Friday, June 29, 2007

More Then Half of Americans Wouldn't Vote for Senator Clinton

"More than half of Americans say they wouldn't consider voting for Sen. Hillary Clinton for president if she becomes the Democratic nominee," according to a new poll, McClatchy Newspapers reports. The poll by Mason-Dixon Polling and Research found that 52 percent of Americans wouldn't consider voting for Clinton, D-N.Y,"

GOI: This is what I've been saying all along--she's not electable--she's too polarizing a figure. That number includes a whopping 48% of the all important independents who wouldn't vote for her--and that includes this liberal leaning independent.

Democrats have been very myopic of late in nominating their candidates for president. They are great at picking a good candidate of the liberal base but not so good at nominating someone who has a chance in the general election.

This isn't about who is best for the Democratic party--that should be saved for the party chairperson. We need to nominate someone who can best bridge the divide in this country not further it.

The Democrats are big dreamers and that is usually a great thing--we have great ideas and potential but don't be fooled into thinking that the dream of another Clinton could materialize because it won't. For one, (as I've said many times before) Senator Clinton is no Bill Clinton despite sharing his last name. Second, I honestly believe that America is tired of either a Bush or a Clinton in the White House. Senator Clinton represents the status quo and typical polarized politics. The '08 election is a perfect chance for the Democrats to show and prove to the American public that we represent the new politics of fresh ideas that can unite the country--not further divide it. It is high time that the Democratic party bring in fresh voices and new faces to help energize the party and America--to show that we can produce leaders of the future and not reheat the same, aging out of touch leaders of our past. They have done us well but it is time to retire them.

Look at it this way--Senator Clinton is to the Republicans that another Bush (say Jeb) would be to the Democrats. Whether it is entirely accurate or not Senator Clinton comes off as laden with baggage and her traits of being combative, defensive and stubborn do not help make her palatable to the growing, independent American middle. She just can not connect with people on a personal level. It's not about "who would you rather have a beer with" likability. Rather can her personality attract people to really listen to her instead of making people blow her off as cold and distant from the average Americans' desires in a leader.

The chances are very high that a Democrat can win the White House this election cycle so let's not blow it by nominating Senator Clinton.

---End of Transmission---

12 comments:

psmealey said...

I think if the GOP nominates Giuliani, Clinton can win. Giuliani's nomination would suppress the far right/wingnut/fundy vote, and Clinton would carry the middle-left. But if Giuliani wins the nomination, I will eat something very large and made of felt.

For me, it comes down not necessarily Hillary's electability. I think she is eminently electable. She runs a tight ship, she rarely ever goes off message, she makes few slip-ups, and she's dead center on a few issues.

The problem for me is that I think she'd make a terrible administrator, divisive head of the executive (god knows we have had enough of that) and a singularly uninspiring president. I just don't think she has what's necessary to do the job, re-build the bridges that need to be built internationally, command the joint chiefs elegantly, and be a strong public advocate for her cause (whatever the hell that is).

In a lot of ways, I think she has many of the same flaws that George W. Bush has.

James said...

Psmealey:

Boy, the Giuliani v. Clinton would really sour my stomach.

Hillary certainly is smart and sharp as a tack.

GREAT POINT on the administrator issue. She'd wield her authority with an iron fist in a way not too dissimilar to Bush. I totally agree with you there.

JoeC said...

"I honestly believe that America is tired of either a Bush or a Clinton in the White House"

That says it for me. I think she may actually be the smartest person running, but she's an insider. It's time for an inspiring outsider to take the helm...unfortunately it may be impossible for an outsider (one who isn't in bed with the corporate-owned mainstream octopus) to get elected in America anymore...

Tom said...

Guys, guys,

Hillary has Bill. HE can and will guide her toward being an effective manager. Besides, she will put excellent people in her Cabinet. It would be nothing like the GWB Administration.

I agree, though, that devisiveness would continue in the country with her as Commander in Chief.

And I agree that on many issues she will be timid, in the do-nothing middle. But on many issues, involving women and the middle class, she will move us forward, with authority.

But she does lack "poetry" and that ability to feel others' pain that her husband had, which is why I am for Obama.

PTCruiser said...

The fact that she voted for the war in Iraq when we all knew it was wrong seems to elude the lot of you.

So be it.

If you're willing to live with that, then maybe you'd be OK with more governmental spying on citizens and going to church on sundays because that's exactly where you're headed.

I'm frankly surprised that you're such a Democratic supporter, James. I mean, why hang all your hopes on a party that abandoned the working class a long time ago?

James said...

Joe C:

Yeah I think it is difficult for an outsider to break the lock of the party machine these days.

Tom:

I'm pretty much fully back in the Obama camp. I do NOT like Hillary and the other Dem candidates that I like do not have a chance. I'd rather vote third party if it was one was viable.

PT:

The Iraq vote is another reason I don't like her. Thanks for bringing it up--I can't believe I forgot it.

You know, I'm not not married to the Dems--I'd just rather see them in power then the Grand Oil Party. That being said I'm getting tired of holding my nose and voting for the Dem nominee of late. It is very likely that I'll vote third party again as I did in 2000.

Undeniable Liberal said...

Just my two cents, but IMHO, she's nothing less than Republicunt lite, and too much of a pandering Washington insider. And of course, she is all bought and paid for by the medical industry.

Lynne said...

I completely agree with ptcruiser and UL. I will not vote for anyone who voted for the war. Period.
Where's Russ Feingold?

Lord of Logic said...

As one of those in dependants that sits on the fence, I will not vote for Hillary. I voted for Bush in 2000 thinking, he will bring his father's experience on foreign policy with him. I had thought Bush Sr's decision to leave Saddam in power was a brilliant move on the grand chess board. He was a spanked little boy who occasionally pressed and tested his limits. However he knew the sting of the whip and did not cross any lines that would have drawn the wrath of the Americans. But JR didn't bring that kind of insight and experience with him at all. Instead his approach to foreign policy was not that of a chess master, but more of a drunken step father who would beat his kids, destroy property, and get into fights for no reason.

I remember not really liking Bush Jr. when he got the nomination. But after the moral debacle of the Clinton years I thought, "How could things get worse?" I mean lying under oath was about as bad as a president could get right. (I now understand the argument about him lying about questions he shouldn't have had to answer.) I now know "how much worse" things can get. I won't ask that question again.
The chances of the wife of a former leader being a great leader is as bad if not worse then the chances of the one of one being a great leader.

My Ideal ticket would be to have Clinton and Guiliani on the same ticket. That would mean that I don't have to pick which one is worse. Both believe in supporting policies that allow Americans to become less disconnected with responsibility. Claiming they should have a "choice" after they pulled the trigger. Neither have an understanding of why the founders secured the right to bare arms. Neither seems to have an understanding that the real threat to Americans is ignorance. Then again, since they are so much the same, I would be afraid a Clinton/ Guiliani ticket might win. Then we would be screwed.

James said...

Lord:

I know what you mean about Bush Sr. I supported the Gulf War all the way. He invaded a foreign country and that is a HUGE no-no in my book. However, Jr., as you say is no statesman or president let alone a competent commander-in-chief.

I too do not like Giuliani. He's a one trick pony like Bush Jr. I worry if ANY candidate from EITHER party can fix all the crap that has been broken and shattered by this dumbass Bush.

Lord of Logic said...

Yah a lot is broken indeed. There are other huge issues. This could be the most difficult election ever for those who understand the system. First you have a democratic legislative branch that is bound to get even more democratic in 2008. Do we want the pendulum to swing so far to the other side? This is especially true for me, who has feet in both camps. We just saw the opportunity created for corruption when the legislative and executive branches are not opposed.
Secondly we have to recognize that the two oldest members of the Supreme Court are considered "liberal". If the republicans win, it would hugely affect the way laws are interpreted. We have already seen the advantage of big business because of the current make up.
Third is the fate of the troops currently stranded in Iraq. What outcome is going to be the best for them? A president with some respect of the foreign community will be required for damage control.
All that and we still have to find a president who is going to fix the damaging domestic policies and represent the voice of the American people on the immigration policies.

The Supreme Court bothers me most of all of those issues because of the permanence of it.

James said...

Lord:

I'm concerned about the Supreme Court too. It will be interesting to say the least to see who comes out of the fray to become president.