This isn't quite true. There IS an anti-Hillary faction of Democrats. I am part of it. I know there are others because I have talked to some. And most of us are voting for Obama, with a few voting for Edwards or Kucinich.

But there aren't enough of us to make a difference. Most Democrats are fine with Hillary, or, at least, even if they aren't fine with her, aren't inexorably opposed to her.

Also an anti-Hillary Democrat here. This is very disappointing.

Um, yeah.. I'd ask jacqueline if there isn't some sort of anti-Hillary vote out there, too...

I do think that it's possible that the "anti Hillary" discussion, though, is overstated. Yes, there are people (Sully and Matthews being obvious examples these days) who clearly just don't like her... but what that means to her candidacy has never been entirely clear. We also have, really, no way of knowing how the far more fanatical hatred of her that exists in some corners of the right will affect things should she be the nominee. I think a lot of reporters - whose antipathy for her seems larger than that of much of the public - like the storyline of "Clinton hatred" because it gives a natural hook to stories about her. She's trying... but people hate her. She might win... or that deep hatred of her could ruin everything. She's good... but she's bad.

I tend to think the problem here - and it's one I noticed much more out of the nineties than even, say, the eighties - is this personalization of celebrity. We somehow now "know" people from profiles and interviews and we can like, love, dislike or hate them as if we're close... when really, we're not. The amount of "real knwledge" I have of Hillary Clinton, like most people, is really rather small; I have no idea what she's like in private, what she's like with her family. I don't know her. I may agree or disagree with her policies and positions... but like her? Really, what do I know to base that decision upon? That, in the end is why I think the "hatred" of her is so odd - what do these people seem to know, really? So maybe it's that like or dislike her... people seem to get that the decision on who to vote for isn't about liking someone; that criteria, I think, got us into the fix we're in now.

And yet basically everyone I know is an "Anti-Hillary" voter. She keeps winning, but I don't know a single person supporting her (or even not against her). Could it be that anti-Hillary sentiment is entirely confined to east and west coast college-educated liberal elites and college students (Obama's base, apparently?)

I take from this that are you saying that Edwards is Tony Gray, Hillary is Mayor Royce, and Obama’s Carcetti.

I think this more a function of the press overestimating voters' engagement with politics in general, rather than misreading their feelings towards Hillary Clinton. Almost anyone who follows politics obsessively has a strong opinion, one way or the other, about Hillary Clinton, and there's certainly a strong anti-Hillary sentiment in the liberal blogosphere. But the average voter, even the average Democratic primary voter, doesn't have that strong of an opinion about ANY politician, even someone as obsessed over as Hillary Clinton.

Count me as an anti-Hillary voter in the sense that, although I have always voted democratic and worked precincts, I just won't be able to get fired up to do it this go around. I am motivated by Edwards and inspired by Obama. I just can't rouse myself for Hillary. I'm going to let other fat cat donors and dedicated supporters get out her vote. I'll be lucky to mark my ballot for her.

Since we're all sharing our personal opinions and anecdotes, I for one am an Edwards supporter who doesn't feel strongly one way or the other about Hillary, but prefers her to Obama - all this in spite of the fact that I am a close follower of politics, a regular blog reader, etc.

So by the time my state's primary comes around, Obama better hope Edwards is still in the race (assuming there are many others in the same position as me, which seems to be the case).

I was one of the "I like all three of our major candidates, strong field, but with Senator Clinton at the bottom of the ranking" people.

After her shameless use/acceptance of voter suppression tactics, if she wins the nomination, I'd just as soon vote for Bush as for her. He's worse than her, obviously, but right now the Democratic Party is redeemable; if we accept voter suppression of the working class and minorities in our tactical repertoire, it's not, and I'm out.

I agree. The anti-Clinton sentiment in the democratic party exists on the Internet and in certain elite liberal enclaves on the coasts, but is not really a major force anywhere else.

Unfortunately, the anti-Clinton sentiment within the electorate at large is a potent force indeed.

right now the Democratic Party is redeemable; if we accept voter suppression of the working class and minorities in our tactical repertoire, it's not, and I'm out

You mean like this kind of thing?

I am huge for Obama and I am not enthusiastic about her, but I would choose her over Edwards. That said, I can count within my own circle of friends, only a single person who does not say " I just hope it's not her..." and these are all good democrats aged 30-40.

these are all just anecdotes, but there are indicative of a faction. It's not just the nutjobs that don't like her. I have no idea how large the faction is, but I do find it striking that hillary has cracked 50% in only a couple of polls in a couple of states at any point throughout this entire process.

additionally, I have a number of non-rabid republican relatives, who would like to vote for Obama in the general, but will not even consider Hillary.

Interestingly, Clinton kills Obama among the working class and Latinos. Maybe they don't know she is trying to oppress them.

I accept that Obama is the first choice among everyone's republican relatives.

..another anti-hillary. Of course this is a tainted sample since we're just piping up so we're not excluded from the conversation so out of hand. ...but we're definitely out here.

From what I remember of the media talk on this topic it was more about the general election then the primaries anyway. That once she got out 'in the wild' away from the democratic faithful that this would be a major factor.

Shes an administrator.. a process person, a CEO to use Obama's phrase. (He used the term in describing what he was not.) So of course shes got a lot of institutional support in the dem party, especially with the last dem president as an ardent cheerleader.

Obama is a relatively new face on the national stage. Hes from a state that isnt long on presidential candidates or nationally famed politicians.

The surprise in the primaries is that he is so easily equaling her performance in money, endorsements, and votes so far.

I know several very democratic women who say they won't vote for Hillary--they'd stay home or even vote for the GOP candidate in the general. I don't want to have to vote for her and prefer Obama or Edwards, but like the commenter above, I'll vote for her in the general but won't give her any money or work for her as I would for them.

The Anti-Clinton vote isn't large enough to block her nomination. I just hope we're large enough to block her from winning the general election so we can have an acceptable nominee in 4 years.

Anyone who says they will vote for Obama, but if Hillary's the nominee they'll vote GOP, is being petulant and irrational.

Yes, we need these types of voters too, but they're just as likely to be swayed by Obama's "Muslim" background and his Farrakhan-worshiping minister.

Look, if you love Obama so much, keep in mind that he will be voting for the Democratic nominee in November, whoever it is.

This thread highlights my problem with Obama and the Obama campaign - it is all about him. If Obama isn't convincing his supporters that they should vote for the Democrats there is no way he should lead the Democratic party.

This race really shows the difference between Progressives/Liberals and Conservatives. We are picking our candidate based on which we like the best and which makes us most optimistic for the future.
The Rethuglicans are picking their candidates based on hatred and fear. So far, the front runner is None of the Above. Or to put it another way:

I called up an advice line and told them I was a rich white guy over sixty with cancer in remission and was thinking of dumping my wife for a younger chick. Apparently the RNC was monitoring, and they called me back and asked me if I wanted to be the GOP Presidential nominee.

the anti-Hillary story has its origin with Richard Melon Sciafe, a republican bent on destroying Bill Clinton and portraying his wife as a witch and horrible person...since then most of the male progressives and a few female, ie Arianna, Dowdie, and Paglia have turned against her and continue to attack and ridicule her regularly...the MSM picked up the storyline and has repeatedly told the public that no one likes her and she is so polorazing, etc...

...however as 'weboy' says in his comment...most people are just getting to know her and when they see her, she is nothing like the cartoon character and horrible person the media has created...she is funny, smart and incredibly prepared...she doesn't have to be your choice...but there is no reason to hate her...in fact, for all the people that don't like her...there are a lot more people that do
I find it ironic that for progressives, the only woman running has been subjected to the likeability factor...a lot of the men running are not all that likeable either but they don't get targeted in that way...sexism among the progressives...

Obviously none of us sees a random sample of Americans. But I've rarely seen such a disconnect between what the polls tell me and what I see in my day-to-day life. The polls tell me there's not all that much of a difference between Clinton's negatives and the others. But, from 90-year-old honest-to-goodness swing voters who hate Bush to former Dean activists, I only personally know one individual who can summon any enthusiasm about Hillary. Most of the people I've encountered deeply dislike her, at best.

Maybe I'm doing some projecting here. (After the way Matthews and their ilk treated Clinton, I've really tried to get more comfortable with her -- then watched the way she and Bill, (and, yes, now Edwards, too) have been misrepresenting Obama this week. So much for that.)

I think Sen. Clinton could narrowly beat most of the Republican field (excepting McCain). But it feels like a huge risk. I would much rather be taking that kind of risk on behalf of someone I thought might actually attempt to transform this country for the better -- instead of simply “administering” it, with some small nudges in the right direction.

Whoever that is, it ain't Clinton.

I’ve got some anecdotal evidence from the Iowa caucus of anti-Hillary sentiment.
One of my friends went for Biden in the caucus. After the preliminary count it was determined the Biden group wasn’t viable – he borrowed one of the Edward signs and yelled “Anybody but Clinton” and led a group of 16 Biden people to the Edwards group.

bcmarda - the huge risk is with Obama...like it or not, Obama has not been vetted on the national level against the Republican attack machine...his supporters think the repugs are going to just let him win...last night Pat Buchanan gave us a clue...he said ' the Republicans are going to destroy him...they are not going to put up with this MUSH...hope, change and no specifics, they will go after him with everything they have on him now and because the MSM is giving him a pass...the dems will be going into this battle with an untested novice...it would have been better for him to at least serve one or two terms in the Senate...he is young but too ambitious and it will be his downfall, I fear...

and I will put the blame on the MSM and progressive blogs that have just blindly gotten behind him...the MSM on tv keeps saying ' Hillary has to watch the way she attacks him...she has to be so careful"
Why? Why does Obama deserve special treatment? Why does everyone have to be on eggshells around him? The republicans are loving this...
…that is the RISK…we as dems are taking…

Did any one see HRC interview about Lewinsky (youtube)?

A few comments:

- The HRC people planned this to get the issue out in the open. They had assumed that the press would focus on it.

- HRC answer: You have to be true to yourself. You have to hear yourself when things are hard.

Debate Moderator: Ask this question.

Mrs. Clinton, you have mentioned that in times of crisis, it is best for you to be true to yourself. When you voted for the war, were you true to yourself?

It will not matter. The ClintonS will win. Their baiting (race, gender, and ethnicity) will be studied as successful way to hurt your opponents in universities for decades.

The ClintonS show that you can fool some of the people (voters) all the time.

Most of the Hillary hatred on the left you're hearing now is people who fell in love with Obama and don't like that she's attacking their man.

What I don't understand about people like 'eorse' above - if it's so easy for the Clintons to take out Obama, what exactly did you think was going to happen in the general election?

If Obama is going to be felled in a Democratic primary because Hillary (supposedly) played the "race card," what makes you think Obama would have faired any better after a summer's worth of Swiftboating on the subject of his "unabashedly black" church and his spiritual mentor's paeans to Farrakhan? The average American will think Obama is Malcolm X by the time they get done with him.

There have been a ton of myths about Clinton online: paper tiger, anti-Clinton vote, name recognition/default candidate, inevitable candidate who will collapse once that is punctured, national polls don't matter, momentum from Iowa will kill her. None of it had any support in the data, and there was tons of evidence that each myth was false.

The classic, of course, is Kael’s "I don’t know anyone who voted for Nixon" line repeated in a bunch of the comments here. Guess what, guys, you don't know many Democrats.

This primary has been an object lesson in a certain group's ability to delude themselves.

"This primary has been an object lesson in a certain group's ability to delude themselves."

I tend to regard the lesson as another example of why I should never have faith in my fellow citizens.

Personally I don't dislike Hillary much, in fact I would like to see her winning in the presidential candidate election...
UK Breakdown Cover

S - "the Republicans are going to destroy Obama"... That could happen. None of us know for sure. Obama strikes me as a fast learner with far better instincts than Kerry, Dukakis, Mondale, et al, however.

There are risks either way, and we each have to decide which risks we think are worth taking, based on both the potential downsides and upsides. After a year supporting Edwards, I'm leaning towards voting for Obama now. Yes, I am enamored with his upside: that we might finally change the narrative and start actually doing something in this country. Six months ago I thought Obama was naive, but I've been listening closely to what he's been saying, and I find it deeper and more profound than I'd thought before.

Having said all that, I think his campaign is hanging by a thread, and it's highly likely we'll get to run the experiment with Clinton, and then we'll all see what happens. It's easy for me to envision a close, bitter election; Clinton winning with few gains in Congress; the DNC reverting to its disastrous '90s McAuliffe approach; and all of us spending the next four years just about as frustrated as we are now.

any chance those of you who screamed bloody murder about Obama praising Reagan want to scream bloody murder now that it's been revealed that Clinton ALSO praised Reagan in the exact same way in her interview with the exact same editorial board?

Who cares how safe a choice you think Clinton is. She has worked to try and prevent people from voting. She has used constant bush style fearmongering about terrorist attacks. She has used race and gender to divide people in order to get what she wants.]

Vote for Hillary and that is what you vote for. Remember that the next time you use racism, voting rights, or war/fear mongering as justification to oppose any Republican. You won't have that right any more.

How come the Obama campaign is not bringing Andre Agassi (a resident of Las Vegas and a supporter of his campaign) before NV caucus?

How come the Obama campaign is not focusing on HRC's supposed 35-years of experience of false judgement (e.g., war vote, failed health care, travelgate, Arkansas landgate, failed bar exam after Yale law)?

Sometimes I wonder if Obama is really wanting to defeat HRC? She is going after him with blazing guns and baiting (race, gender, and ethnicity).

Why not just focus on her vapor-ware career of false judgement time and time again?

Here's what I don't get. The Hillary contingent of old ugly biddies is attacking anyone who doesn't support her as being anti-women, bigotted, etc. etc. even left wing hacks like Chris Mathews.

But if I use the Hillary logic, OBAMA HAS PLENTY OF EXPERIENCE AS A WOMEN. Afterall, Hillary claims as experience being married to a backward, Arkansas Governor and the horny POTUS, this is her supposed experience.

Given that criteria, OBAMA HAS BEEN MARRIED TO A WOMEN FOR 16 YEARS, GIVING HIM SIXTEEN YEARS OF BEING A FEMALE EXPERIENCE!!

So, in attacking Obama, she is attacking soemone who is one third female, given his experience. So she is getting a pass for attacking a black women...while at the same time support for supporting a serial women molesters and anti-female President.

move past the karma of the anti-hillary sentiment...
help the tidewinds for obama!!
tomorrow, sunday, january 20th, there is a huge network of nation-wide neighborhood house parties for barack obama.
there is probably one in your neighborhood too!!!!
just go onto the obama website and look for the event closest to you!!!!!
be the change you wish to see!!
Yes, We Can!!!!!

one thing that really worries me about the Obama supporters is how nasty and insulting they feel the need to be, especially towards Hillary...I do not see that as being uniting and bringing us all together when you get all this name calling and hostility...

many of the Obama supporters are not inspiring and leave me to think they just want it their way or no way...and no offense to anyone, but I think many of them are very immature and are being swept up in his rock star allure...personally I see a Hillary victory at this time as a bridge for Obama in the future...I just do not feel he is qualified or equipped to navigate the major transitions that are ahead with the economy, etc...Bill Clinton, a two term elected democratic president, cleaned up the mess of Bush I and left the country in surplus...if you look at as Pat above calls her "the old biddy' Hillary's past and you give her a fair listening to now...she may be older but she still has the rebel and fight in her, she has not had the power...and I honestly believe she will reverse the direction we are going in and start putting the emphasis on the middle class and families, jobs and renewable energy and green jobs.

S - Hope you're right and I'm wrong about Sen. Clinton. I think she has the fight, but I don't see very much of the rebel. That looks like it's been pretty well smothered to me. Understandable perhaps, given the experiences that life has handed her, but sad nonetheless, given how desperately the country needs to be inspired to do great and positive things right now. That's where I think the sudden hunger for Obama came from: the desperation for some hope and inspiration which Clinton doesn't seem to provide. Of course, some people find her inspirational, but many would say that she makes a far more compelling case on gritty hard work and competence.

We'll see soon enough, though, I suspect. Senator Clinton has just won Nevada. I guess winning begets some kind of inspiration (grin).

Who cares how safe a choice you think Clinton is. She has worked to try and prevent people from voting.

And Obama just has the culinary union leadership do that for him.

Jason C. amazing how Clinton people keep saying that and nobody actually manages to find any evidence or any real first hand accounts.
Odd that with all that vote rigging, Hillary managed to win isn't it?

I'd imagine we'll see if there's a real anti-Clinton vote or not. If Obama manages to survive his now inevitable losses on Feb 5th, it will likely mean theres a sizeable number of people who really, really don't want Clinton to be the nominee. If there isn't, Obama will probably see his numbers deflate quickly.

Seriously Jason C, if those accusations were correct in all likelihood, Obama would have just won NV. If Clinton has suffered significantly in the at large caucuses, she wouldn't have just won NV. So much for the Clintons random scumbaggery. First they try to suppress the vote then they slander someone else for doing it.

And people wonder why I say they are no better than Republicans.

Anonymous, I understand what you are saying...I say 'give her a fair chance...don't buy into what is said about her...btw...caught her speech on c-span last night in nevada...no, she isn't as dramatic and as charasmatic as Obama, but she is hitting her stride and if you listen to what she is saying and what she wants to do...I do believe she is in the best position to navigate the CHANGE we will be facing...I just ask people to keep an open mind and be fair to her...

Jason C - I hear your message

"gritty hard work and competence" re hillary

"swept up in his rock star allure"

i believe that barack obama is completely capable of hard work,judgement, gift of leadership and competence as well.
and tomorrow, hosting a party for barack obama, in a fairly conservative area, i was thinking perhaps no-one would come.
but more acceptances have poured forth than i have room for.
and the people that have responded have been of all ages. i dont believe that it is because of a rock star allure.
i believe that many of the people that will be here tomorrow, are taking the time to do so because they believe that he is the person they are looking to for the best leadership at this time.

i do believe that the clinton's have been in public life long enough for voters to make an informed decision about whether we wish to see them in the white house.

in all aspects of life, we can ultimately not attach to or totally predict outcome. all we can do is really work hard to affect the change that we want to see. the truly disappointing decision would be not to exert individual responsibility in working toward the change that we believe in.

only positive actions can help to affect a desired outcome.
all we can do, is to remain human and do the work.