, created an unstable terrorist haven and destroyed America's standing in the world for the sake of her political career. For this I will never forgive her.

Then there is the simple fact that she is Hillary. Remember Travelgate, the mysteriously disappearing and reappearing billing records, the disgraceful last-minute pardons arranged by her brother, etc, etc. I'm not interested in revisiting the 90's.

Frankly the Democratic Party is in good shape right now, but Hillary could destroy it. When the last Clinton took office, the Democrats controlled everything -- the House, the Senate, a majority of state legislatures, a majority of governorships. After eight years of Clintonism, all that was gone, along with the presidency.

We don't need Hillary Clinton at the top of the ticket in every borderline state, congressional and legislative district in the country. She will drag down the entire party. The Clintons have done it before, and they will do it again.

<i>And HRC clearly would be more able out of the gate.</i>

Says you. As far as I'm concerned, the only thing she would be more able to do is divide the country into warring factions. I'm tired of it. If Clinton is nominated I'll vote for the old man I can at least respect, then try again with Obama in four or eight years.

I'm really curious why Hillary supporters even think there would be a "day 1."

Honest question time for Hillary supporters:

Do you really believe she can win the independents and republicans necessary to take the White House? Why shouldn't people take the seemingly more honorable McCain?

It's a shame that a lot of Conservatives buy into the hype about Hillary Clinton, rather than withholding judgement (and bias) and researching themselves. I think many critics mistake her ambition for a passionate belief that she can make a positive difference in the world, and is willing to fight for what she believes in with something negative. It's this same hype that paints George Bush as a Satanic, idiotic figure, and it is disgusting to witness across both aisles.

Some people call that "ambitious for power", but others would call it "an ambition for the power to make a beneficial difference in a life other than your own".

That said, I'm tired of ambition-less politicians who can hit the right notes, make the right speeches but vacillate when forced to make a statement that could be unpopular. I find Obama very suspicious in that he seems to be relying purely on speeches to win the primary, and is willing to bet that he can carry this support into the Presidential election without enumerating in detail some of his policy strategies and goals. All we get from him is 'I Believe this...' and 'I think that...' statements - never anything that speaks to unpleasant truths. It's nice to hear uplifting speeches from an articulate public speaker...but what are some of his plans to confront the growing economic problem? Any reasonable plan for prosecuting the War on Terror that makes sense militarily? We can't just wish the War in Iraq away, issue a heartfelt apology, and then go back home - we need a plan that works in the long run, not just one that gains you points on a public opinion poll.

f

Deathbed conversions are all find and good, but once the well is poisoned you cannot unpoison it - especially in politics.

Atwater started that process - and had he not gotten ill, he would have been keeping on keeping on. Remember that it was Karl Rove who introduced Atwater to GHWB and through there to Reagan.

So Atwater hands off to Gingrich and Rove - and you are going to hold the Clintons at fault for the visciousness of politics that resulted???

Get a grip.

With how the election is shaping up.

Although I am a liberal (at least on social issues) Democrat, I am quite happy that McCain seems to have the nomination in the bag -- even though I think he will be the hardest one for the Democrats to beat.

Much the same as several conservatives have said with regard to Obama, I may disagree with a number of his positions, but I respect his integrity. And I am convinced that we could do one Hell of a lot worse than having John in the White House.

Yes, he has compromised on some points that I wish he had not, but compromise is how the game of politics is played, and anyone who cannot do so will never accomplish anything.

As to Hillary's ambition -- I think we still have some gender stereotypes at play here -- Bill had rather obvious ambition as well, but many people (even his opponents) found that charming.

I was very disappointed that Romney left the race. I think McCain and Huckabee played dirty politics with Romney. Romney is a conservative. If anyone knows Mormons you know they are conservative, especially on social issues. McCain and Huckabee who are buddies were out to get Romney. If Huckabee thinks he will win he must be in denial, but I think he is hanging around to get the VP spot. McCain would be dumb to have him as VP. He is much to right wing christian conservative and only the people in the south will like that.I will leave my party this time, because I will not vote for McCain, unless he had Romney as his VP. So a democrat it will be.

degsme:

... And HRC clearly would be more able out of the gate.

What is it that makes you say HRC would be more able out of the gate? Was being married to the president that much of an education in how things get done, or do you mean that she would have Bill there to guide her in her decisions?

Well even if it was just based on the partner-style marriage that they brought to the role yeah, she would have seen and heard how and what levers worked and which ones did not.

And even more so in terms of seeing what worked and what did not with the various initiatives she went through. With an Obama presidency I'd expect to see at least 2 or 3 debacles like Travel Office, "Don't Ask don't Tell" and the healthcare initiative. With HRC I see the 1st 100 days task list being finished within 50-75 days.