Putting aside whether Hillary deserves the high negatives from her own party and the GOP. Do we really want to nominate a candidate who has such high negatives in her own party? We should be nominating someone who is capable of bringing us together not someone who risks tearing the Democrats apart.

It smacks of selfishness to insist on nominating Hillary when she is so clearly disliked by so many in her own party. I would hazard that both Obama and Edwards are acceptable nominees to Hillary voters, so why not put ego aside and nominate one of those two?

Of course issues are the most important, uh, issue and here I again fail to understand the appeal of Hillary Clinton. On the one single issue that has most driven Americans to demand change Hillary was initially VERY wrong, and she continues to maintain the hawkish attitude that brought her around to that mistaken vote.

Hillary may have a better record on some advocacy issues (I'm not even sure of this) but she champions the same sort of economic priorities that dismantled the regulations which protect us from media consolidation and market manipulation under her husbands administration.

For the life of me I can't understand why John Edwards IWR and Patriot act votes are worse than Hillary's even after he has fully disowned them. His position on the future of Iraq and the "threat" of Iran show that he has modified his position more than Hillary has. As I like to say, if he's insincere and Hillary is sincere its a draw.

Similarly Hillary likes to pretend that Obama's funding of the war and his (sometimes qualified) opposition to the war is somehow worse than Hillary's funding of the war and her (sometimes qualified) support for the war.

For the life of me I don't understand why anyone supports Hillary Clinton. Even if you think that Hillary is the best candidate (how on Earth one can think that I don't know), isn't it enough to know that many Democrats are passionately opposed to her? and not simply because she is a woman, or because she is Bill Clinton's wife, but because the experience that she cites is what has gotten us to this point.

Isn't there a point at which one decides that it is better to have a united front than risk our chances on the ever more divisive and ever less winning formula of Clinton style triangulation?

I agree with you completely. I just don't understand, and am at a loss to explain, why anyone would vote for Hillary in this election. If we nominate Obama, we'll have a strong Democratic candidate with a good record who can take on any Republican opponent and win. If we nominate Hillary, we are doomed to another eight years of Republican Presidency because 100% of Republicans and 50% of Democrats already despise her. She is easily the most hated figure in Washington, next to Bush himself. It just seems madness to me that anyone could support her.

And her rhetoric of late--"Are Americans willing to take a chance on Barack?" is just pure nonsense to me. Are we forgetting that Hillary still supports the Patriot Act? That she still thinks Iran is a threat and still talks of military confrontation with them? That her health care plan is identical to Mitt Romney's? What is there to "take a chance" on? Even if Obama turned out to be a disappointment, that would only bring him down to the level of what we know Hillary to be.

Obama may be somewhat of an unknown quantity and Edwards' sincerity may be in question (I have my doubts about them as well), but I already know what I don't want and that is someone who rationalized voting for the IWR. I suppose it is somewhat inconsistent to give Edwards the benefit of the doubt on this, but at least he doesn't continue to rationalize it and engage in the same thinking in regards to Iran.

The short answer is that Barak could be just the same as Hillary, but there is no way he'll be any worse.

Meaning no offense to you, but I've found that Barack (with a "c") is only an unknown quantity to people who have not looked into him. He's had more years in the legislature than Hillary and has accumulated a longer record, which anyone can look into if they want. He was passing bills years before she even ran for office for the first time in her life, and the policies outlined on his website are at least as specific as hers; It's not as if he hasn't been clear about them, he's just not as famous and people actually have to go read to find out about him.

Yes Bill Clinton was much better than George Bush. How that translates into Hillary for president escapes me as well.

She's not a very likable person like Obama. She already has large and deeply entrenched negatives. Experience wise, she's okay.. but she doesn't measure up to Biden, Dodd, Richardson, McCain, Giuliani, Romeny, or even Huckabee. Anyone who thinks that her bubble won't be burst in the general is fooling themselves.

The Democratic party had a chance to settle on a very competent, well liked, leader with bipartisan support and the experience to be ready on day one. However, Biden took 4th in Iowa.

Yeah, Biden is a great guy. White Protestant male, though, and that really does count in this election.

It's not just a superficial issue. The President is in charge of foreign policy and is the face that we show to the world. It'll do us a great deal of tangible good to have someone with an Arabic name in the White House.

I keep reading about Hillary's "high negatives" in her own party on this thread, but see no explanation why she is winning primaries. In other words, if so many democrats hate her, then why are so many democrats voting for her?

Biden has never been a viable candidate in any presidential race he's entered through the decades, so what made him so viable now?

Hillary may not be as "likable" as Barack, but even Barack says she's "likable enough." (I like Barack - as VP though).

With republicans starting to come to their senses regarding nominating an unelectable southern baptist religious zealot, it's going to come down to Mac vs. Mitt with Fred Thompson playing kingmaker (esp. as veep).

Giuliani's dead in the Fla. water.

I don't think that any of the dems can beat McCain or Romney, if he gets Thompson on board - unless the God Squad gets mad and stays home on election day.

If you consider Edwards and Obama together, they represent a near majority in most of the primaries so far, and Clinton consistently polls with high negatives even among Democrats. Anecdotally there are high passions running against her on Democratic message boards which (if nothing else).

which, if nothing else represent the most engaged and involved of Democratic voters. If Hillary has lost the people who've done the most to create the engagement and support of Democratic candidates over the last 8 years then she's lost the party - even if she does win the nomination.

"Anecdotally there are high passions running against her on "Democratic message boards which (if nothing else).

Don't mistake internet posters, bloggers, et. al., for the democratic base. They are a "noisy" part of the party much like talk radio listeners are a noisy part of the republican party.

Many, and I would say, Most democratic voters have been democratic voters their entire lives - lives which began during the Roosevelt and Truman era, came of age during the Kennedy era, and became fully formed in resistance to Nixon. In other words, they been voting democrat some 40-50 years now - not the 40 to 50 weeks since the brilliant Barack Obama entered the scene.

The internet may be firing up newbies to politics - much the way Dean did in 04, but it wasn't enough to put Dean over. It's not going to be enough to put Ron Paul over. And it's not going to put Barack over.

Hillary is the "establishment" candidate and that is who I am voting for, although I don't agree with all of her positions. For me, now is not the time to experiment - maybe later, but not now.

Cttocs, you can research Hillary's high negatives for yourself, and I'm surprised you wouldn't do so before telling us that you haven't "seen any evidence" of it.

Polls have been conducted on this for a year now, and it is an empirical fact - more Americans hold an unfavorable view of Hillary Clinton than of any other candidate in this election, either Democrat or Republican. She is in a very concrete, scientific sense, the most hated member of the Senate.

She can win the primaries--by a small margin--because the minority of Americans who don't hate her are all Democratic voters. But I'm sure you've found that, while even Clinton supporters generally hold a favorable or ambivalent image of Obama, those Democratic voters who are not supporting Clinton in general despise,or at least, strongly distrust her.

What this amounts to is a projection that if Hillary does win the party nomination, the Republican candidate, most likely McCain, will beat her in the general election. There is simply no way a divisive figure like her can beat a moderate like McCain. This isn't opinion, it's scientific fact.

Even people who support Clinton do not, in general, regard her as trustworthy. In the recent nationwide Presidental Honesty poll, Obama beat her as the perceived most honest candidate by 93% to 7%. Look it up.

Hillary is hated even by Democrats to a degree that few of the Republican candidates are. I don't agree with someone like John McCain, but at least I respect him. I have no respect for Clinton and neither does half of the Democratic electorate. If you look at the numbers in Iowa, New Hampshire and Nevada, 70% of Democratic voters did not vote for Clinton. And that segment truly hates Clinton to a degree that Clinton supporters do not hate Obama.

"For me, now is not the time to experiment - maybe later, but not now"

When will be the right time? The whole argument over Hillary's readiness and experience puts me in the mind of George Bush warning us not to risk voting for John Kerry over him.

In this case we've had eight years of bad Democratic leadership to inform us, and Hillary's part in that is her legacy to me - more so than any hand she may have had in her husbands administration.

You say maybe later you will consider voting for change over experience, even as you admit that you disagree with Hillary on some issues. In my opinion "maybe later" is maybe too late.

The continuation of the precedent of cowardice, naivete and foolishness that the Democratic leadership has set over the last 8 years or more is far more frightening to me than the prospect of Obama or Edwards as president.

I appreciate where you stand, and I think that you and I pretty much agree about what Hillary represents, but I can't help thinking that the bigger mistake here is to continue in the same vein as Democratic leadership has for the last eight years.

She had a 74% approval rating in the Senate before she started running for president.

It has since dropped to something like 62%.

She has been endorsed by cops and firefighters in her adopted state. She won her second term in an absolute landslide.

She polls strong nationally against all of the republicans except McCain (though, of course, it's early yet).

So, what's with the "everyone hates Hillary" talk.

Where's your stats. Or are you saying that most New Yorkers, including cops and firemen are idiots?

I agree with you on Clinton, but I have A LOT of trouble respecting McCain. I used to think that he was a pretty decent guy, but this war thing seems to have brought the worst in him. He's become just another panderer and not a very nice one either. I'm surprised he hasn't ground his teeth to dust with that fake grimacing smile he gives when someone challenges him directly.