I went to a volunteer meeting for HRC a few weeks ago, and one of the things they asked was "why do you support Hillary" and every single person had different reasons etc.

The fact that the party is a big tent party should not be overlooked by the netroots.

Biden is not going to survive Iowa.

Dodd is going to get stronger and stronger.  He is a leader. He is taking the lead on FISA and on war funding.  

You will see Dodd greatly strengthening over Oct-Nov.  

Obama is being very unfairly tarred, and is being witch-hunted out.  

Edwards is going nowhere.

I see Dodd as coming in 2nd in Iowa, and winning NH.

Geez, even bolder than the singing lady from Iowa...

Interesting order:

3 white males

woman
AA
Hispanic

LOL.

she has relationships with our allies in the world that the other top-tier candidates don't have. For instance, she's known Prime Minister Brown of Great Britain for quite some time. She has a good friendship with Queen Noor and other Jordanians. When she comes to office, she won't have to waste time with the getting to know you phrase like other candidates. Bill and she can work together on day one to repair our damaged prestige around the world. The world leaders don't know Obama and Edwards and their diplomats would have to spend time getting to know them and what they're like etc. That's valuable time that could be devoted to other things. Our number one objective on the foreign policy side should be to strengthen our alliances with Western Europe, the Middle East, Japan and India first. After that, we can work on our pressing problems in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Secondly, she understands the mechanics of the White House fairly well. Depending upon which book you read about the Clinton WH, Bill Clinton relied heavily on her counsel when making decisions. For instance, she was a key figure in choosing Albright for Secretary of State. I think that I liked John Harris' description of her role best where he stated that both Gore and Clinton competed over the role of co-vice-presidents. In that same Harris book, Hillary Clinton was described as decisive when making decisions. I actually think that she would make a better executive than her husband based upon reading various books about her. she's a very take charge type of person. Very organized. Very disciplined. The direct opposite of her husband. She has an incredible amount of drive. I'm actually debating with myself whether she would hold active-positive or active-negative presidential character traits under the famous James David Barber's political analysis:

http://academic.regis.edu/jriley/414%20p residential_character.htm

Until reading a few books, I leaned on the side of active negative, but I'm now thinking that she could possibly be an active-positive. Reading accounts about her experiences during the White House, one would have to definitely classify her as an active negative. There was definitely conflict b/w her and Bill's people like Dee Dee Myers and George Steph. But I'm wondering if her difficulties in the White House were b/c she was frustrated that she could not perform executive duties in an official capacity as well as many of Bill's staff were ambivalent about her role in the White House.

Beyond that, I think HRC is a tough lady and will be able to take the incoming fire from the GOP in the general election. I don't feel the other candidates would have the resiliciency to recover from the GOP slime machine.

So, HRC's relationship with our allies, her experience in the White House and toughness are all reasons why I'm supporting Hillary over the other candidates.....

How much did you pay for that John Edwards crytal ball again?

I'm going to save this prediction and come back to it in January when the results come in. If you're wrong...well, we'll get to it when the time comes.

The best thing I like about Hillary Clinton is her husband. No, really. I think he will be a great positive for her administration.

I admire Hillary's ability to learn from her past mistakes and to grow as a politician. I like that she is very informed and knowledgeable about both the issues and how those issues will play politically. I also like that she is disciplined and organized, though I fear that she may indeed be too disciplined to the point of undue secrecy and closed-door decision making. Also her intellect, work on children's issues and women's issues, being a good mother, etc. It is a plus for me that she is very popular with democrats, and a negative for me that she is unpopular with republicans and independents.  

I can't wait.

Your listed criteria has absolutely nothing to do with public policy changes or reforming the corruption of our government.

All it is does is talk about "strong support from" this group or that group.  That amounts to nothing but a Media-exposure driven and/or name-recognition driven popularity contest months away from when most people are even really focusing on the Election.

The only true criteria here is which candidate will best change the Country, specifically:

• Which candidate will restore all our Civil Liberties back again and renounce the unconstitutional "Patriot Act"?
  
• Which candidate will completely end the fraudulent U.S. Occupation of Iraq including shutting down the U.S. Military Bases, getting the bloody U.S. Corporations out, and pulling all the Troops out?
  
• Which candidate has the most comprehensive, efficient, and straightforward Health-Care plan?
  
• Which candidate is serious about cutting all the Billions of dollars in Military spending that we waste away overseas - while our nation is plunged into bankruptcy?
  
• Which candidate is serious about addressing the global climate change problem and making the United States free and independent of Oil and fossile-fuel based Energy?
  
• Which candidate is the most honest, the most scandal-free, and the least attached to and corrupted by Corporate conglomerates and Monopolies?
  

Based on this criteria, which is the only criteria that could result in dramatically improving the conditions in this Country,
Dennis Kucinich scores the best. Mike Gravel scores right along side him.  
John Edwards is not too far off where they are. Barack Obama is close to where Edwards is.
Bill Richardson is also in the mix with this group and has a compelling case regarding getting our of Iraq.

The very worst of the group is Hillary Clinton who continues to blindly follow and endorse Joe Lieberman's Iraq/Iran Foreign Policy initiatives in the U.S. Senate, and is beholden to Walmart, Ruppert Murdoch, Foreign Investors, and the Military-Industrial-Complex. She is also the most scandal-ridden of the candidates and will be easy fodder for the right-wing.

You need to vote for the public interest and stop endorsing what is sought by the U.S. Corporate-driven Media Interest.
Only the people can protect the people - not Corporations nor their lapdogs.
Vote that way.

Hillary voted for the Iraq War.

Republicans support the Iraq War.

What's the difference between the two parties?

Hillary is close to Rupert Murdoch, Matt Drudge, and health insurance lobbyists.  Her pollster Mark Penn's firm is involved with union busting and Blackwater.  She voted for the Iraq War to impress Beltway pundits, and spent her time in the Senate on critical issues like flag burning and video game violence.  She just gave President Bush an excuse to go to war with Iran with her Lieberman-Kyl vote.

Exactly how is she different from Republicans?