I've met one person in Massachusetts who supports Hillary Clinton.
I'm sure there are others, but I've met only one, and she's not a likely primary voter, but rather the sort who may or may not make it to the polls on Election Day, y'know, depending...
Hillary Clinton is awful. She supports Bush's Middle East policy, holding only that it's mismanaged (which it is) but not that it's wrong. She's never apologized for her vote to authorize America's attack on Iraq in 2002 because, well, she believed it was right to attack that country with no real evidence then, and she still believes it was right now. Sure, she's being consistent, but consistently wrong does not a president make.
Senator Clinton yesterday spoke at Wellesley College, the all-women's college that she herself once attended. She made a big deal about how these six guys ganged up on her for no real reason. Hey, Hil: those six guys had a real reason: they were at a debate, and they wanted to discuss, y'know, ideas. Something you weren't doing. Why were you there, again?
What I resent most about Clinton playing the gender card is that she supposes that people will like her more and hate her opponents more because they'd be attacking a "poor, defenseless woman." This is a crock. Remember: we're talking about electing the next leader of the free world here. We need for the candidates to challenge each other. If a man takes a shot at a woman in a debate, it's not necessarily malicious. It's just something that a man would do to another man, if it were another man who were the frontrunner. Wasn't the point of feminism the recognition that women could compete with men as equals? Isn't Hillary Clinton supposed to be an equal, and not some poor, defenseless female? When losing an argument, it only hurts women to try to prop her up as a "poor, defenseless female" under attack instead of trying to defend her actual positions. I've seen this tactic used by immature Baby Boomers in internet squabbles, which is bad enough. To see it in a presidential debate is alarming.
Who turns up to the primaries is crucial. Hopefully Clinton's support will be dwarfed due to fewer of those answering these polls turning out to vote for her than those turning out to vote for the better candidates. The only way to make sure this happens is to work hard for better candidates. I'm working for Edwards, but frankly, if there are enough who turn up for Obama and Dodd (and others) and not as many who turn up for Clinton, there's still hope.
I'm unable to believe that that many Democrats would actually vote for her in the primaries. Most voters aren't like internet political junkies, and are not really aware yet that there's an election going on. Still, she could win and she could lose. I'm hoping she loses, and I hope Edwards wins, but I'll settle for Obama.