I'm conflicted. I'm a Hillary supporter, but I know that she won't win the nomination (due to many things: her gender, bitter feelings about how she reacted to her husband's infidelity, her perceived view on some issues, etc.). I support the fact that she's running and I'm very glad to see more women stepping up and breaking through the marble ceiling, but I just know in my gut that there's no way she'll win.

I wonder if there are any facts or figures on what percentage of the population would absolutely not vote for a female for president? (On a related note, I read somewhere else that close to a third of the country wouldn't vote for a Mormon for president, so there's a good chance Romney won't win the nomination either.)

I am too conflicted about Hillary's candidacy, but for different reasons.

Part of me wants to vote for her because she's a woman. Part of me wants to vote for her based on the politician she appeared to be in the beginning. Part of me knows that she is as qualified as her fellow candidates and possibly more so qualified that some in some areas. Part of me wants to vote for her just to get Bill back in the White House (and, hopefully, in the position of Secretary of State or UN Ambassador). Then, there's the part of me that thinks she too easily goes to the highest bidder. There's the part of me that is still pissed off at her for believing W's WMD bullshit. There's part of me that cannot get over her and Newt buddying up a year or two ago - then again, perhaps that is simply evidence of her ability to work across party lines???

Meh. Who knows how I'll vote when it's time to go to the polls?

love hillary clinton! I interned for her my senior year of college and she was at my house before she announced she was running for senate. She wanted to "connect" with the women of new york bc of what you said mary-how people dont like how she reacted to infiddelity. and you know what, it was mostly women who didnt like how shee handled it.

in any case, i think shes brilliant and will suport her every step of the way.

Gilliard at News Blog keeps citing only 72% would vote for a woman. Presumably, that includes some fraction who would under some circumstances but maybe not most.

Clinton - Sen. H.R. - has an enormous cash pile, but let a lot of close-race Dems swing in the wind when they could have used some cash in the general election. Not that she should have self-impoverished, but she could opened up the vault a little, knowing that would make her politically stronger, cut off some support to future primary opponents of her own and better able to fundraise later.

Her triangulating, fairly conservative husband was a great president but hardly a friend to the Democratic Party. Barbara Mikulski from my home state of Maryland is far more qualified to serve as President in terms of years of service, experience with foreign and military matters, etc., except for the fact that Mikulski is single and not at all stylish, and HR Clinton is married to The Big Dog/Alleycat and well-coifed.

I wouldn't mind seeing her get the nod. I think she can win; due to years of being propped up as a castrating dragon-lady, she's the one candidate that the right-wing couldn't call "soft" on anything. She may not be the best liberal out there, but she's a slick, smart politico and I'd like once again to feel like the president knows, you know, anything. Political dynasties bother me, though, and I really hate the idea of living through the Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton years. I'd prefer it if she ran four or eight years from now.

Out of the top names running, I don't actually have anyone I truly dislike, which is a change. Senator Clinton doesn't give me the visceral response that a lot of people on the left have for her, and I think Obama is a fine person. I'd rather see Gore take it than either, but any of the likely nominees will get my vote more happily in 2008 than in any other election.

If she gets the nomination, I'll gladly vote for her. And I sort of agree with Nick right now...none of the likely choices for the democratic nomination particularly offend me....

But I still have some reservations. Right now I'm leaning towards Obama, but that calls into question whether the people of america are more likely to elect a black man or a woman.

sigh...

i suppose time will tell. no matter what happens it'll certainly be interesting.

As this point, I don't intend to vote for her in the primary, however, of course if she is the Democratic nominee, then I will vote for her in the general election.

Why not the primary? Iraq and pandering to anti-reproductive rights groups; also, her lack of substantive work on global warming and other environmental issues (she is very strong on Healthcare, and that is crucial). Because of the centerist and pro-business nature of her profile, I'm wary of any candidate who might consider those interests for four years (eight years) above the fate of the PLANET!

I think, though, that the Democratic candidate most probably will win (whoever he/she is) in 08 because the country is tired of Republican corruption and Republican endangering of America (in foreign relations, domestic policies, and environmental)...

P.S. I'm a Gore supporter all the way, but it doesn't look like he's running.

I'm also conflicted. I believe HRC would make a perfectly fine president, but, but, but ...

The founders wisely warned us against the perils of political dynasties. Were HRC elected, we will have at least 24 years of executive governance drawing on talent from the social network of either the Bush family, or the Clinton family. Memories, debts, old feuds. It's time to move on.

Not that I'd encourage anyone to vote rethuglican or stay away from the polls, mind you.

I know that the chances of someone like me ever seeing a perfect candidate from a major party are nil. Still, I think the Dems can do better than Hillary. She's never EVER spoken out against the war. EVER. That's unacceptable. I do appreciate her pro-choice and pro-woman position, but I would never vote for someone who won't try to get us out of Iraq.

She also used to be on the board of directors for Wal-Mart. So her history on human rights issues? Is not looking too good.

Clinton/Obama would be invincible. But I'm afraid they will fight against each other instead of join together.

I want to like her. I really do. I agree with her on most issues (I'm centrist in many respects), she's intelligent, she has presence and she's a woman. So many things to like.

But I can't. I wrote that I'm with her on many issues. Today, that is. But what does she REALLY believe? She was a republican in college. The politics she advocated when she was first lady were practically socialist. I get the feeling that she's a pure political animal with no real idealogical principles.

And the video announcement certainly doesn't change that view. It's overproduced. She doesn't come across as genuine. Compare to the videos of Vilsack (link: http://www.tomvilsack08.com/ ) or the "wicked smart" clip on "Mitt-TV" ( http://www.mittromney.com/Mitt-TV/index ) Not that I'm going to vote for either of those candidates. But at least Mitt Romney owns up to the fact that he's stiff and makes fun of himself, rather than hire hollywood producers to lighten him up a la Hillary.

If she really wants to connect or "chat" with the people, she ought to try being more down to earth and natural. People pick up on the slick veneer, and it turns them off.

My reservations are similar to Jane's -- except that I prefer 1992 HRC to 2007 HRC ;) I worry she's become too centrist in order to become politically successful. I *understand* this and I don't fault her for it -- but at the same time it makes me wonder if she's *actually* to fabulous strong feminist I'd like to see in the White House... or just yet another corporate whore like 99.9% of all politicians.

If the primary vote were taken today, I would almost definitely vote for Obama. I have to admit to something of a political crush. He wows me so much. I got to meet him once very briefly and liked him very much -- and many of my friends who had classes with him in law school have nothing but good things to say about him. His political inexperience is a plus in my mind -- mostly because, again, I do not trust the political machine. Virtually everyone who becomes successful in politics becomes corrupted, so to my thinking, the less politically experienced you are, the less corrupted you are.

I also love how people think of him as "centrist" because he's not anti-religious the way that many Democrats are. Someone as reasonable and thoughtful as him might actually (knock on wood!) be able to unify people while at the same time ACTUALLY getting some good things done for our side.

I love him love him love him love him. I WANT to vote for a woman... but Obama is a pro-woman candidate. And this election cycle, I would rather have someone who is definitely pro-woman, than a woman who might cede the greater good for political viability.

Don't get me wrong. The second Hillary wins the dem nomination I'm joining her campaign. But until then, I'm solidly in Obama's camp.

She's weak on health care, pro-war, too pro-Israeli to tell Israel not to nuke Iran, and generally untrustworthy on anything. Hell, Barack "I'm a fundamentalist and damn proud" Obama is better than she is.

Carolina Girl, I'd be delighted to vote for Hillary for the same reasons you cite:

1) She's a woman, and it's about freaking time.

2) College valedictorian, Yale law school, law review editor. Wouldn't that be a nice change?

3) I would love to have Bill Clinton back in the White House.

No, she's not a perfect candidate. I agree with Jane that the slick veneer is a turn-off for a lot of people. And I do worry about whether she's electable. I think her supporters sometimes underestimate the level of animosity toward her. But she has proven herself to be a political survivor, and I'm willing to give her the benefit of the doubt.

And Inemb? You're right, I think that Clinton/Obama would win. I hadn't even thought of that before.

Finally, I'm curious: What was it that people didn't like about her reaction to Bill's affair? I was raised in a fundamentalist family, and my parents hated Hillary, but not for that.

I don't get why her reaction or lack thereof to the whole Bill/Monica thing is an issue. This is the way I look at that situation: I'm not her. I wasn't married to Bill. It's none of my business. Besides that, how did people expect her to react? I thought she handled the whole ordeal very well publically (who knows what she was like behind closed doors... I'd have been chasing him with a mini-guillotine telling him to get ready to pay the piper... but strictly in private.)

okay, I realize that liberal beggars can't be choosers, but I have always had a problem with Clinton's economic policies that have increased corporate globalization while labor and environmental protections have been shotty at best. And I realize that no republican, (particularly that asshat, brownback) will institute labor and environmental protections while being prochoice, can't I pine for a real progressive? Plus Hillary voted for the stupid Iraq war! How can I get over that?

I'm conflicted as well, though I think Clinton/Obama (or Obama/Clinton) would be great. If anything Obama could play Hillary's conscious and keep her on track. 2008 will be interesting though.

Alon, Hillary represents New York; she has to be pro-Israel. Remember, she was on the jew blacklist after having warmly embraced arafat's wife. As a card carrying jew, I know this for a fact. Supporting Israel is her way of redeeming herself with the voters, I'm sure. That, and "discovering" a relative in her family tree.

Law Fairy, I'm so with you in the Obama thrall.

I'd really rather not vote for her. There's the dynasty issue, for one thing. I'm also leery of her apparent willingness to jump on the popular bandwagon, evinced by the way she sucked up to the right when the Republicans were in charge. I get the feeling her positions are up for grabs, change according to the current popular opinon, and that she's more interested in getting votes than in taking a specific stand on, well, anything.
If she ends up being the Democratic nominee, in my mind it'll just be capping off a longstanding tradition of crappy nominees that earn a 'lesser of two evils' vote rather than a real one. I personally can't remember the last time I actually voted FOR a presidential candidate, not just AGAINST the other one.
Still, if she is chosen as the nominee and/or wins the Presidency, I will console myself that at least we'll have set a precedent for a woman as president. And her tendency to pander to whoever's in charge could still work out if she's a Democratic president with a Democratic Congress, because in that environment she'll most likely cater to Democratic opinions on issues.
I guess we could do worse.

russ feingold, why have you forsaken me!?

Ok what is the deal with that camera? I got dizzy just watching it!

It's about time for a woman to be president, but I'm not sure if it's time for Hillary.

Right now Edwards would get my vote.

I really never like Hillary. Not only is she motivated for the wrong reasons, she is way more right wing than I care to like!! She is anti-choice and anti-gay rights.

I want the first woman president (of the USA) to be awesome. I don't want a screw up, because then [shithead] people will say 'Its because we let a woman be president'. BLAH (I wish Nancy would run!)

Check out the end of this article.

Does anyone have better info about this? I've tried some google searches but can't pin down the info. Wingnuts like Fox take it at face value, but the UK is taking a more cautious approach. Apparently SOMEONE is accusing Obama of being "less than forthright" about his Muslim heritage (apparently referencing it in his book in passing isn't good enough, he's got to go on Oprah and dish about his eventual conversion, or something). Conservative rags say this is coming from HRC's camp... but this sounds fishy to me. I have a strong suspicion the Rethugs are trying to make it look like the Dems are backstabbing their own, so they can come in on their hypocritical moral high ground and pretend they give a shit about religious freedom.

Does anyone know about this? If this is in fact coming from HRC I'm pissed off at her. But if, as I suspect, it's coming from the right... well... someone give me a name and an address, because I've got a bitch-slapping badly in need of being handed out...

Here's a better article on the issue.

I'm not sure why people think that a candidate's religious background is anyone's business. I mean, yeah, if someone is a fundamentalist of one religion or the other and believes that their politics should be one in the same as their religious beliefs, well, then we need to know, but otherwise, as long as said candidate follows the separation of church and state, what does it matter?

Carolina, agreed.

What I find much more troubling is what looks like a right-wing plot to get in a double-whammy and sully not one, but TWO Democratic candidates while the Republican candidates are able to plausibly stand back and say "I didn't do it, and you should all be ashamed of yourselves."

Pisses me off.

OH -- a friend just sent me another link on this, from the Washington Post.

Here you go, LF.
A CNN clip, via Crooks & Liars calling out this "rumor" as the bullshit it is:
http://tinyurl.com/3a3ov9

I might be able to support Hilliary if, for one second, I believed that she was motivated by anything other than her own desire for power. I am not naive enough to believe that most (if not all) politicians are not attracted to the power that comes with holding office, but she has never, ever struck me as one to have any true concern beyond that. She scares me because, like many of you, I believe she is all too willing to sell out on important issues in order to keep that power. Pelosi, in my opinion, would be a much better candidate for the first female President because she is more willing to put her political ass on the line when it really matters. And since she's not ready to leave her current post just yet, and for all the reasons others have listed above, I'm joining the Obama camp come primary season.

It's great that Hillary is running, but we all know the mudslinging and character assassination that the Right will bring into this election. Remember way back when Bill was President (damn, in 1992 I was still in grade school), all the nasty remarks coming from the right about Chelsea Clinton's looks.....I personally fear it will be 100 times worse.

Much has also been made of Hillary and Barack Obama duking it out for the nomination. My boyfriend asked who I would back, probably reasoning that as a feminist I'd be automatically inclined to back Hillary. But I decided I don't really know enough about Obama to pick a side just yet. I just bought his newest book to get a better sense of who this guy is and what he stands for. Right now I'm still trying to get through my latest Antonia Fraser book.....if you're a feminist and a history buff you'll love her work (sorry about the shameless plug, just another byproduct of my tendency to ramble)

HILLARY '08

I trust her on domestic policy especially for women and children. You can judge a society by how it treats children and the poor. wrt to Iraq and AIPAC she's not so different from the other candidates especially since she represents New Yorkers who endured 9-11 and Jewish Americans. If she weren't super-centrist on defense she'd be treated like Cindy Sheehan. She may have to run with Wesley Clark to look strong on defense. I like Clark alot but prefer Clinton/Obama.

I just want to second TheEngineGal's comment that Pelosi should run. I would gladly do everything in my power to see her get the nomination. She's an amazing fundraiser, her politics are impeccable, and she's a badass political maneuverer. That said, I don't like any of the choices for Speaker if she steps down. Still, since we only have one of her, I'd rather see her in the White House.

Cindy Sheehan's response to Hillary running in '08:

http://www.dissidentvoice.org/Jan07/Sheehan21.htm

Seems to share a lot of the opinions posted here.

I too am very conflicted over Hillary's campaign. On one hand, I don't entirely trust those who demonize her for being too aggressive in her political maneuvering. After all, you hardly ever hear criticism of male politicians for being overly aggressive in their fundraising and strategizing - it's politics, right? In this game you have to be tough as nails - if she did anything less, she would never be taken seriously as a female candidate.

On the other hand, with her conservative stance on Iraq and the war, she has not proven herself to be a leader. She has had the opportunity even before now to really help push a progressive agenda, but instead she has waited...and hemmed...and hawed...and has now fallen behind others who are willing to chance their political futures to stand up and make a change.

And finally...much as it would be nice to re-visit 1994, we can't. It's over. It's a different time and because of that, I believe we have to make different choices. In my gut, I don't think it will be particularly healthy for the country if Hillary wins the presidency. I think it's time to have some fresh blood in the white house, someone who will hopefully inject a greater sense of urgency and activism than Hillary has demonstrated so far.