If you have "no place to go," come here!

People love Hillary Clinton

DCblogger's picture

Hillary Clinton is the most popular non-incumbant politician since Eisenhower. Partly it is the remembered prosperity of her husband's presidency. Partly is because Hillary never lets the bastards get her down. No matter how vicious the attack, Hillary Clinton maintains her focus on doing what she thinks is best for the country, and people LOVE her for it. I think it is this aspect of her that particularly appeals to working class voters.

Those of us who support other candidates would do well to keep this in mind.

Socialist Sanders threatens Clinton more than made-for-TV O'Malley

Clinton’s camp, so far, seems attuned to the need to avoid alienating Sanders’ constituency. After Sanders announced his presidential campaign last month, Clinton tweeted: “I agree with Bernie. Focus must be on helping America’s middle class. GOP would hold them back. I welcome him to the race.

I wish, I wish, oh how I wish Bernie's supporters would learn from this. Bernie himself seems to understand his best chance is to focus on attacking Wall Street, which the general public hates. Whenever a TV interviwer offers him this chance to attack Hillary, he refuses the bait. His supporters on the other hand love to say how they won't vote for Hillary if she is nominated. Dumb. Really truly dumb. Why not take the view that Bernie is going to win and start thinking now how to win over her supporters.

Obama's sneering treatment of Hillary and her supporters almost cost him the election. There is no doubt in my mind that had McCain selected Susan Collins or Olympia Snowe as his running mate he would have won. Even the disastrous choice of Palin might not have cost him the election had the financial meltdown come just a few months later. Everybody goes on about how brilliant Obama's 2008 campaign was, and anytime you win you are entitled to think that you did something right. On the other hand, Obama had the wind at his back. Bush was tremendously unpopular, the Democrats had just retaken the House and Senate, and Howard Dean's 50 state plan was bumping all the Democratic campaigns. Even so, Obama almost succeeded in losing, and many of his problems stemmed from needlessly offending Hillary's supporters. Bernie needs to find a way to communicate to his supporters that come November they are going to need Hillary's supporters and burning bridges is not a good idea.

No votes yet


V. Arnold's picture
Submitted by V. Arnold on

...Now that is the scariest thing I have read in a very long time.
But then, we're doomed no matter who is the figurehead in the oval office...
All we need to finish the job is the TPP.

metamars's picture
Submitted by metamars on

People love Hillary? Seriously? According to a round up of favorability/unfavorability polls, her unfavorable rating exceeds her favorable rating.

I suppose to be fair, you'd have to compare this sort of meta polling to each Republican hopeful. This meta polling suggests that nationally she's a few points ahead of any of the Republican clown car commuters.

So, a candidate who is viewed more unfavorably than favorably is still more popular than her competition....

I think I echo V. Arnold in saying that it'd be better to focus on TPP than the Presidency. (Although at this stage of the game, I also think it'd probably be a good use of one's time and energy to support Sanders, but to make clear that one's loyalty is not transferable to the Clinton.)

Personally, I find the woman disgusting. She bears a lot of the responsibility for the mess in Libya and Syria. In fact, the only person in the US government who bears more responsibility is Obama, as he listened to this dingbat, who apparently cared more about padding her resume than all the death and destruction that was being unleashed.

V. Arnold's picture
Submitted by V. Arnold on

I can find not one thing to disagree with in your post.
Disgusting is a very apt description of the Hillary...
Do carry on...

nippersdad's picture
Submitted by nippersdad on

The problems with Hillary are policy based, insofar as I have seen. It is difficult for me to see a problem with those who take exception to her unless it is by those who actively seek them out. They will never be pleased anyway, so why bother with them?

If they want to maintain the status quo, let them argue for it and see where it gets them.

Submitted by lambert on

... get her down is very true, and important. I remember that in 2008, and I admire her for it.

That's also an excellent point on McCain's VP pick; I think you're right.

As far as people loving Hillary Clinton; I'm not sure how much I trust the polls, or any poll. I think favorability/unfavorability is always relative to what, and I'm not sure the polls capture that.

As far as the main point of the post goes:

Bernie needs to find a way to communicate to his supporters that come November they are going to need Hillary's supporters and burning bridges is not a good idea.

I think that's absolutely true.

Are the Sanders supporters doing the Hillary hate thing? That's like the Greens, doing the Sanders hate thing. It's bizarre. It's superweird. Tribalism....

NOTE Keynes once wrote something to the effect that stock picking is a picking the winner of a beauty contest if you're not a judge; it's not what you feel, it's figuring out what the judges feel. Similarly for market valuation (unless you're a short, I suppose); it's not what you feel, it's what Mr. Market feels.

So in the same way, it really doesn't matter much what "you" feel about Hillary. What matters is what others feel, and in particular, her supporters. (That is, if you want to influence electoral outcomes. Personally, I think TPP and the Presidential race are both/and, not either/or. In particular, Hillary needs to be put on the spot about it.)

Submitted by libbyliberal on


The corporate capture of our pols, our three branches is not going to be turned around by Hillary OR Sanders, they are sponsored by the corporatists and its propaganda media.

I am sick of the pose of "pragmatism" being used to sabotage the fight for morality, justice and constitutional law.

Personality uber principle rides everywhere apparently.

Both parties are corporate war parties.

Sanders is a PEPP, progressive except for Pentagon and Palestine. Those are big exceptions.

Lesser evilism supports evil. The media has got to be challenged by the people AND the Dem party has to be challenged by them -- us --- seriously. It keeps using the same Trojan Horse and lesser evilism and an "identity politics rather than class and global war-addressing" playbook.

nippersdad's picture
Submitted by nippersdad on

I am not clear what the alternative is, though. We have supported the Greens for years and continue to do so. I have to say that, while it was not an investment wasted, it really didn't net much for the cause.

In just the past two weeks I have seen more coverage of the issues important to me than the rest of my life combined. I hate much of his foreign policy, but see no one else out there who has one that is much different. At least he is recognizing that what has been done was a mistake and is willing to talk about getting out of our existing paradigm.

Who else is getting that into the news?

Submitted by lambert on

But his policies open important discussions (or would, if the left would start talking about them!)

And I don't see Sanders doing anything but damage to the powers that be in the Democratic Party. And I think that's good.

Saying the Sanders candidacy can have beneficial effects is one thing. Supporting the Sanders candidacy is another.

Again, I think the left needs to take yes for an answer on this one.

Alexa's picture
Submitted by Alexa on

I don't believe that Sanders' supporters, in general, are worrying about "bridges." There are hard factions building at some progressive blogs, with 'break away' blogs, etc. And diaries that are garnering hundreds and even a thousand plus comments--arguing over Sanders' challenge to FSC. Lately, talk has gravitated more to the contest between them, than to the issues at hand.

Also, most of the Sanders' supporters that I read, look at his candidacy as a platform to air their issues. (Not that they wouldn't want him to win, but they are realistic.)

After all, if the Dem Party PtB would not allow a centrist (fiscal conservative/moderate socially) candidate like Dean to win the nomination--and I was a Deaniac, because I was ignorant of his fiscal conservatism--is it really imaginable that they would allow Sanders to take the nomination? Not in my book.

I find it interesting that so far, it is a Republican (Mike Huckabee) who is taking the strongest stance regarding tolerating 'no cuts' to Social Security and Medicare. He has no chance of winning the Republican nomination, but I think instead of worrying about the Dems squabbling, Dem Party activists, hopefully, will consider putting their time and efforts into getting "like pledges" from the 3-4 (if Chaffee runs) Democrats.

I posted a video of Senator Sanders (2011 or so) vowing "not to privatize or dismantle Social Security." But, IMHO, that's not the same as saying that he will not support any cuts.

As a matter of fact, he adds that 'the problem' should be addressed, so that it will be there for our children and our grandchildren. (That's similar language that Bowles and Simpson employed in "The Moment Of Truth.") I may have posted that YouTube video here, quite some time ago--I'm not sure.

If anyone has an update on his stance, please enlighten me. ;-)

I would like to see ALL of the presidential candidates be asked to sign a simple one- or two-line pledge to not make any "savings" [cuts] to Social Security and/or Medicare.

I'm trying to figure out which candidates that I think have the best chance to win. I'll go out on the limb and say that (barring a major faux pas), on the Republican side, I think that Marco Rubio will be one of the Top 3.

Rubio is basically a DLC/No Labels Dem. He's constantly lecturing at Brookings--he's an internationalist, free trader, pro immigration (although he tries to play that down now, because of the Republican base), a fiscal austerian, etc., etc.)

(He ran as a "Tea Partier" to get elected. One of the Teneessee US Representatives did the same--but she a corporatist "No Labeler.")

And, he's one of the Establishment Repubs 'favs.' At this point, it looks like it would take a miracle for Bush to win the nomination--or some 'funny' electoral shenanigans. Lately, Bush has even lost his footing in New Hampshire, and he's skipping Iowa, IIRC.

The primary races hold very little interest for me, but I must say that the General Election (if Bush doesn't get the nomination) might prove to be rather interesting.

Hope everyone had a nice Memorial Day weekend. We're still trying to recover (from company, and our own trip to the beach). ;-D

nippersdad's picture
Submitted by nippersdad on

and I have seen a lot of that with others as well. If our best chance lies in the threat of splitting the Party (from the Republicans?) then I say go for it! I think it would be nice to vote FOR something for once, and do not think I am alone in that sentiment.

I just lie in wait these days for people to squeal "would I prefer a Republican in office?". I feel like we have had one for years now, and a more efficient one at that. Electing more efficient Republicans is not not my personal goal.