Over the past few days, it has been suggested by some diarists and posters that Hillary Clinton is angry over the campaign of Senator Obama, and that part of her anger stems from the fact that he is an African American. That in fact, Clinton her self is at least a little bit of a racist.

The argument, as near as I can tell, is that Clinton doesn't like the fact that she has been challenged by a Black man, and that the Black guy has a shot at defeating her in the Primary election. My opinion on this argument is pretty easy to guess.

Links to some of those arguments,

http://www.dailykos.com/...

http://www.dailykos.com/...

I'd like to take another crack at the argument that Senator Clinton is the least electable candidate in the General election. It's a common argument, one that has been repeated so often that it is close to becoming conventional wisdom. People often selectivley cite her favorability numbers. They pick the worst ones and ignore the best. Some polls have her unfavorables in the low 40's or even high 30's. But we don't often discuss those.

The unelectable arguement is not actually supported by current poll numbers. The current state polls do not show Hillary Clinton losing by a wide margin. They don't show her losing by a small margin. They don't show her winning by a small margin. In fact, they show her winning a landslide election against the strongest Republican candidate, Rudy Giuliani.

(and elsewhere)

A complaint about Senator Clinton that I often read here is that she's a weaker general election candidate then some of the other candidates. In extreme cases, I read that she is "unelectable". Most people site the constantly fluctuating favorability poll numbers, which can varry by some 20 points from poll to poll, day to day.

But I think the head to head poll numbers against the Repiblican candidates is a somewhat more accurate measure of a candidates electability, even this far out from the election. Well, looking at the general election poll numbers from several key states: Florida, West Virginia, Arkansas, Iowa and New Mexico, I think Hillary Clinton looks pretty darn electable.

in the early days with Bill?

A week ago I posted a diary detailing some of the events of Hillary Clinton's life before she met Bill. One of the oft repeated criticisms of Hillary is that "without Bill, she would be nothing". I'd like to argue that without Hillary, Bill might have been nothing. They were both integral to each other's success. To continue this series, I'd like to discuss her life and career up to about 1992.

My source for the information is mainly a biography owned by
© 2003 The HW Wilson Company   800-367-6770 / 718-588-8400 950 University Avenue, Bronx, New York 10452

http://www.hwwilson.com/...

I've deleted some information because I know this diary is too long as it is. If you'd like, go over there to read it in it's entirety.

After glancing through the daily/nightly/constant slew of "Hillary Clinton will set the seas aflame" diaries, I felt like posting a few of the things she has done, or at least tried to do in the most recent congress. The following is a list of some of the bills she has sponsored.

This isn't the most indepth of postings, I'm just working off of Thomas. http://thomas.loc.gov/ If you have a few minutes, glance over them.

I'm only posting a few of the 113 she has sponsored this session. http://thomas.loc.gov/...

A common negative comment I read about Clinton is that "she doesn't vote the way I want most of the time". When I first came onto this site, as a somewhat Clark supporter, I also believed that. I thought Clinton had a conservative voting record, closer to the right of the party then the left. I imagined a large gap between her and the liberal leaders of our party, like Boxer and Kennedy. Of course, I'd never actually looked at her record, or where she ranked. I held my opinion on faith and faith alone. And I think alot of people here are the same way.

One day someone made a comment like "Hillary Clinton is the worst Democrat in the party". And I though, "that probably isn't quite true. Bad, but not the worst". So I looked it up. And I was wrong. She's not the worst. She's not even bad. Hillary Clinton has a liberal voting record.

The other day, Alegre posted a full account of her liberal votes. http://www.dailykos.com/...
Today, I'm going to post rankings that show where she compares to other candidates. The rankings I'm using are full term ones. They encompass the total votes from when the candidate was elected to when the ranking was put together. If you have a few minutes, please look them over.

before she met Bill Clinton?

I've noticed  that in many cases we remain ignorant of the biography's of other candidates. No real surprise there, why would we want to know more about people we aren't very interested in? But I thought it would be important to disspell some of the misconceptions I've seen about Hillary Clinton's past. Her history is often boiled down to "She was a Goldwater Girl!" and "Without Bill, she was nothing". I don't think the first tells the whole story, and I believe the second is just false. So, if you have a few minutes, this is what Clinton was doing before she met Bill:

No, no he isn't.

And neither is Hillary Clinton. Much has been made in the past few days of Clinton's willingness to accept Lobbyist money, and her belief that they are not a corrupting influence on her. And of course, there are many lobbying groups (Labor, Environmental, Equal Rights, etc.) that Democrats love. Clinton's position earned challenges from John Edwards and Barack Obama, as well as boos from the YearlyKos Krowd.

No, he isn't.

And neither is Hillary Clinton. Mark Penn, a Clinton pollster and advisor is often used as an example in arguments designed at painting her as "anti union" or "corporatist". It's reasoned that because Penn's company has done anti union work, her employment of him is a breach of trust with the Democratic pro labor base. I've argued many times that the foibles of an employee do not always reflect upon the employer. That argument rarely seems to work.

At least according to GovTrack, yet another of the many sources that rank where various politicians fall on the political spectrum. GovTrack seems to be unique however, in that it's rankings are generated not by how the Senator or Representative votes, but on the legislation that they have cosponsored. From the site, "The political spectrum image is generated through a statistical analysis of the cosponsorship of bills in the 109th and 110th sessions of Congress. The analysis places representatives who cosponsor similar legislation closer together --- it does not rely on party affiliation information or any analysis of bill content."

As a Democratic site, we've been pretty intensely focused upon the Democrats primary race, on who polls where and who raised how much from how many. We've kind of been ignoring the Republican race. Well, something magical has been happening. Mitt Romney has been pulling ahead in the race. Hallelujah.

One of the frequent anti-Clinton statements that I read on Dailykos goes something like "I'd love to vote for a woman... just not Hillary". My question is, which woman?

Please don't construe this as an argument that we need to elect a woman or a Black man as some kind of statement. I'm never in favor of tokenism. You'll never see me argue that the main reason (or even one of the top 10 reasons) to back Clinton is her gender. I just don't think "any woman but Hiillary" is a terribly valid argument in light of how few viable female candidates we have, and the inherent prejudice against female candidates in our culture.

No offense. This morning and afternoon, there were hundreds upon hundreds of posts (egged on by the head honcho) condemming Clinton and Obama for not having the right position on tonight's vote. They were cursed at, stung up and run out of town on a rail. But tonight, they voted the right way. Unlike Webb. Unlike Tester. Unlike Murtha. And they were cursed at, strung up and run out of town on a rail by most of you.

That should get the asses in the seats. The title is half the attraction. But seriously, that's a pretty common claim we see about Clinton. She's an AIPAC whore. She's a Corporatist whore. She's a NEOCON whore. Last night a diary pointed out that Glen Beck had called Clinton a bitch. Everyone was shocked, Shocked! that someone would say such a thing. Well, roughly 1/5th of the posts about her have said basically the same things. This is my humble attempt to counter that.

I was originally going to title this, "Are third party advocates trolls" but decided I could save the vititol for a later date.

There have always been green party advocates and Nader apologists floating around this site. Largely harmless, a little anoying now and then. But lately, as we grow closer to the 2008 election, their numbers around here seem to have rocketed. So, are they serious?

I’m sure everyone is going to love this diary!

We have a chance to end the white male domin... just kidding. I had no real intention of writing any diaries when I joined this site,  and certainly no intention of being a vocal defender of Senator Clinton. But the growing tide of sometimes irrational hatred for her on this site has forced me out of my lethargy.

Clinton is often called a DINO, sometimes the worst Democrat we have. A growing number of people here have promised to vote for the Republican is she is out nominee. Not one or two irrational posters, but dozens do far. Doing so would be to vote against one of the most liberal Senators in our party.