if you search for this clinton bashing topic via google news, rather unsurprisingly, Fox News is among the top sources pushing these book reviews.

Great observation and excellent advice. It's important, for those of us supporting other candidates, that we draw a clear distinction between our opposition to her candidacy as opposed to Republicans opposition to her candidacy. They are two entirely different positions and your advice clarifies that perfectly. I know I will be writing about her in the future and I will certainly be taking this advice into consideration when I do.

Thank you.

Clinton is ambitious. She is therefore not qualified to govern. (super stupid argument) strawman.

Clinton had personal problems. She should be other than human.
Strawman.

Al Fore is fat! He therefore knows nothing about global warming.
Strawman.

Obama misspelled flak. He therefore know nothing about the military. Strawman.

Can we please stop it. Every single person that speaks for or is in the democratic party needs to take classes on how to manage the debate and stop being defensive.

Embrace the White Flag. It is time to surrender bad government, in the name of "victory".

Barack did not misspell flack. Flak is the German, flack is the english, and in fact, the word flack use to describe PR types comes from the anglicized WW II word. That being said, the real reason not to support Hillary Clinton isn't for being ambitious, grating, pushy or any other nonsensical mysogenistic crap. It isn't for falsehoods about her personal style or her supposedly cynical pairing will Bill. The real reason to vote against her simply involves corporate prostitution in the DLC corporate brothel.

Clinton voted no and deserves recognition and support for that effort.

Also, there are many, many progressives who are hawkish and pro-business, even if you are less so.

Clinton rode her husband's name all the way to the top. There is no getting around that, right-wing "frame" or not.

Hillary Clinton comes off as serious, boring and uncharismatic on TV. That's what matters in a country of 200 million voters- not the amusing anecdotes of star-struck bloggers who got a glimpse of her person.

the books are garbadge but I don't think it's out of bounds to say the democratic party would better off with someone who doesn't have so much
baggadge going into 2008, face it we want this election to be about issues, and policy positions. A Hillary candidacy will inevitably come down to how voters feel about her, for good and or bad and these books are just the start. you add all this stuff to the general feeling that having 2 families running the country for 30 years might not be a good thing and it's pretty obvious dems should go in another direction, the warning signs
are all there.

      While I agree that the misogynistic Clinton stuff gets nuts, she herself really betrayed feminism w. the whole "Nuts and Sluts" Lewinsky attack. You can't cross certain lines and then expect them to be redrawn just for you.

Does that make me a right wing troll?

Hillary comes across as cold and stiff to a lot of people and I'd suggest that this is the reason why she is so unpopular among non-Democrats. She is like Kerry, Dukakis and Gore 2000 in that aspect.

My thesis is that 80% of the voters vote for the most likeable candidate regardless of ideology, experience or policy positions. Reagan and W are signs of this. We cannot afford to nominate Hillary because she is not likable enough. On issues I am probably closer to Clinton than most people on this site. I have no problems with her agenda. I do have huge problems with her apparent unlikeability - and as a consequence - her unelectability.

At 8:41 p.m. on Thursday, before The Washington Post story appeared, Media Matters for America, a democratic-leaning group whose founders are close to the New York Democrat senator's presidential  campaign, launched a dense 2,713-word attack on Gerth. The reporter has been loathed by some Clinton supporters since he was the first national journalist to write about the Whitewater affair in 1992, an investigation that unpredictably would lead to Clinton's impeachment six years later. (Media Matters spokesman Karl Frisch didn't respond immediately to the question of whether his group had coordinated with the Clinton campaign.)

I don't know who to believe but this doesn't look good for Media Matters.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/050 7/4198.html

Glad to see a post on this topic. I agree and echo what Matt is saying; I think about it each time I see a Washington Post headline such as "three new books about Clinton out", or todays piece by John Solomon. The obsession so many have on the right to villify anything Clinton needs to be rejected and shown to be as absurd as it is. The legitmate concerns many democratic activists have about what type of president she would be need to be aired openly and discussed, and the same goes for any other candidate in our party.

We must keep in mind any sterotypes or frames we reinforce against Clinton in the primary would certainly be an issue in the general election if she were to be the nominee. We don't want to show up to the debate in the general election with a candidate we've already spent months bashing. I'm not talking here about policy disagreements or questions about her views towards Iraq, but rather i'm talking about the bullshit narratives such as "Hillary is a cold and calculating political who will do anything to get her way". Say what you want about her political positions, but if our nominee, she will be a better president that any republican.

If you spent millions and millons of dollar you could create a false negative image of anyone who has ever lived even if there was not a shred of evidence to support your allegations. One thing you rarely see mentioned in the press is any recount of the efforts of Richard Mellon Scaife and others who spent the 1980's and 1990's trying to destroy Bill and Hillary Clinton.

There was a very real "vast right wing conspiracy" that spent millions to create a negative image of the Clintons  with both the far left and far right. Long after their allegations have been discredited  the same right (and left) wing frame lives on and many on the left have bought into it just as much as the far right.

There is not anything new they can say about the Clintons but we do have to remember they will use the same tactics against anyone who is the Democratic nominee and we will see many on the far left and far right who will buy into it. We are already seeing the initial efforts of this as Obama and Edwards are being defined over haircuts,  houses, flack jackets, and the like and that is just the beginning of what is to come.    

the problem is with Hillary too may people have already "bought " in to it. Dems have a big generic edge in 2008 that they didn't have in 2000 and 2004, a Hillary nomination brings us immediately back to that type of presidential race, she could win but probably won't be able to turn the race away from the "personality contest"
that killed Gore and Kerry, Obama o the other hand has a better chance of being the "change" candidate and could possably beat a guy like Romney,thompson or McCain with 55- 60% of the vote
(Guliani has less of a shot than Gingrich for the GOP nomination)  To make real changes we need more than just 49% and Ohio.

Great post.

We're not electing a President so she/he will be attractive, warm, and relaxed, we're electing her/him to carry out government policy. The proper way to criticize a candidate is on that basis.

If the election battle centers on smears and name-calling, the Rightwingers will win. They are better at bullying and name-calling, and they are not afraid to exploit sexism, racism, ageism, classism, and looksism. And even if our candidate wins after such a nasty battle, the public remains ignorant about important policy issues, setting them up for the next horrible, cynical election campaign.

We must focus on policy issues. Our campaigns must educate the public about why they should vote for progressives and then show how our candidates will implement progressive policy. Anything else is a loser in the long run.

Given that I dont think Bill clinton's presidency was of any benefit to black and latino folks, the idea of a clinton redu in the form of his wife is not so apealing to me. The fact that the bitch voted to send this country to war despite the fact that the war was based on lies, makes hillary in my eyes, unsuitable for holding political officce.