What is the root of most of the Hillary hating on DU?

I use to hate Dean for no good reason. Later on I realized the only reason I use to dog him was because he was a threat to my candidate Clark. I now love Dean and feel genuine regret for many of the nasty things I said about him. Now Hillary is not my first choice but I find the Hillary bashing is out of control and I really think it's less about her politics and more about her being the one who may prevent everyones favorite candidate from become President. I found myself saying some nasty things about Hillary the other day and left DU feeling like a fool. I never like myself when I say mean things about anyone and I want to apologize for writing anything mean spirited toward Hillary or anyone.

It occurred to me that I was afraid Hillary was going to knock off the candidates I prefer and that my animosity for her was born more out of fear rather than genuine outrage for anything she has done. Sure she has made some mistakes but she is human and she must be doing something right because she is doing quite well with the American public right now. Will it last? I don't know.

I can understand some anger for some of the things she has done but Bill has been for many of the same things and yet we forgive him. Many great Democrats did stupid things. Even Thomas Jefferson who's ideas were about as liberal as can be did some horrific things but we forgive those things and focus on the great things he did.

My prediction: If she wins the nomination 75% of DU will go through a grieving period for about 24 to 48 hours then Hillary will suddenly become awesome!


Sorry for the push poll. Feel free to rebut me below.

I must have missed that strength when she was caving to the right constantly

That's NOT strong - that's both weak and self-absorbed.

Newsflash HRC and DLC: The United States is NOT The Center of the Universe. :shrug:

She's strong in the sense that she'll send people to kill and die halfway across the world. She's not strong in the sense that she doesn't need a good reason to do so.

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

look at it. She can talk and talk and talk but her actions speak way louder and they reveal just an ol' softie when it comes to the bushits' fascist policies.

But, hey..just because she can get out there and rap her head off and bob and weave she's a "strong woman"..yeah, right. She has lots of money to keep her going..doncha know..always raking the dough.

What's your definition of a strong woman? That seems pretty strong to me.

Unless you're about to praise the power of pickles too, you can just drop that.

About the senate:

1) She'd never be in the Senate if she hadn't been the wife of Bill Clinton. Marriage is not the way strong women get places.

2) She was likely to lose to Giuliani; if he hadn't had to bow out of the race because of cancer, she might be senator of nothing.

3) Her record sucks ass and shows a propensity not to take strong stands, but rather to enable those who are ruining the country.

That's why I'm voting Nancy Reagan '08...

Cockamamie for Mamie E!

And most adamant for Louisa Catherine Johnson Adams!

touting the polls as if she has already clinched the nom... that pisses me off. Period.

70% of Americans are against the war?

Honey, EVERYONE is a threat to Kucinich.

So you hate all of us because we don't see things your way? Democracy is majority rule.

Me, I completely appreciate Kucinich for being willing to take the role of edgeman. I hope he keeps the pressure up to the last day of the last primary. I hope all of his supporters turn out for the primaries and give him a significant and impressive showing. The man has huge cajones because his task is utterly thankless. Many will call him a loser without realizing how vital his role is.

The top tier with an actual chance have to be too careful. The outliers get to speak the truth. We can't survive without them.

and what I think the Democratic party is all about? Is that so difficult to comprehend?

The Hillary-apologists seem so determined to, well...apologize for all her many deficiencies that they actually don't seem to see them or think they mean anything.

I am completely unsure of her. In 92 I was more sure of her. I am careful.

she gave bushler all he will feel he needs for Iran. Everything else would be fine, but for her support of this/these wars.

I don't doubt that many here have genuine anger at her for that and they certainly are justified in that regard. I have anger too but I am willing to forgive her. She is not my favorite candidate but I will certainly support her 100% if she gets the nomination.

we can believe what she says, instead of what she has done.

and now she has voted for the bill calling Iran's military "terrorists", which is all bushler needs to start bombing. She absolutely had more to do with supporting te carnage than any other candidate, and she was the last to denounce the Iraq invasion. Kucinich, Edwards, Gravel, and Richardson never voted for the war, or funding.

AND the PATRIOT Act.

What cave have you been in?

During his Senate term Edwards cosponsored 203 bills.<17> He cosponsored Lieberman's S.J.RES.46, the Iraq War Resolution, and also later voted for it in the full Senate to authorize the use of military force against Iraq,<18> saying on October 10, 2002 that "Almost no one disagrees with these basic facts: that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a menace; that he has weapons of mass destruction and that he is doing everything in his power to get nuclear weapons; that he has supported terrorists; that he is a grave threat to the region, to vital allies like Israel, and to the United States; and that he is thwarting the will of the international community and undermining the United Nations' credibility."<19> He subsequently apologized for that military authorization vote. Edwards also supported and voted for the Patriot Act.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Edwards#2004_presidential_campaign

did forget. Some reason I was thinking he was out of the senate by then. Thanks.
:freak:

supporting another Democrat.

A lot of people here like her just fine, and some don't at all, etc. I wish she were a much better speaker.

She seems pointlessly cautious these days. The Limbaugh crowd has always feared her -- his listenership only likes women who are hired guns like Ann Coulter or Judith Miller, or marginal wacko granny types like Phyllis Schlafly, or sizzlin' babes who coo and coax Fred Thompson into the delusion that he could be the president.

I respect and defend HClinton correspondent to the demonizing done at her expense by the Limbaughs and the Hannitys and the Coulters.

If I'm not a Clinton Democrat I certainly not a Thompson Republican or a Giuliani Republican.

Mario Cuomo isn't likely going to be on the ballot this year.

Which leaves my very first choice out.

:rofl:

You said Phyllis Schlafly is a marginal wacko... Hee hee!

She lives on Alan Keyes Gone Wild Island!

--IMM

put too fine a point on it.

Brownback seemed the most unstable to me of the GOP field -- and it was very competitive in that category -- but now a new contender for top honors emerges -- Alan Keyes.

His campaign catch phrase for the 08 bumperstickers: " Crazy is Good. Keyes 08 "

a chance--or score a vp candidacy spot.

capable of just about anything.

coalition looks to make good on splitting, Keyes could be seen as a way to stave that off. Not a pleasant prospect, but hopefully such as combo would just serve to piss off all sides.

I know that they justify their actions and stances in the pragmatic world of the technocrat, but especially with HRC, everything seems so calculated...

Where is the passion...

The people who are angry with both seem to be the most genuine to me. What I find odd is that Bill is so loved on DU by so many others yet Hillary gets nailed right and left.

I believe you and applaud you for being consistent and true to your beliefs.

were many things wrong, nafta et al, but comparatively speaking who wouldn't want to go back to BIll's gov't? But now that we're really in a dangerous situation, we need someone who will split off from the republicans. Really differentiate themselves. She believes that the middle, between dem and repub is the place where the votes sit. I do not. I think fascism is extremely dangerous and imminent, and I will vote for someone who will turn this gov't upside down on its head and get rid of everything Bush has done, starting with the war and civil liberties. Those are the 2 biggies, then health care, and fixing our country in hundreds of ways. She is not taking a firm stand against the war, nor against fascism. Those 2 situations are emergency situations. Half measures aren't going to fix them.

Instead, he made deregulation, anti-labor, merger mania bipartisan. He would never have seen a second term if we hadn't been so busy defending him from all the wild-eyed insane attacks by the Rightists.

:grr:

and I know that for many round these parts that is not sufficient

But it backfires, at least with me. She wasn't my candidate, but the more she's unfairly attacked, the more I find myself defending her.

I also feel that people are trying to blackmail the rest of us with their promises not to vote for Hillary even if she is the nominee. They are afraid, and so they try to make us afraid -- "If you vote for her, I will punish you!"

They ALL have to depend on the support of the corporate money to survive. I don't like it either, but you have to be realistic. The only candidate I know who doesn't fall into that catagory is Kuchinch, and he doesn't stand a chance of winning...you and I both know that! I know you don't LIKE it, but be real.

If I were the only voter and had the opportunity to pick the Dem candidate for the general election, I would chose Biden, but I do believe one of the most important assets we need in this election is the ability to instantly fight back all the shots that are going to be fored at the Dem candidate no matter who it is. there is where I think experience DOES make a different. Hillary has been through damn near every assault known to man, and she usually comes out the winner.

When you think, "he doesn't stand a chance of winning",
ask yourself: "Who told me that?"

Then ask if the "who" who told you that has a reputation for honesty,
and if they have EVER had your best interests at heart.

the inevitable Rethug slime machine.

In 1992 we controlled both houses of congress, a majority of state legislatures, a majority of state governerships, and the national agenda.

By 1996 Conservatives controlled both houses of congress, a majority of state legislatures, a majority of state governerships, and the national agenda.

Sure, the Clintons kept winning. But they sure hurt us in the bargain.

.. except I don't HAVE a candidate. At least not one with even the remotest chance, because they are not in the race.

You folks can spin until you fall over, it's the WAR, the WAR and the god damned WAR that is the problem.

From another without a candidate.

that the war is only one, highly visible symptom of the problem, and given the nature, records and perspectives of those candidates who can win, a problem not likely to go away any time soon.

she may be beholden to some corporations, and most candidates are, but that sort of name-calling is offensive and out of line.

:shrug:

A whore is deserving of no respect; she/he gives it away for free, like it's worthless.

On the other hand, with the perfect perception of capitalist perfection (try saying that three times fast) and unoffended dignity, if she takes money for it, she/he's a professional.

Accuracy is everything, I suppose.:D

... it's just a matter of price. :evilgrin:

In sexist lingo, it is whores / hookers who charge a fee, and sluts / hussies who give it away.

Like it's anyone's damn business anyway. It's her vagina.

What's the difference between a ____ and a _____?
Well, a _____ does it with everyone but a _____ does it with everyone but you.

:evilgrin:

I guess it loses a bit when neutered and cleaned up, but I appreciated the self-centered taxonomy of epithets/slurs. There was a lesson in there ... somewhere.

looks like a duck and quacks like a duck... it must be a duck.

He has acknowledged that his org, Public Citizen, gets more donations when the Republicans are in power.

So he cheers them on.

or by all logic it would have been reversed long ago. As long as abortion is legal, the right wing anti-choice crowd keeps raking in the dough.

I don't think that's the only reason here on DU, but a lot of it is because she's a strong intelligent woman, IMO. There is a mix of what I believe are reasonable reasons why some don't like her, but considering how much she is villified here I can't come to any other conclusion.

I can't count the times I've seen strong intelligent women being torn down because they break the norm of what's expected out of women by the majority. When a woman is strong and intelligent she's considered not feminine. She's called names for it and torn down. Excuses are made, much of the time, as to why she's not liked, but it winds up boiling down to the fact she's strong, intelligent and won't take a bunch of crap off of men.

Anyone remember when Hillary sat next to her husband and proclaimed she wasn't some 'stand by your man' kind of woman whose expected to bake cookies or something to that effect. I don't know about anyone else, but I jumped out of my chair and cheered. Next thing I know she's being torn down, raked over the coals and done so badly that it amazed me. It was one more example of the animosity many have for strong intelligent women.

I've been treated like shit because I asserted my rights and used my intelligence to accomplish my goals. I had a man come over to the house to fix my plumbing and when I told him he was incorrect about an assertion he made he said he wouldn't be able to come back when just five minutes before he said he'd be back the next day. I was told I forgot which damn mechanic I took my car to for repairs when I called up to check on their progress. The idiot on the phone didn't believe me when I told him I left my car there. This is in the civilian world...don't even get me started on the sexism in the military.

Needless to say, I do feel strongly that much of the avid Hillary bashing that goes on both here, corporate media and the RW nutjobs is because she is a woman. Sadly, even some women do it. My mother's only reason for not wanting her president is because she is a woman.

I'm sure I'll get raked over about this here at DU and many will throw up their reasons for not supporting her. That's fine. But the Hillary-hatred that goes on here tells me that it's far more than her positions on issues.

but I guarantee you that somewhere between 10% and 25% the Hillary bashing is from Men and perhaps even some women who don't like strong women. I see this kind of prejudice in my work place all the time. Some in this country need to leave the dark ages and realize it's 2007.

You'd think those who call themselves progressives and/or liberals who know better than to resort to name-calling. I'm saddened and outraged.

Dark ages, indeed.

Have a good night.

I want a Woman President. I want a Black President. I want a LBGT President. I want everyone to have a chance who has a good plan.

Senator Clinton is not representing us, though, and that was a calculated choice. Our votes are not worth spit in relation to money and power based interests.

Given that fact, I have to say I'm hugely disappointed. She could have ALL of us supporting her if she would listen to us.

That's actually the only thing most liberals actually like about Clinton, is that she is a strong intelligent woman.


* from the Clarence Thomas episode

Just agreement from this woman. :applause:

own candidates? It's not like there isn't a lot of good stuff to say about Obama.

But to pretend that HRC, who is one of the most progressive members of the Senate, is no different from a Republican, is dirty politics. Her actual voting record is almost the same as Obama's.

Very strange.

When the vitriol directed towards her is as seething (or worse)
than comments directed at Rupert Murdoch's propagandists, Bush,
Cheney, and Gonzales, it makes me wonder. The "no difference"
mentality of the Nader crowd of 2000 seems to be alive and well,
and no matter who she is aligned with, she still unequivocally
supports abortion rights and civil rights, and would take both
into account if elected and selecting the next Supreme Court
nominee.

If she's nominated, I will support her election, and if she isn't,
I may or may not prefer who is, but won't be dancing with Schaden-
freude one way or the other. NOT having a Republican president is
the overriding consideration, once the nominee has been decided, and
I refuse to get into the hate game during the primary stage, even if
she isn't my first choice. That is Republican territory. I don't
have a visa, and won't be applying for one either.

I have learned my lesson in the past 30 minutes.

Quietly, I will go about voting for whom I think is the best candidate.

Have a good night.

By DU's Rules, any energetic opposition to the nominee of the Democratic Party will be prohibited. Those who honor those rules will politely stifle themselves, even in the face of taunts and provocative behavior. That's how it goes on DU. It did in 2002, 2004, and 2006. It will again. There will be some who then leave DU ... some voluntarily and some otherwise. That's how it goes on DU.

:shrug:

just because he won the nomination. But after his nom was sewn up, I didn't criticize him because of the rules. I might have offered some constructive criticism to the campaign, but I just stopped discussing my problems with him as our representative. Though in 04 I did vote for the nominee, and I doubt I'll do that if Clinton wins it next year.

SHE'S A HUMAN BEING!

Jesus. Are you 12?

this faux outrage against nonexistent "hillary-haters" has gone on a bit long, don't you think?

She's got STUFF!!! :rofl:

That's the rhetoric of monarchs, editors, bullies, and people with tapeworms. :shrug:

I have to hand it to you because I am laughing out loud right now. When I put in the part about her being "human" I originally wrote "she's a human being" but instantly thought of Chris Crocker and tried to tone that line down.

Thanks for making me laugh at myself! :thumbsup:

it helps if we do.

LOL!

Besides, we've had enough Bushie and Clinton President years..... IT"S TIME FOR A CHANGE!

And it was clever (the first time I heard it, so long ago) the way it seemed to say (just like Nader) that there was no difference between Ruth Bader Ginsberg and John Roberts. But there is. And you can take your banal slime and stuff it in the appropriate orifice.

She's done a terrific job "triangulating" herself out of leftist votes and support.

but I still will never vote for her or anyone else who tacitly condones war crimes by voting to fund them. Only Kucinich has been consistent here.

and I hope you're not lumping the two groups in together.

As for my annoyance, it is due in part to the feeling that she's being shoved down my throat. She's inevitable, so why even vote. There's a certain smug factor amongst her supporters that sticks in my craw.

I will not join the DU Lovefest for her if she wins the nomination (if that is indeed what happens after a day or two).

Some of her positions might even have been half palatable if i hadn't seen the corporate whoredom put up such a hard sell. The corporate world must want her as the candidate in a bad way, what is up with that :shrug:

I know plenty of women who hate her guts and bluster about why. She's more conservative than I am on financial and military issues. But she has excellent training in using diplomacy rather than war. I don't like that she seems to have been using Schumer as her mentor, but I have to agree that it seems to have worked.

The first viable female candidate for president who cannot so much as laugh without being attacked is being extremely careful. I sadly agree she has to be.

The rest of the hysteria is hysteria. And irrelevant to the facts.

And personally I think we need a better leader that has the strength to stand up and fix America. She's not the solution, maybe if Bill pulled the strings but I don't see that happening.

I don't know if her stance on Iraq could in any way bear on her viability with me, for instance....

Oh. Wait a minute. Why yes it could.

And does.

If she had the same platform as Dennis Kucinich, I would toss a coin and vote for one or the other, in a heartbeat. Her being a strong woman is in her favor.

It's just that she represents the wrong side.

That's a convenient, and FALSE, little campaign slogan by her supporters.

There are plenty of people who don't like her candidacy or her record, and don't want to see her get the nomination. That's not hate. You can oppose her candidacy without disliking the woman.

There is a visceral hate for HRC among right-wing voters, which is just stupid. I believe that to be the result of republican propaganda and the sexism rampant in conservative xtian culture.

Should she win the nomination, there may be a grieving period. I, for one, am not so gullible as to suddenly find her "awesome." I'll be grieving for the lost opportunity to field a great candidate, for the outcome of the general election, for the direction the party has chosen to take, and for the necessity of writing in a good candidate in the general election.

"That's a convenient, and FALSE, little campaign slogan by her supporters."

I vehemently oppose DLC and anyone who associates themselves with that subversive organization.

but you probably knew that. ;)

You're welcome. :hi:

That should be a good enough reason.

Just because a majority of DUers don't like a candidate because of her positions or the fact that she is being shoved down our throats by the MSM it doesn't constitute "hate".

I guess we should all just get on board the Hillary train and accept her candidacy as inevitable.

:applause:

The way they are put down though, depends on what prejudices people have against them. We live in a world that puts women second, so obviously that will play out in any arena.

You also forgot "Belief that 36 years of a Bush(VP)-Bush-
Clinton-Bush-Clinton-(Jeb)Bush dynasty is bad for our
democracy."

Tesha

is that she not really putting much out there. The last debate really hit the ball out of the park when she punted so many questions. I saw recently that it's part of her "strategy" not to reveal too much in order to keep whatever Repuke challenger off balance....Bullshit. If she can't let us know what her platforms and policies are going to be, that basically there is no level of trust.

The anti-Clinton posts that I read on DU strike me as being combinations of three factors: (a) a dislike of her politics; (b) a dislike of her personality; and (c) a belief that she will win the nomination and lose the election in '08, resulting in another republican administration.

I had been so supportive of her as first lady and was thrilled that the woman who had the guts to identify the "vast right-wing conspiracy" on national TV won a Senate seat.

Then I watched her make her long, drawn out answer to voting on the IWR.

This was so wrong on so many levels. She lost me then and there.

Julie

informs me of a certain arrogance that's only surpassed by the current occupant of the White House.

by backstabbing John Kerry last fall.

Who will she backstab next?

(You asked.)

cement her climb to the top. The IWR vote was also to ensure she could keep those presidential stars in her eyes.

And if she had apologized for the IWR vote then what would the Iranian Resolution, "YaY" vote been about..she'd have to 'splain that one even more than she already does. The hillary campaign is trying for no Distractions but the Best Laid Plans and all that.

I don't trust anyone who is a friend of Poppy Bush.

No one?

Then the people who voted that way must be trying to read the minds of their fellow DU'ers.

90% of misogyny exists only in the minds of those who are inclined to objectify men as the worst caricature of chauvinism.

Any grieving I'll do will be for my country for having flushed yet another opportunity for genuine change down the toilet. Again. And Hillary most likely will not suddenly, or ever, become awesome in my eyes. I'll vote for her, though, as disgusted and disappointed as doing that will make me feel. I'd vote for a cockroach ahead of a repub ( I know--how do you tell the difference?), and Hillary's at least as good as a cockroach, therefore, she's got my vote if she's the nominee. I sincerely hope I'm wrong about her by the way, and that she'll be more of bold progressive if and when she's elected than I think she'll be. I'd love nothing more than to be proven wrong about the misgivings and doubts I have about her.

and yet I can't stand Clinton. For me, it's the "single issue" of the war, and her lip service to ending it at some point maybe in the future if the republicans let us. Blech.



And I put "single issue" in quotes because it is not. Without the war, we would have money for healthcare, education, libraries, reducing taxes on the middle and lower class, etc. For me, it's a matter of social justice that we end the war and move on the the kitchen table issues of Truman, FDR and LBJ.


and on edit- I like Bill Clinton about as much as I like Hillary Clinton, just for the record.

There is a difference.

This is the same argument the right-wing used to make about Bush's unpopularity - that it was a product of personal hatred against him.

I do not hate Hillary - I even voted for her once in 2000, but I will never make the same mistake again.

I reject Hillary for her unmistakable voting record on war-and-peace issues and for her odious rhetoric with regard to Iran, Iraq, Israel and her cheerleading for the "war on terror" and "homeland security" fear scams. Her pro-corporate stance on issues like health care, while raking in the corporate dough, is also telling, is it not?

"You only dislike her because she's a woman!"

Bull. Shit. I dislike her because of her crazy warmongering votes, her inability to give a straight answer to a damn thing, and her frequent outright sell-out to the right. I dislike her because of her pro-corporatist, anti-environment, put-all-the-power-into-the-Executive votes.

Now on the bright side, she IS better than any of the republicans, so if she gets the nomination, I'll vote for her. But she's only marginally better than them, so I feel absolutely no guilt for looking at the other candidates for the primaries.

Not even a teensy bit maybe?

This is a time when people are desperate for change, when real, substantial change is politically possible. If we, as Democrats, are aggressive, we might finally achieve progress on issues that we've been loosing ground on for 30 years. People are ready for universal healthcare, less militarism, a strong commitment to the environment, removing draconian drug laws, ect... But the choice has to be offered to them, and my Party seems to be stuck in 1972 and is terrified of being called that worst of all epithets, liberal. If we offer up HRC, what I fear will happen is that we won't get any progress at all because she will be playing to the mythical center, which claims without evidence that Americans love the status quo and just wants minor fixes around the edges. I think we could do much better.

to cozy up to Rupert Murdoch does not inspire me with trust.

The GOP wants her. AIPAC wants her. Her campaign is called a "machine", and for good reason. James Carville wants her. All the wrong people are behind her, supporting her, giving her A LOT of $$$$$$$.

TC

The MSM has been talking of a Hillary presidency ever since she went to Congress.

...who were opposed to the war. She laughs because all along she knew she could take any and every Democrat's vote for granted when she ran for President when bush's "term" expired.

Her militarist positioning on the IWR was designed to protect her whether bush's conquest was a success or a failure. She wanted to be sure that she voted for the war if it happened that Ahmed Chalabi was successfully installed as Iraq's despot and that Iraq was relatively quiescent.

Well it didn't work. She got our young people killed by the thousands. She got Iraqis killed by the thousands and hundreds of thousands have fled the country. And our country is *still* stuck with the horrible message of militarism as the prime focus of our nation.

Simply, she votes for war and on the side of corporations. On those TWO major issues, she is in fact a Republican.


Also, she will sell us out in a heartbeat to keep her job, popularity or whatever SHE deems has value. They call it triangulation. I call it weaseling out. Bill Clinton was a champ at that also.

Hillary will NEVER become awesome for the people I respect on DU. There are some people that act now like they've been kneecapped or castrated or something. People that know better. I think they know they are sleeping with the devil-just because it takes too much energy and courage to admit they are the devil.

I adored Kerry and I came to understand and respect most of the criticisms that many of him had on DU. I get that frustration and anger.
But Hillary is no John Kerry. She is no Howard Dean. She is no John Edwards. Whom-had a great quote on Countdown-"We need to be a lot better than Republicans not just a little bit better." She is no Babara Boxer. She is no Barrack Obama. They might have some big flaws but Hillary's flaws are flaws that go the heart of what it means to be a Democrat.

So if she is the nominee-I will have lost my party completely. That's how it feels to me. At a time when a little bit better was the worst thing ever, because all we do is sell out to ruining the country. It's not good enough. It's not better than Republican-it's worse-because she's representing Democratic values and MAKING them Republican.

Equivocating "half positions" on free trade and carbon emissions. Bush will be gone in 15 months, but we won't have any hope for progress until She is safely in her second term. If she makes it that far. Some republican who really gives a sh!t about climate change is likely to beat her in 2012.

Repukes WANT her as the nominee. Thats why i don't support her. so I voted the msm option.
or here read this one.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x1976113

"Now Hillary is not my first choice but I find the Hillary bashing is out of control and I really think it's less about her politics . . . "

It can't really be about her politics, because as far as I can tell, she HAS NO POSITIONS.

Positions are a result of values. And again, I haven't seen any evidence she has VALUES either.

As soon as she takes a stand on something, I'll support her.

ironically.

She's the establishment. She's the favorite. It's like hating the Yankees.

I think that for the most part most DU posters really just disagree with her policies and her votes and that sort of thing.

But yeah, sometimes posters do use sexist words and imagery when talking about her.

You've just got to look at each post on its own merits.

Personally, I would love nothing better than a female president. I wanted to be the first female president myself when I was a little girl. Unfortunately I wasn't born into a rich family.

But when I think about Clinton, I can't even work up any joy over the possibility of a female being president. Positions and votes and beliefs are more important to me than reproductive organs.

And it's not defensiveness about another candidate. The only candidate I'm even sort of invested in hasn't declared and may not run at all.

Seriously? Where am I?