does ANYONE here like Hillary?

[RedHeadGal]

Just wondering. Still too new to recognize names and positions for the most part. But it seems like there are people for and against most candidates except her. Well, and maybe Huckabee, too. Just strikes me as odd that she doesn't seem to have any supporters among you.

P.S. I'm not asking for reasons why you hate her, although that may come in a later post at a later time.

[YOhio]

Archaea is Hillary's only fan here.

[myboynoah]

She married a man from Hope, from whence Huckabee emerged.

There might be more.

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by RedHeadGal

Just wondering. Still too new to recognize names and positions for the most part. But it seems like there are people for and against most candidates except her. Well, and maybe Huckabee, too. Just strikes me as odd that she doesn't seem to have any supporters among you.

P.S. I'm not asking for reasons why you hate her, although that may come in a later post at a later time.

Didn't Hillary show her true colors when in the first year of her husband's administration she had the hubris to personally present to Congress a comprehensive plan for federalizing all medical care? How can Americans forget that? YOhio played a clip the other day of an ad where she was saying every American family should have child care paid for by the feds. She should call herself Hillary Klinton. She is a socialist and I'm not just calling her names. She believes in it.

[jay santos]

I don't like her but I might vote for her. Everyone moves to the center through the process of an election and when they get in office.

McCain's warhawking and the Repub party stupid view on immigration offset some of Hillary's dumb economic policies. And I think it would be good for the country to have a female prez.

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by jay santos

I don't like her but I might vote for her.

If she doesn't win you might consider naturalizing to UK citizenship. There you always have the option of just not working and getting a check from the government each month for the rest of your life. Apparently that would suit you.

McCain has never taken a hard line on immigration.

[UtahDan]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

Didn't Hillary show her true colors when in the first year of her husband's administration she had the hubris to personally present to Congress a comprehensive plan for federalizing all medical care? How can Americans forget that? YOhio played a clip the other day of an ad where she was saying every American family should have child care paid for by the feds. She should call herself Hillary Klinton. She is a socialist and I'm not just calling her names. She believes in it.

It would be very interesting to see how she governs. The thing I like about her is that I think (at least privately) that she is much more hawkish than she can let on in a primary with a very popular candidate who is anti-war. She is not an immediate withdrawal advocate and has taken heat from her party for it.

I agree with you that she is a social liberal at heart, but I also think that like her husband she is a political pragmatist. I think that as president she would have no choice but to propose some kind of universal health care, will probably only wind up with some sort of enhanced safety net, and this will allow her to tell her base she tried. There is actually very little I fear from her in terms of what she could accomplish legislatively. There is simply not the will to do anything truly socialist.

I am much more antsy about the charismatic and idealist Obama who might be able to pull a large number of people along into any number of misadventures, not least of which would be an immediate withdrawal from the middle east.

My sense is that there is not a huge difference between McCain and Clinton and that each is currently emphasizing their liberal/conservative credentials to appease the base. I think both would govern as moderates like Bill Clinton did.

[UtahDan]

Originally Posted by Adam

There is no question in my mind that Clinton would be the most effective president in dealing with foreign policy--mideast peace, iran, china, trade, oil, russia.

I think McCain could be equally effective, but it is easy to imagine Clinton as an "iron lady."

[Tex]

Utah Dan, I agree with you on Hillary and the war. She's still a lefty, but has not historically been as immature as Obama on "withdraw now."

It's worth pointing out, however, that Clinton governed as a moderate because he was forced to by a Republican Congress. Take a look at the first 2 years of his administration to see what might've happened had Newt & Co. not taken over.

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by UtahDan

It would be very interesting to see how she governs. The thing I like about her is that I think (at least privately) that she is much more hawkish than she can let on in a primary with a very popular candidate who is anti-war. She is not an immediate withdrawal advocate and has taken heat from her party for it.

I agree with you that she is a social liberal at heart, but I also think that like her husband she is a political pragmatist. I think that as president she would have no choice but to propose some kind of universal health care, will probably only wind up with some sort of enhanced safety net, and this will allow her to tell her base she tried. There is actually very little I fear from her in terms of what she could accomplish legislatively. There is simply not the will to do anything truly socialist.

I am much more antsy about the charismatic and idealist Obama who might be able to pull a large number of people along into any number of misadventures, not least of which would be an immediate withdrawal from the middle east.

My sense is that there is not a huge difference between McCain and Clinton and that each is currently emphasizing their liberal/conservative credentials to appease the base. I think both would govern as moderates like Bill Clinton did.

You make some good points. Norcalcat could probably drive many into Hillary's arms.