NationStates Jolt Archive

Acting on the request of a fellow poster, I created a poll to answer a question.

A lot of people have shown a strong dislike of Hillary Clinton (why, precisely, escapes me). The argument came to a head with me arguing that she is the best suited for the job, versus the highly negative opinions of her detractors who say that they simply won't vote for her.

My question is this: If Hillary Clinton really WAS the best candidate for the job (we can debate the reality of that until doomsday, so just assume that it is the case), how many of you who dislike her would go ahead and vote for her?

I guess if I lived in a parallel universe where black was white, Clinton was a good candidate and I was American instead of European, I'd vote for her. As I don't, I guess I'll take the pizza instead.

So you're asking if Hillary Clinton wasn't like Hilary Clinton and was someone who fitted the job well, would we vote for her?

Effectively taking away any essence of what makes Hillary and turning it into an ideal president?

Wouldn't that equate to asking if there was someone who was perfect for a job should that person get the job? I imagine the answer would be yes, but that's a hypothetical question, no reality to it.

I would prefer pizza over any candidate.

Um... if Hillary Clinton was the best suited for the job she wouldn't be Hillary Clinton. :confused:

So you're asking if Hillary Clinton wasn't like Hilary Clinton and was someone who fitted the job well, would we vote for her?

Effectively taking away any essence of what makes Hillary and turning it into an ideal president?

Wouldn't that equate to asking if there was someone who was perfect for a job should that person get the job? I imagine the answer would be yes, but that's a hypothetical question, no reality to it.

I haven't heard as much criticism leveled against Clinton that is rooted in her skills. Most of the shots that the Obama people are taking are likability issues. Clinton is certainly not lacking in credentials to be President. What I'm essentially trying to suggest is that some people are taking dislike of her to a level where they won't support her regardless of her credentials.

So you're asking if Hillary Clinton wasn't like Hilary Clinton and was someone who fitted the job well, would we vote for her?

Effectively taking away any essence of what makes Hillary and turning it into an ideal president?

Wouldn't that equate to asking if there was someone who was perfect for a job should that person get the job? I imagine the answer would be yes, but that's a hypothetical question, no reality to it.

But still at least one person has voted no...

If Hillary Clinton was the best person for the job, she wouldn't be Hillary. Yet you offer this impossiblity. It's like saying "If you don't like the taste of apples, would you like them if they tasted like something you like?"

If Hillary Clinton was the best person for the job, she wouldn't be Hillary. Yet you offer this impossiblity. It's like saying "If you don't like the taste of apples, would you like them if they tasted like something you like?"

lmao

I haven't heard as much criticism leveled against Clinton that is rooted in her skills. Most of the shots that the Obama people are taking are likability issues. Clinton is certainly not lacking in credentials to be President. What I'm essentially trying to suggest is that some people are taking dislike of her to a level where they won't support her regardless of her credentials.

What are Hillary Clintons skills then?

See! Even Clinton people have a sense of humor. Right now, pizza is winning 6-5. :D

What are Hillary Clintons skills then?

I heard she excels at eating babies.

*runs*

I'd go for pizza for this is an improbability.

I have no other option but voting Yes, and everybody voting 'no' might need their voting right to be reconsidered :D

Right now, pizza is winning 6-5. :D
Ask a stupid question, get a stupid answer, eh?

I would obviously vote for someone who I think to be the best candidate for the job unless doing otherwise is required to prevent someone who I think to be the worst candidate for the job from getting it.

However, Pizza is a much better response all-round.

I heard she excels at eating babies.

*runs*

But, they taste so good!

Acting on the request of a fellow poster, I created a poll to answer a question.

A lot of people have shown a strong dislike of Hillary Clinton (why, precisely, escapes me). The argument came to a head with me arguing that she is the best suited for the job, versus the highly negative opinions of her detractors who say that they simply won't vote for her.

My question is this: If Hillary Clinton really WAS the best candidate for the job (we can debate the reality of that until doomsday, so just assume that it is the case), how many of you who dislike her would go ahead and vote for her?

In other words, if we liked her would we vote for her?

Tis an utterly meaningless question, as she's emphatically not the best candidate.

If Hillary Clinton was the best person for the job, she wouldn't be Hillary. Yet you offer this impossiblity. It's like saying "If you don't like the taste of apples, would you like them if they tasted like something you like?"

This is true.

You lost me after the 'If' part. If she's the best candidate we are screwed anyways. She has zero experience at running anything other than her failed health care council of the 90's. Being the First Lady doesn't grant someone executive experience.

In short, this poll is flawed in it's very concept.

I haven't heard as much criticism leveled against Clinton that is rooted in her skills. Most of the shots that the Obama people are taking are likability issues. Clinton is certainly not lacking in credentials to be President. What I'm essentially trying to suggest is that some people are taking dislike of her to a level where they won't support her regardless of her credentials.

You're still conflating people who hate Clinton as "Obama people." It's stupid and makes you look stupid, you should stop it. Not everyone here is a member of the Democratic Party, not everyone here who 'hates' Clinton is an Obama supporter. There is a rich tapestry of opinions out there and the 'with us or against us/with Obama' binary you set up is comically false.

Plus, when are you Clinton supporters on this board going to start answering researched posts? I'm sick of your hit and run/dodgeball posting.

In that vein, I once again say, the kids are alright (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/01/30/opinion/pollpositions/main3769985.shtml)
It turns out that voters have handled the sniping and the charges among Democratic candidates pretty well - maybe even better than the candidates. This campaign is still exciting voters. And despite media coverage of a racial undercurrent - and the racial vote divide -- in last Saturday’s South Carolina Democratic primary, more than three in four voters there -- 77 percent - still said they would be satisfied if Hillary Clinton won their party’s nomination, while only a few percent more -- 83 percent -- said they would be satisfied if Barack Obama won.

Quit trying to make a dilemma where there is none. At this point if there is a fissure it will be because of rhetoric like yours, not because Obama supporters fail to fall in line and give up to Clinton.

Acting on the request of a fellow poster, I created a poll to answer a question.

A lot of people have shown a strong dislike of Hillary Clinton (why, precisely, escapes me). The argument came to a head with me arguing that she is the best suited for the job, versus the highly negative opinions of her detractors who say that they simply won't vote for her.

My question is this: If Hillary Clinton really WAS the best candidate for the job (we can debate the reality of that until doomsday, so just assume that it is the case), how many of you who dislike her would go ahead and vote for her?

You seem to think that dislike of Clinton comes from a different source than her suitability for the office for which she is running.

If Clinton actually were best suited for the job, I wouldn't dislike her candidacy, and I would vote for her. It wouldn't be a matter of voting for her through that dislike - the dislike itself wouldn't be there.

Essentially I think the OP's asking, if all the other candidates were even worse (define as you prefer) would you vote for Clinton or abstain/vote elsewhere/etc

This poll sucks because it operates on the premis that she is indeed the best person for the job.

I haven't heard as much criticism leveled against Clinton that is rooted in her skills. Most of the shots that the Obama people are taking are likability issues. Clinton is certainly not lacking in credentials to be President. What I'm essentially trying to suggest is that some people are taking dislike of her to a level where they won't support her regardless of her credentials.
BS. Of the numerous charges leveled against Clinton by Obama supporters (at least on this board), NONE of the them have anything to do with her "likeability", and ALL of them have to do with her lack of "credentials" in the sense that there exist concrete, rational reasons why Hillary Clinton should not be the president of the US. Please stop perpetuating the myth that people are voting against her just because they don't like her.

Clinton cannot be the best candidate. That's a logical fallacy.

Um... if Hillary Clinton was the best suited for the job she wouldn't be Hillary Clinton. :confused:

If she was the best suited for the job we would be SCREWED :D

I haven't heard as much criticism leveled against Clinton that is rooted in her skills. Most of the shots that the Obama people are taking are likability issues. Clinton is certainly not lacking in credentials to be President. What I'm essentially trying to suggest is that some people are taking dislike of her to a level where they won't support her regardless of her credentials

I don't dislike her...I'm just tired of this dynastic duo of Bushes and Clintons.

Also, her credentials are nowhere near as impressive as she or her supporters would like the American people to believe.

While I like her health-care plan, she's horribly inconsistent in regards to foreign policy. For every social issue stance she takes that I agree with, she takes another I would never vote for, and I also don't much care for the people she'll likely appoint to cabinet/executive positions.

fortunately she isn't. or unfotunately, however you want to look at it.

best person for the job we have a chance of getting elected to it would probably be obama. best person for the job period, is probably not anyone any of us have heard of, would ever get invited to a televised debate, nor have the resources nor popular support to campaign effectively.

and no, i don't have the slightest idea who that would be either.

but hillary IS good enough to do a better job, a better intended job, then anyone in the supposedly so called conservative retardlican party.

she's too close to her corporate sponsers for anyone but their real comfort.

but other then that, i'd support her if she got in. more then i would mccain at any rate. it's all just names that we're rather arbitrarily having to choose between. there's nothing we really know about any of them, how it would effect their decision making, that i would fail to take with a very large grain of salt.

=^^=
.../\...

Yes, I would.

She isnt.