Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement

Why We Love to Hate Hillary

By Jack Hitt, Mother Jones. Posted January 24, 2007.


Hillary Clinton is like our national Rorschach: She stokes our every emotion, from our deepest fears to our darkest hatreds.
01242007story
01242007Story

Share and save this post:

      

      

Share on Facebook       

AlterNet Social Networks:
follow us on twitter
find us on Facebook

More stories by Jack Hitt

Advertisement
Upcoming AlterNet stories on Digg

Daniel Edwards is that sculptor whose work includes a shiny dollop said to be the bronzed poop of Tom Cruise and Katie Holmes' baby, the severed head of baseball legend Ted Williams, and a nude Britney Spears in a primal birth position. A few months ago, the Museum of Sex in Manhattan unveiled his latest work: a bust of Hillary Clinton. Cast in the heroic style of the 19th-century statesman found in any City Hall park, it showed the New York senator with a long, elegant neck and solemn expression above two perfectly round, youthful, barely covered breasts. I'd guess a 36B.

"It was a quote by Sharon Stone that triggered it," Edwards explained to me. Stone, an actress famous for exposing a different part of her anatomy, had recently expressed doubt that Hillary could become president because "a woman should be past her sexuality when she runs. Hillary still has sexual power, and I don't think people will accept that. It's too threatening."

Edwards says he wanted to imagine Hillary Clinton as president of the United States and created, therefore, a monumental image. "But that wasn't enough," he explains. "I had to make sure she was depicted as a woman, unmistakably a woman. The way I did that was to be more revealing with her breasts than is normally seen."

Edwards' version of Hillary's breasts is where it all gets interesting. He chose not to depict Hillary with bared breasts, in the classical style of Greek sculpture; his Hillary's bust is upheld by a bustier worthy of Victoria's Secret. "I didn't want the sculpture to be titillating or a piece of graphic realism," he explains. "It's more symbolic of womanhood and to reveal her as a woman."

Hillary's "womanhood" is in need of public revelation? What does that say about her? But, more curiously, what does it say about us that Hillary inspires this casual intimacy? Her life, her looks, her politics, her marriage -- and now her breasts -- are all daily grist at the nation's coffee shops, still, 15 years after she was introduced to America. According to one accounting, there are 17,000 websites devoted to Hillary Clinton. And there is really no aspect of our collective fears or furies that cannot be grafted onto her character. Did she refuse to meet with mothers of dead soldiers? Did she kill Vince Foster? Did she get two Black Panthers off on murder charges? Did she cause the Enron scandal?

Despite their proven falseness, such accusations are routinely made because it's easy to mold the facts and fictions of Hillary's life into any kind of argument you like. Even her body has become a public landscape that most Americans feel quite comfortable trekking across in search of cultural clues about ourselves and our politics. Edwards' sculpture merely makes literal this national impulse.

It all began when the nation had regular debates about her hair, but now we're comfortable in our kitchens and on our talk shows presuming any damned thing we want to about her. Is she gay or straight, closet conservative or secret liberal, snarling she-wolf or one smart cookie baker? It isn't only her career as a public figure that's clay in our hands. No part of her life, however sacred, is off-limits. John McCain once got a lot of laughs cracking this joke: "Why is Chelsea Clinton so ugly? Because her father is Janet Reno." Chelsea was still in high school at the time. In 2003 Americans happily participated in a cnn/USA Today/Gallup poll to determine whether Hillary should get a divorce.

In the spring of 2006, the New York Times ran a front-page story that employed investigative journalism tactics to extrapolate the potential number of conjugal visits the Clintons' marital bed hosted each month. Using "interviews with some 50 people and a review of their respective activities," the author concluded: "Since the start of 2005, the Clintons have been together about 14 days a month on average, according to aides who reviewed the couple's schedules. Sometimes it is a full day of relaxing at home in Chappaqua; sometimes it is meeting up late at night. ... Out of the last 73 weekends, they spent 51 together. The aides declined to provide the Clintons' private schedule."

Damn aides.

When Edwards fashioned Hillary into the image that he thought most telling, he was on to something. Hillary is way beyond something so banal as a politician. The details of her life are familiar enough; perhaps that's why all the profiles of her over the last 10 years have always seemed tedious and repetitive. It's how we shape those facts that's interesting. Hillary herself once said she had become some kind of Rorschach blot in which Americans see many things.

Almost every American has an opinion about Hillary. Consider her poll numbers. Hillary Clinton has favorables in the high 40s right now and unfavorables running about even. Her "no opinion" numbers are in the low single digits, approaching zero. Most politicians start with a huge swath of "no opinion" voters whom they can then try to convert. If Hillary runs, she will need to invent a whole new form of campaign strategy: She will need to flip voters who pretty much hate her.

Hillary-hating is such a national pastime, for both Democrats and Republicans, that it should be its own verb: "Hillarating." Typically, even her supporters make the case for her only after plowing through a lot of caveats, lessons learned, and after muttered contempt for some aspect of her person. Hillarating is not like normal political hating -- opposing someone's ideology, for example. Loathing Hillary happens on multiple levels, ranging from her marital choices and fashion sense to her ambivalence on torture or support for a flag-burning amendment. And liberal feminists are as comfortable Hillarating as anyone else, perhaps more so.


Digg!    Share on facebook   submit to reddit    Bookmark on Delicious   Stumble This  

See more stories tagged with: hillary, hillary clinton

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »

Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
sexism redux
Posted by: edith on Jan 24, 2007 1:16 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
poseurs who "analyze" HRC by focus on her boobs. and its art. it's pop art maybe, and that was always about sales. Andy Warhol as the Sears salesman on drugs. so now it's Hilary in the multi-copy lithograph spread out in a Web centerfold like Marilyn two generations ago in Playboy.

Judge the woman on her actions. (Ugh.). Otherwise it's
sexism redux.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Give me a break -- no more Hillary!
Posted by: johnecolby on Jan 24, 2007 1:23 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I don't give a f**k about all the cultural crap surrounding Hillary. What a waste of space. I don't like Hillary the politician. Besides that I could care less about her.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Hillary hot & cold
Posted by: Pat Kittle on Jan 24, 2007 2:53 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Random impressions of Hillary...

It's great theatre-of-the-absurd entertainment watching right-wingers (and their corporate media flunkies) take their cheapest shots at Hillary and her family life, only to have their own marriages crash upon rocks of meth with homosexual prostitutes, secret abortions, gold-digging, nasty divorces, boozed-up children, etc., etc.

Meanwhile, Hillary, Bill & Chelsea seem to be practicing "family values" better than the whole lot them. In spite of all that, we're still being reminded of Monica! Yes, that Monica -- like celebrity "superstars," she's been raised to one-name-only recognition.)

What else about Hillary? She's not likely to ever, ever defy the Israel lobby.

Anything else? Well, the Democrats are now sucking up so hard to immigrants (what with their bi-lingual groveling and all) that she's probably going to be as disastrous as the neocons when it comes to adopting a sustainable immigration policy (meaning the number of people immigrating equals the number emigrating, etc.).

If all their alleged concern about global warming is more than hot air, population stabilization will absolutely have to be part of it. And in the US, that's means serious border control. Is Hillary (or anyone) up to it? Like a wide variety of Americans, I won't vote for them if they aren't.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Overanalyzing Hillary
Posted by: kepstein7777 on Jan 24, 2007 3:11 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Fun article. It makes you think. But it also seems to mistake clumsy opportunism for complexity.

She's the Britney or the Madonna of politics. Not exactly pretty. Not exactly ugly...She'll never go away, because it's interesting to see what she'll do next to screw up and make a mess of herself...especially when you're waiting in a long grocery line with nothing better to read.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

It's not about gender
Posted by: socialpsych on Jan 24, 2007 3:54 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It's not about Clinton's gender. All of that nonesense is gossipy fluff. Appropriately, what matters is her character, which is revealed in her conduct, such as bashing Muslims after the Sept. 11 attacks to score points with her New York constituency, and like the most recent phony drivel on her web site ("I want to have a conversation:--barf!!). Sudsan Sarandon nailed it: "What America is looking for is authentic people who want to go into public service because they believe strongly in something, not people who are trying to get elected."

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: It's not about gender Posted by: Wildroots
» If not Hillary, then who?? Posted by: psychochurch
» RE: If not Hillary, then who?? Posted by: aonghus36
skip the pop-psych
Posted by: profmarcus on Jan 24, 2007 4:06 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
i stand with previous commenter, johnecolby... i don't trust hillary as a politician or as a potential leader as far as i can throw her, and it's got NOTHING to do with her breasts or any of the other bogus gender-related nonsense you go to such great lengths to elucidate... she's a political chameleon, an opportunist, and a megalomaniac, a perfect democratic version of john mccain, her great vodka-drinking buddy...

i would LOVE to see a woman in the white house, or a person of color, or, better yet, both, but hillary ain't the one any more than condi is... she needs to go away and leave the field open for what i hope will eventually be a new breed of political leaders - those who actually have the common good of the citizens of the u.s. and of the world at heart...

And, yes, I DO take it personally

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: skip the pop-psych Posted by: CatDad
Another lying bitch.
Posted by: colinmeister on Jan 24, 2007 4:09 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"I have always been a fan of the Yankees."

Sorry Hillary, but as a girl from the Chicago subburbs, you were doubtless a Cubs or White Sox fan before you articulated that piece of drivel to gain favour with sports fans when you were running for the senate. If you can't even tell the truth about a subject as trivial as baseball, how can anybody believe you when it comes to more serious matters?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Ain't necessarily so... Posted by: Age of Reason
Down the toilet
Posted by: xi_people on Jan 24, 2007 4:16 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
That a figure this polarizing, woman or not, is being so actively promoted by the "powers that be" shows me that things are continuing to spiral down the drain. Just like with Bush, the writers of this article are attempting to build a "cult of personality" around Hillary, so that more attention will be paid to her, as opposed to the policies she espouses.

The descent into madness is continuing unabated. I don't believe that Hillary, despite all the money behind her will ever be voted in as president -- though with the control of the Diebold machines, one never knows. In any case, her real purpose is to "gum up the works" so that a serious anti-war candidate will never see the light of day.

In short, this entire "Hillary episode" is a great big FU from TPTB to the commoners. They must really think that enough people are stupid enough to vote for this woman to go through with promoting her like this. Watch out for the "sympathy" votes for people who get mad at the "media" for Hillary-bashing and support her for that reason only. Like Bush, she is the perfect foil to divert attention from the real issues at hand.

Elect "Saint" Hillary, and your children will be on their way to a much bigger debacle than Iraq -- in Iran. Look for unequivocal "support" for Israel's murderous agenda, and endless warmongering. Things are absolutely spiraling out of control when someone this unfit for office is being so relentlessly pushed. It makes one wonder what's really going on behind the scenes in the halls of powers. My belief is that they're scared sh*tless about the Pandora's box they've opened, and have no concrete ideas how to hold this rapidly splintering country together.

We live in interesting times....

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Well said, nm Posted by: jdylarid
It's her vote for the Iraq war, stupid!
Posted by: jeanbee on Jan 24, 2007 4:37 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I assumed, wrongly, that a Mother Jones writer would cut through the crap and look at Hillary on the basis of her record. This type of thing is a sorry waste of space. I won't support Hillary because she voted for the Iraq war - and as late as last night I heard her once again excuse her vote using the "if we only knew then" meme: Newsflash -- WE DID KNOW - she and others just voted for an unnecessary war because it was the politically "smart" thing to do. Hillary is also a corporatist DLC Dem to the hilt, and as a result will never, ever do anything that is either honest OR seriously progressive.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Hillary is Just Not a Good Choice for President
Posted by: theskywolf on Jan 24, 2007 4:53 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Hillary Clinton is a right-leaning centrist. We've had enough of that type of politician. I couldn't care less how sexual she is, or even whether or not she is a domineering bitch. That has nothing to do with the qualities needed to run this badly damaged country.

We need someone who can take us to a new, progressive level. Get Hillary, get more of Bill Clinton. We don't need that.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I could live with President HRC
Posted by: marxalot on Jan 24, 2007 4:58 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
But she has to get elected:

"If Hillary runs, she will need to invent a whole new form of campaign strategy: She will need to flip voters who pretty much hate her."

It is a stretch to imagine her actually winning. Isn't it? Please Dems, don't nominate her! You will be putting a Republican in the white house! Again. Aargh.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: I could live with President HRC Posted by: oregoncharles
What America is lookin for...
Posted by: Steve Adair on Jan 24, 2007 5:12 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"What America is looking for is authentic people who want to go into public service because they believe strongly in something..."

President Bush certainly seems to believe 'strongly in something'; does that make him a good public servant?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Bush believes in evil Posted by: edsmith
There's Something about Hillary
Posted by: Democritus on Jan 24, 2007 5:16 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Hillary Clinton has been in the public eye for a long time--long enough to be criticized and caricatured to the full extent (and now to be sculpted as an Amazon warrior-stateswoman). She transformed herself from a mousy-looking brilliant nerd with thick glasses into a supremely confident woman who can hold her own with any man. The problem, as I see it, is that along the way she also became a politician, in the worst sense of that word. I long for the Hillary who boldly tried to create a universal health system. I now cringe when she still refuses to say that her vote to let Bush attack Iraq was a mistake. I still admire Hillary, but I don't want to see her win the nomination for president. It's not because of how she looks or talks, or about her family life. It's because I don't know what her views are anymore.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: There's Something about Hillary Posted by: oregoncharles
PLEASE SPARE US THE VILLAGE VOID POETRY! by Andrew Stergiou
Posted by: Andrew Zito on Jan 24, 2007 5:52 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Poetry of the Village Void perhaps, prose that conveys a clear statement with blunt force it is not, in a weak thin gruel we are offered while the rich benefit from either the left or the right in power, sharing power corrupt.

While the "left" opposition wonders why the right again wins when the true upholders of the "people's state" (democracy) fails, though they worship at the shines of the true faith/s of bitter fruits for which often they have been abandoned. 50% of the electorate not voting, though voting is such a cheap substitute for real action, that in other countries constituents dying and killing for what one believes.

Give use a meal and we will eat.

~A~
P.O.Box 1615
Altoona, Pa, USA 16603

An "internet pioneer" my passport is ready but who will call
universal copyright (c) 2004-2007 Andrew Stergiou

http://templeofreason.org http://zito.biz http://mplf.org http://ularts.net http://pushedpawn.org http://garagemusicstudios.com http://blog.360.yahoo.com/andrew_zito http://andrewstergiou.podomatic.com

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I will never vote for a Clinton or Bush again
Posted by: edsmith on Jan 24, 2007 6:07 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I am so sick and tired of the Bush-Clinton names and what they stand for, which is whatever will get them elected. Enough is enough.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Raison d etre
Posted by: Lincoln fan on Jan 24, 2007 6:59 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I don't trust Hillary, or any candidate endorsed by the DLC, because they are more concerned about the Democratic Party than they are about Democrats. The have sold out to the corporate establishment for campaign contributions. This guarantees the existence of the party but destroys the reason for it to exist.
Bob Reichenbach,
Director, The Lincoln Initiative

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Ms Rodham-Clinton
Posted by: NoPCZone on Jan 24, 2007 7:18 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Why don't you take your Carpet bagging sourpuss face back to Illinois and run for the Senate there? You can even pretend to be a Republican again- like the first time.

Or maybe you could go back to Arkansas, where you pretended to be the wife of a young, progressive Governor while working for Don Tyson, Wal-Mart and others. You know- part time positions, low wages, no benefits, union unfriendly, and gender discrimination from companies based in the same state. Oh that's right, you also served on Wal-Mart's corporate board.

You could go back to being the 'Who asked you' Hillary that stood for no election and then held hearings on healthcare with no authority or mandate from anybody.

That's part of the conversation I would like to start with Hillary. I would vote for Satan himself before I'd give her my vote.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Hillary is a far better than Bush but "fake tool" comes to mind
Posted by: american on Jan 24, 2007 7:28 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
She may not be completely bought and paid for, but she'll have to pay the Money People. People want somebody with passion; somebody with balance; somebody with caring; somebody with courage. I look at that LIVE - WEBCAST advertisement one the left of my screen. I can see a specifically designed, placed, and colored background, 600 watts of foreground lights and the engaging- and interested-looking eyes. Hillary may care, but does she have the daring to kick her donors off the platform made for all American people? Will she focus the presidency on what is on the hearts and minds of Americans? (Why will she not just come out and say it, if so, like Jim Webb in his response to the SOTU?) I can not see in her wavering positions [she was against Howard Dean’s “rant,” but donated to Ned Lamont], measured language, and chimerical persona the authenticity, faith, steadiness, courage, and charisma the American people do not just want, but require.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

No vote for a pig in a poke
Posted by: hoscot on Jan 24, 2007 7:30 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
For just what does this carpetbagger stand? I doubt if she stands for anything but blind ambition at any cost, and I must ask: can we afford the luxury of a president of whatever sex who, in these critical times after the Bush revolution, stands only for whatever is useful for his/her career? The President in 2008 MUST be a person of principle, a firm, unambiguous defender of a return to constitutional law, else God help the USA.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Hillary is a fine choice
Posted by: earena on Jan 24, 2007 7:38 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
a politician is a politician and as far as that goes Hillary Clinton is a fine choice...how exciting it is that United States finally has the potential to have a female president and join the 21st century. and as far as having someone who stands for something...people don't care about that any more; Al Gore stands firm in his environmental work and look what happened to him. right now this country needs a centrists like Hillary because our division is now our demise.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Hillary is a fine choice Posted by: grrrampop
She can't WIN....
Posted by: WitchyNy on Jan 24, 2007 7:41 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
and no black man can win either. To beat the Republicans -we need someone who can WIN!

My father-A truck driver...and all his friends..will not vote for a woman or a Black person for President..no matter what they say to a poll...GET REAL HERE!
Or -we will end up with another Bush.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: She can't WIN.... Posted by: Ellie1
» RE: She can't WIN.... Posted by: MitPot
» RE: She can't WIN.... Posted by: xbj
The biggest problem
Posted by: Robba29 on Jan 24, 2007 7:43 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
With Hillary is that she is viewed as a politician in every sense of the word. She seems to go with what is popular (Iraq war), works to her own benefit with little regard to consensus (Iraq, again, NCLB), will "flip-flop" when convenient, etc. Do I think she is capable--yes. But, how she is perceived and how open she is to attack from Repugs makes her a VERY poor choice of candidate. The public will turn on her. The Democrats WILL lose if she is the nominee--you can count on that.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: The biggest problem Posted by: FastEddy
» RE: The biggest problem Posted by: Persephone8
9/11& GWB Changed everything
Posted by: blondesprite on Jan 24, 2007 7:46 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
As an American artist, gender and race (Hillary and Obama), at this point, have nothing to do with my voting or creative decisions.
GWB said 9/11 changed everthing. Then he, Republicans and some Democrats proceeded to change everything... from Habeas Corpus, The U. S. Constituion, privacy laws, propaganda laws, posse comitatus laws, banckuptcy laws and the list goes on and on and on. This article, in my opinion, was a waste of space and my time.
KBR is building internment camps, with tax payer dollars, and on US soil, to house American citizens. American citizens, of the co-called "fifth column" (dissenters and pre-determined sympathizers) will be suspect prisoners in these camps... scarey stuff folks!
Other Americans too, as polls indicate, have moved way beyond worring about race or gender issues. Unfortunately, the "media" has not.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Politics...so emotional.
Posted by: ABetterFuture on Jan 24, 2007 8:09 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"Why we love to hate Hilary?"

Why does viewing someone as uniquely unqualified need be based on hatred? If I prefer a cinnamon pop-tart, it isn't necessarily because of my hatred for the "evil" frosted strawberry ones.

Meh. The 50%+1 political atmosphere drags human win/loss emotions into places where rationality, cool heads, and collaborative strategies would be better: the subtext of this article is that if you don't jump on the Clinton bandwagon, it's because you hate her.

That's a ridiculous premise, and does pretty good job at illustrating how Bush's "you're either with us or agin' us" mantra of life and love and war has filtered down (further infected) the political discourse.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Politics...so emotional. Posted by: gillianr
She will probably win
Posted by: philobat on Jan 24, 2007 8:13 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Hilary will most likely win because it is time to see what a woman will do in the White House. Although I know what the result will be, this country and the world wants to know if there is a difference between a woman or a man running the show. This is the quesessential curiosity that will kill the cat moment. Who we need in the house is a Maya Angelou, but what we will get, is another pencil pusher with tits.

It is not her sexuality that is threatening, it is her stupidity level. She is a great saleswoman, who truly understands theatrics. She will win because she has stuck by Bill. Its the devoted wife syndrom that will get her elected, and it will have nothing to do with her ability to get the job done.

She doesn't need a spin team, because she knows how to do that all by herself.

We definately need a womans touch in the White House, but Hilary is far from what America needs. She is an automaton with tits.

She may end up being the first and last woman President, which is sad.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Hillary Clinton and the Israel Lobby
Posted by: rwa on Jan 24, 2007 8:19 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
http://www.ynetnews.com/art icles/0,7340,L-3355786,00.html

"Israeli billionaire and media mogul Haim Saban is at the top of the list of donors to political campaigns in the US."
"According to the report, Saban, a close friend of the Clintons, is one of the major donors to the Democratic Party"
********
Clinton's silence toward Israel's brutality implies the senator will continue to support AIPAC's mission to occupy the whole of the occupied territories, as well as a war on Iran. AIPAC is correct ­ even President Bush appears to be a little sheepish when up against the warmongering of Hillary Clinton.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

This Is not the time for Ms. Clinton
Posted by: R.I.P. on Jan 24, 2007 8:29 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The object of the next presidential election is to elect a democritic president. I do not think this is a good time for adding yet another controversy based on gender. Unfortunately this will be the case as I see it.... for all I know Ms. Clinton might be a good president..... but she would have to be ELECTED! This is not the time to experiment with 'firsts" which cause doubt and divisions: and consentrate on a canditate with the mandate of the people as a fist priorty.....stopping this insane war. I can not see how social reforms can be implimented in a country that is going broke... among other things. If it is possible for the Democratic leadership to straighten out the mess we are in.... and win the confidence of the American people.... it would be then that Ms. Clinton could be a reasonable candidate. Again, we have to consider the gender bias of ths American electorate and this is NOT the time for diversionary issues.
As I remember Georgr Bush was popular with many as "the candidate I'd rather have a beer with". Really folks....
it is time to get real.
cheers, Rip Tragle

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Another Democratic woman against H Clinton
Posted by: CJC on Jan 24, 2007 8:36 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Stop the sexism already! Male politicians do not get dissected this way.

The reason to oppose Clinton is what others have said.
Before she voted 'yes' for the war she eloquently went through reasons invading Iraq was a bad idea. Then she voted 'yea.'
There's the disconnect between principle and political expediency. She's cold and calculating - see Cindy Sheehan's description of meeting with her in 2005.

She's so bright and clearly competent. Too bad she has sold her soul to her ambition.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

How About: We Don't Like The Politics!
Posted by: shinseiji on Jan 24, 2007 9:25 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
We don't need another moderate conservative politician to follow the radical rightist, as Billy-Boy did Pappy, though Pappy, unlike Baby, was also a moderate conservative.

And speaking of which, we need to be rid of the corruption of dynastic politics. We're looking at a quarter century of BushClintons from 1988 on.

But mark this for all of those who think that the Clinton Democratic clique is "much better" than the Bushes: the GWOT will continue as a major block on any real progressive reform; if and when President Cheney gets his war on with Iran and then Hillary ascends to the throne in 2008, her Administration will loyally prosecute Cheneys' policy just as Billy maintained the bombing/sanctions seige of Iraq throughout the 1990's - exterminating in the process some half million Iraqis by UN estimates, but remember, 'it was worth it'.

The bottom life for all those who offer nothing but endless apologies for the Clinton Democrats: until Americas' mad militarist march and the trillions flushed down the tubes with it are stopped and permantly reversed, there will be no money nor the political climate for substantive reform in the US or abroad.

War Kills Reform.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Clinton '08
Posted by: Donna_Darko on Jan 24, 2007 9:28 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Why We Love to Hate Hillary

Hillary Clinton is like our national Rorschach: She stokes our every emotion, from our deepest fears to our darkest hatreds.


Good piece but the title should simply be "The US is very sexist." She's succeeded at every stage of her life and her presidency would be an unqualified success, the polar opposite of Bush's presidency, an absolute failure. She's a Senator for citizens who endured 9-11 and in the state with the biggest Jewish American population so she's been annoyingly centrist but I think she'd be great for this country.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Clinton '08 Posted by: JCR
» RE: Clinton '08 Posted by: Donna_Darko
» RE: Clinton '08 Posted by: aonghus36
» I'm on crack? Posted by: Donna_Darko
» Stop smokin the crack Posted by: Donna_Darko
» You Posted by: Donna_Darko
Bad Judgement
Posted by: oregoncharles on Jan 24, 2007 9:32 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This is an extraordinary piece: a painfully long article about one of our most prominent politicians which never once touches on her POLITICAL actions, let alone any issues she has dealt with. I first read it in Mother Jones, which I've subscribed to for a long time. It is the first article I have ever seen there that made me question the judgement of the editors. Now it appears in Alternet, too, and the judgement is just as bad. It is actually an example of the same phenomenon it deplores: a purely personal treatment of a powerful public figure, which completely ignores her policy and issue positions.

It demeans Hillary Clinton, wastes space, and insults the readers. It couldn't hit a worse trifecta.

Let's deal with actual politics for a moment. My own grudge goes back to her botch of the health-care issue, right at the beginning of her husband's regime. It was so bad, and so obvious, that I think it was deliberate: a way of pretending to keep Bill's campaign promise while sabotaging any hope of universal health-care for the foreseeable future. A perfect example of corporate-driven politics.

Then, of course, there's the war. Need I say more on that issue?

In general, her record is an extension of Bill's: purely corporate, based entirely on calculated half-measures, and amoral. Apparently they were, and are, a genuine political team. And that's as far as I'll deal with her personal life. Otherwise, I couldn't care less.

Then, of course, there are those poll negatives. No politician can survive, or overcome, initial negative ratings that high, especially when they are supported by her record. Remember, BOTH sides despise her. She can't count on progressives rallying around, as Democrats must.

Finally, her record in the Senate is, well, minor when it isn't offensive (remember the war?). Her only real qualification for the Presidency is her last name. Haven't we learned anything the last 6 years?

On a purely partisan basis, I hope the Dems do nominate her: combined with what W has done to the Republicans, it would give the Greens the best shot they've ever had. Along with every other alternative party. We all could use a wide-open race, for once. A 20% President might get us some electoral reform.

Returning to the article: Why on earth would Alternet repeat Mother Jones's blunder? You LIKE insulting your readers?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Bad Judgement Posted by: blondesprite
» RE: Bad Judgement Posted by: MartianBachelor
» RE: Bad Judgement Posted by: oregoncharles
» RE: Bad Judgement Posted by: MartianBachelor
This was a...
Posted by: jack alexander on Jan 24, 2007 9:35 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
nauseating piece. Wrtitten much like a lot of the Hollywood trash in print these days. A total waste of time and effort.

I can't help but ask, all of this drivel (above) aside, is she as bad as the sub-moronic neo-nazi that is in office today?

Concern about her breasts? What about the Chimp's missing you know what that he substitutes with weapons of war with lies of deceit and stupidity included (to make up for the other missing 'parts')?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Just what is Bush missing? Posted by: Ellie1
» RE: Just what is Bush missing? Posted by: jack alexander
» It wasn't a waste of time Posted by: Donna_Darko
» RE: This was a... Posted by: blondesprite
Hillary has bad political opinions
Posted by: snarlah on Jan 24, 2007 10:17 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I don't care about her personal life or that she is married to Bill Clinton at all. And I want a woman President as soon as possible.

However, the salient point is that Hillary Clinton, like her husband and many other so-called Democrats, is Democratic Leadership Committee. She is as pro-business as a Republican, and big money taints everything that she says and does. She is also hawkish on the invasion and occupation of Iraq and probably will be hawkish in general. I don't consider that a womanly virtue.

When a group of Iraqi women were travelling the country giving talks about the horrors of what we've done to Iraq, Hillary ignored every request to meet with them. And that means there was no answer at all. What gives her the right to ignore important women? And why didn't she care? Probably because what she does care about is the same thing the men do--getting and maintaining power; meeting with Iraqi women might have gotten in the way of her grasping for money and power.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Clinton-Richardson ticket works nicely
Posted by: Toast on Jan 24, 2007 10:36 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Untainted by all the intrigue contained in this article as well as in the person of HRC, my girls ages 9 and 12 like her and want her to be president. Maybe they naively think it would be nice to have a female in that job, instead of the routine white male. Sorry, white-males, for this is sexist in itself but it is a step along the path to equality.

No doubt, HRC has the resume to function decently in the job. With much respect to Wendy W., flip-flopping is also called diplomacy and is necessary in world relations. The resoluteness of GWB has been tiresome and lethal. Regarding her views on immigration, she would enhance her electability most if she ran with Bill Richardson who is the candidate with the truly impressive resume.

The Clinton-Richardson ticket works for me. Clinton can capture many of the votes of Bill Clinton-devotees, blacks, women, liberals, Gore-supporters, and Hollywood. Richardson can capture many Latins and immigration one-noters. I think they can get elected and serve well.

Oh, gosh - there I go again projecting my own desires onto Hillary!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Where Is The 'Law'
Posted by: mite on Jan 24, 2007 10:57 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
You want to know the REAL Hillary? Ask her too show the Law that says the IRS can Tax our Labor?
Hillary and Congress knows the 'Fraud' against the U.S. people by the Federal Reserve and Internal Revenue Service these past 93 years. The IRS's own code says that taxes are voluntary when it comes to tax on our labor.

U.S. Constitution Article 1 Section: 8

www.supremelaw.org/sls/31answers.htm

www.givemeliberty.org www.originalintent.org

www.freedomtofascism.com

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

More blame-the-public elitism
Posted by: SteveB on Jan 24, 2007 11:09 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
See if you can spot the logical flaw in this argument: If the media and a few right-wing nut-jobs are obsessed with Hillary Clinton, ALL AMERICANS must be obsessed with Hillary Clinton.

What evidence does the author give that Americans in general, not just silly reporters from the New York Times or people who've had books published by Regnery, are obsessed with Hillary? Consider this ridiculous claim:

"Americans happily participated in a cnn/USA Today/Gallup poll to determine whether Hillary should get a divorce."

Oh, so if a thousand people with nothing better to do don't hang up the phone when asked this question, it means "Americans" are "happily participating" in the Hillary obsession?

Or how about this:
"Almost every American has an opinion about Hillary."

Wow, what a startling observation. A woman who spent eight years as first lady, and nearly six years as a senator, and most of us "have an opinion" about her.

I wish the author was alone in falling for the fallacy that if our media is aimed at morons, WE must all be morons. The New York Times isn't inspecting the Clinton's sheets because we demanded it, they're doing it because the people who do political reporting for the New York Times are IDIOTS. Check out www.dailyhowler.com for a daily exposition on this theme.

Until we learn that most Americans are much smarter than we give them credit for (and by "we" I mean the sort of well-educated liberals who might read Mother Jones) the media elites will continue to turn our political discourse into a bad joke.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

A Democratic Nixon
Posted by: Red Clover on Jan 24, 2007 11:11 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
As much as I admire her talent and accomplishments, Hillary has too much ambition, too many demons, and too little idealism to help the middle class recover from the predations of Reaganism during the past 26 years. And that's what we need to see and hear from the 2008 Democratic Party nominee.
If elected, Hillary would be the Democrats' Richard Nixon- a foreign policy hawk, slightly liberal on domestic matters, clueless in connecting to the people, and surrounded by enemies, real and imagined. We need something better from the nation's first female President if we are too see more of them anytime soon.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

How About A GOOD Female Candidate Instead?
Posted by: Blueprelude on Jan 24, 2007 11:54 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
How about the Democrats running a female congresswoman who is genuinely responsive to the people, such as Maxine Waters? She is authoritative, female and African American! She has a better track record on issues people care about than Hillary, and now supports a viable plan to get us out of Iraq, also unlike Hillary.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I Don´t Hate Hillary...
Posted by: ZPaul on Jan 24, 2007 12:27 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I Don´t Hate Hillary, I just do not want her to be President of the U.S.A.
I want a candidate that is willing to take a firm, and not a wishy-washy stand against Bush and his obscene war. I think that candidate just may be Edwards. Yes, he changed his mind, I know(I can hear the cries of "flip-flop" already). He also did something Bush -- nor, to my knowledge, Hillary, has ever done. Admit he was dead wrong. I want a President that is not a coward. I want a courageous President. And I´m not thinking Hillary. I´m thinking Edwards.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: I Don´t Hate Hillary... Posted by: gillianr
» RE: I Don´t Hate Hillary... Posted by: dangerouslysane
» RE: I Don´t Hate Hillary... Posted by: jmooney
who is hillary
Posted by: wleming on Jan 24, 2007 12:45 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
who is hillary
what is she
generating miles of prose history
what does she do
where does she go?
supported the contras
loves bill too
hillary hillary so fair and smart
bludgeoned your way into americas stinking
media heart
hillary but a media tart?
consider the source of all her art
some journalist hack
some awful corporate part
oh hillary you are doomed to lame
by the people who write asking
"whats her game?"

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

She is disingenuous
Posted by: drblack on Jan 24, 2007 12:47 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I do not have feelings one way or another about H.Clinton personally.
Politically I do not like her or Bill. They had too many shady dealings and after the bush-clinto dynasties we need NEW blood.
Dennis Kucinich is the ONLY truly honest politician now and he will get my vote if nothing changes.
This has NOTHING to do with gender,but with integrity.
Pro politicians with slick managed public personas make me ILL.
Anyone who votes for Hillary will regret it. She cares for poer and that is all.
We NEED to have someone go to bat for FREEDOM for American individuals and a true effort to reduce the power and money of the Federal government.
The only way to end the selling of America and its freedom is to take power and money away from the fed and put it back into the hands of more local and accountable government.

Everyone including government should stay out of how people live their lives and how they treay themselves.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I usually never comment without reading the entire article
Posted by: Techubus on Jan 24, 2007 1:07 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
But I could tell within a few paragraphs that I was reading mindless drivel based on a premise I will never accept.

This piece did not deserve to be placed front and center imo. I feel we would all be better off having never even seen such crap being floated as reasonable discource on a presidential candidate.

I won't be voting for her because of her politics and her history. I don't care about her anatomy, her looks, her anything superficial. I don't like what she has stood for, I don't like obviously calculating fencesitters. She is the democratic equivalent of John McCain. I guarantee both of them will never make it to the White House.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Democrats cannot find a proper nominee for 2008!
Posted by: FastEddy on Jan 24, 2007 5:20 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Why neocan like Hillary in the race, why people like Obama is in the race? Are democrats running out of putting a decent acceptable candidate for 2008 election? Even people gonna elect Chenney instead of putting people like Hillary or Obama in the white house. Mark my word!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Barbara Mikulski for President?
Posted by: karma_ran_over_dogma on Jan 24, 2007 5:31 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Draft Babski! Then just maybe "progressive" writers could discuss a female candidate's issues instead of hairstyles, clothing, etc etc etc. Of course the Repugs would call her names but that would just garner sympathy for her from the suddenly-freed-from-trivia public.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

tammy wynette "you wish hillary"
Posted by: okie11 on Jan 24, 2007 5:33 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
h.c. is a bitch she will never win. people will not forget her 60 min comments in 92. if i was married to her i would cheat on her too.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Political, not personal
Posted by: Shey on Jan 24, 2007 6:51 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I'm a feminist. I would love to have a woman running for president whom I could in good conscience support. That woman is not Hillary Clinton. I don't believe that any of the personal stuff such as "why didn't she leave the son-of-a-bitch?" means a damn. I've followed her career. Listened to her speak about her positions, as well as her personal life. Taken note of how she votes.
In my opinion, she is a power hungry, condesending political opportunist who gets off on "playing the game." Her voting record, disguised as "non-partisan compromise", indicates that she should call herself a moderate Republican. If such an animal still existed. As a Democrat, I am sick to death of having moderate to conservative Democratic polititions labled "liberal', while genuine liberals like John Edwards are marginalized as "too far to the left".
Where has the "too far to the right" Bush administration gotten us? Give me a real liberal of either gender, not a poser who always has one eye on what she needs to say, in order to get elected. If Barbara Boxer were running, I'd be the first in line to support her. With a broken heart, knowing she'd have a snowballs chance in hell.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Monarchy USA
Posted by: Aufklaerung_Baboon on Jan 24, 2007 8:11 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I am disturbed by the ever increasing trend of 'political families' dominating the U.S. political landscape; I know that there have always been prominent political families in the U.S. and elsewhere, but we are taking it too far. If I wanted to live in a monarchy I'd move to England.

If Hillary Clinton is elected it'll be just like Bill Clinton was back in office, and this is not fair because he's already had his 8 years. Ditto with Bush Jr. and Bush Sr., the Kennedy family, and others...this IS NOT GOOD for America's democracy. We need fresh blood in the system, not 'business as usual.'

The WASP elite in the U.S. and the Jewish elite are in the process of merging together, thus controlling ALL sides of America including politics, business/economics, military, etc. They are intermarrying with each other, hogging up all the slots at America' elite universities (which are nothing more than eugenically driven breeding grounds for America's economic and cognitive elite), and utterly dominating all forms of the economy and foreign policy.

Yeah, so much for 'equal opportunity' for ALL American citizens.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Why do we dislike her? She is a LINO
Posted by: doctorsquared on Jan 24, 2007 9:27 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
or liberal in name only. She is a pro-fascist, wishy-washily maybe sorta pro-choice economic conservative opportunist like Lieberman. It does not have thing one to do with gender.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

stagnant.
Posted by: juhuacha on Jan 24, 2007 9:53 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I don't get it, why are people upset when leaders grow and change their opinions (much like the American people as a whole)?

I think that a great point is made in that people talk about her sexually and yet you'd never hear anyone talking about how much of a sex life W has, or McCain's manliness, etc. I think that its interesting how vehement some of the comments have been... I don't understand how anyone can expect a politician to be anyone but a politician, all I ask for is a politician who thinks about issues, at least a little bit (I don't have high expectations).

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Hillary Clinton Says "I'm In." My Reply, "I'm Out"
Posted by: Betsy L. Angert on Jan 24, 2007 10:02 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Dear Jack Hitt . . .

I love this essay. I thought it was fun.

Immediately after Hillary announced she was "in" I penned a missive saying I was out. I would not support her for I believe 'Hillary for President' is a divisive proposition. I posted my thoughts at many a popular political site expecting agreement.

I was lambasted. Apparently, Progressives have adopted the Eleventh Commandment made famous by Ronald Reagan; never criticize those within our clan. Some seem happy just knowing there is a viable woman candidate.

No matter what a person might say, invoke the name Hillary and flames will fly.

I invite you to review my exposé and share your thoughts.
Hillary Clinton Says "I'm In." My Reply, "I'm Out"

Betsy L. Angert
BeThink.org

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

the bottom line...
Posted by: tobeimean on Jan 25, 2007 12:02 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I'll vote for her.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Her healthcare stance was not botched...
Posted by: asilsfable on Jan 25, 2007 12:51 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
...it was sabotaged.

NO ONE WAS TALKING ABOUT HEALTH CARE BEFORE HILLARY--PERIOD.

It was she who brought it into the public debate. It was only after her exhaustive research that politicos from both side of the aisle starting even discussing health care issues. Now, the topic is so important and it's on the top 5 list for almost every candidate.

She was hated by the Repubs then, and they chose to sacrifice what would have been great for the American public just because they hate her.

I remember Hillary calling out doctors and big pharma for high drug prices. Maybe she was naive--that certainly was a bold move. But she learned her lesson! To some extent, she knows now that she has to placate big corp interests.

I'm not saying that that's good--I'm just saying that it's difficult to get something passed if you don't.

Did anyone actually READ what she put together for national health insurance? Does anyone actually REMEMBER that she held forums all over the country getting points of view from all sorts of folks with health issues?

Anyone with health insurance now as good as she proposed then would be clicking their heels. It even allowed for alternative care. Though I thought is was a bit pricey at the time (I remember it to be around $190 a month), it was a good comprehensive plan.

Remember that when Jimmy Carter said IN THE 70s that we need to lessen our dependency on oil, Americans reacted with a vitriol usually reserved for treasonists. Now, it seems prescient.

And Ruth Bader Ginsburg was an excellent choice for Supreme Court Justice. Think Bill came up with that one on his own?

Try, just try to be balanced for a change...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

What's the point of putting America on the couch with regard to Hillary?
Posted by: ISlamIslam on Jan 25, 2007 3:12 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I suspect that only the most stupid of people would fit neatly into one or another of the categories that this navel-gazing article describes.

I'd never vote for her, but I can think of worse people who could end up in office. At least Hillary has brains and balls.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Hillary & Pelosi @ Brothel DC
Posted by: Hal on Jan 25, 2007 3:33 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This story is barely skin-deep puffery. It ignores the grotesque nature of women in surface “power” at Washington at work for monopolist oligarchs. The like of Hillary and Pelosi are crooked and sold out as any male on the hill. Perhaps more so.

Hillary continues to shill for the most corrupt and arrantly phony “war on terror” since before Viet Nam as Pelosi has taken impeachment “off the table”. She and Hillary refuse to even consider cutting funds for a sham, illegal war based on 911 cover-up lies that should have brought down the entire puppet government at DC years ago. (As it would have been brought down if not for an utterly cooked snake oil of an MSM).

These women have the blood of more than half a million deaths on their hands. And they are apparently proud of it.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

NEVER IN A TRILLION YEARS IN OFFICE...
Posted by: xbj on Jan 25, 2007 12:55 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
NEVER IN A TRILLION YEARS IN OFFICE could Hillary/Obama come even REMOTELY close to servicing the NWO, globalists, Big Corporations, Big Oil, Big Pharma, the Israeli Fascist Government, and the Military Industrial Complex the way the Bush Administration, forever now known in history as the WAR PIGS Administration, has. That's because, you can claim that Hillary/Obama are juiced into the NWO all you want, some bastards are MUCH HIGHER in the hierarchy than others.

Clinton's NATO war in the Balkans (which resulted IN NOT ONE AMERICAN CASUALTY) was a BLINK OF AN EYE compared to this "endless" "war" "against" "terror", and he didn't have planes filled with Balkan "terrorist" stooges and thermite and micronukes bring down the WTC to sucker the US into it, EITHER. And God forbid, we stopped Serbian Nazis from doing to Moslems what Hitler did to the Jews. Lucifer forbid, the WAR PIGS almost had a coronary on that, more ventures like that which gained immense Islamic gratitude might have made their coming entire "Holy" Crusade they had planned impossible, by EARNING GOOD WILL.

There definitely IS SUCH AS THING AS THE LESSER OF TWO EVILS, especially if they are NECESSARY EVILS.

Politics, PERIOD, is a necessary EVIL.

KNOW THEM BY THEIR WORKS. And their priorities. Until a massive publicity campaign of billions of dollars can educate most Jewish Americans to the simple fact that Zionism is NOT A RELIGIOUS but a POLITICAL FASCIST IMPERIALISTIC MOVEMENT and has NOTHING AT ALL TO DO WITH TRUE JUDAISM, politicians are going to have to court Jewish voters the way they would any other large American bloc. Because far too many of them haven't gotten the word yet.

And with the Zionist Lobby spending billions of dollars to trash any candidate who doesn't play along, and cheating sychophant Israeli Zionists like Lieberman into office, it puts many politicians in difficult places.

So cut the good guys, or if you prefer, the LESSER EVIL guys some slack. They've EARNED it.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

the analysis is wrong
Posted by: bambino on Jan 25, 2007 1:13 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
the starting point to the analysis is wrong. i dont think she is the sexual woman here at all. look at lovely pelosi. she dresses well and without effort. she is womanly and elegant. hillary cannot duplicate this at all. i know about makeup and dress codes and she just is too programmed by others with her blush and earrings. she is not elegant at all. read up on what constitutes a sexy woman by the harvard studies. she is just too wrinkled and stocky. there is no figure at all. sorry to sound sexist here but lets not get carried away here about something that doesnt exist. people have intuitive feelings about someone based on all sorts of below conscious observations. there is substance to ones ambivalence here. the statue seems like a caricature and silly. good god, is this what we need now?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: the analysis is wrong Posted by: opeluboy
Great Lady, Great Article
Posted by: Shakti on Jan 25, 2007 2:14 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I'm amazed by all the hostility people level at Hillary Clinton. She is pretty and pretty amazing. Who could possibly look at her and think she is ugly? I find that odd.

I really admire Ms. Clinton. Good mother? Check. Just compare Chelsea to the Bush twins. Good wife? Check. Despite their problems, it is clear to me that the Clintons have a lot going on. Good Senator? Check. Her repuation in the Senate is excellent.

If Gore does not run, I will probably vote for Hillary in the Dem primaries. I would *love* for my daughter to come of age during a time when the country has a woman at the helm. How wonderful.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Great Lady, Great Article Posted by: opeluboy
I second...
Posted by: Mewsician on Jan 25, 2007 2:22 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
...all the comments that question this ridiculous obsession with Hillary Clinton. And articles like this one just feed the bizarre and the unbalanced. There's nothing singularly out of the ordinary about this woman who is a former First Lady and now a sitting senator. Nothing at all! She's just another politico, and a skilled one at that - and one who happens to be a female. Only people who are incapable of generalized rationality are foaming at the mouth about Mrs. Clinton, and they're fed by the likes of O'Reilly and Limbaugh. Let's not contribute to the baseless frenzy with more articles like this one. They're absurd.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Boring and stupid
Posted by: opeluboy on Jan 25, 2007 2:23 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I found this article a real chore to slog through. I am not interested in Clinton's private life, her breasts, her child, her sex life or lack thereof. I am only interested in her politics.

They are right-of-center, arrogant, Zionistic and pro-war (pardon the redundancy).

Clinton will not be getting my vote, no matter what new mask she puts on. I would vote for Hagel first, and I'm as liberal as one can be. I will not vote for a warmonger and a whore for Israel.

That is what Clinton is. Vote for her. But please don't call yourself a liberal. You're not.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Boring and stupid Posted by: joe in oklahoma
» RE: Boring and stupid Posted by: xbj
» RE: Boring and stupid Posted by: opeluboy
Thebigkate
Posted by: Thebigkate on Jan 25, 2007 11:23 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I love that Hillary is a powerful woman running for President! But I hate that she has not taken a real stand on the most important issue of our time--Iraq! She is very much an opportunist at a time when we need an authentic voice with a moral center. So far, John Edwards, Jim Webb and Dennis Kucinich seem to be the ones who have that center. Unfortunately, they are men!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Thebigkate Posted by: xbj
Hillary Clinton Toilet Paper
Posted by: potentate on Jan 26, 2007 3:20 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Someone on e-bay is selling Hillary Clinton toilet paper!!! How appropriate!!!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Opportunistic Neo-Liberal
Posted by: lulugeez on Jan 27, 2007 8:08 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Leave it to Mother Jones to publish this psycho-rubbish. (I am also fearing that Alternet seems to be sporting the garrish new suit of a "Hillary Booster.") As if the only reasons to oppose a politician who has supported the Patriot Act, protested the execution of the war on Iraq, not the war itself, voted for the credit-card industry's bankruptcy bill, voted for the medicare bill... are you already sickened enough, or need I continue?...stem from some atavistic misogyny. Hillary is not on our side. We know that. It's time the DNC send the DLCers packing to the Republican Party where they belong. If the Dems continue with this Hillary folly, we need to abandon these wretched, pusillanimous, snake-oil floggers. Please note the similarity of this specious argument (if you don't support Hillary you are misogynous) with the arguments that zionists put up against any suggestion that Israel's been a bit naughty with the Palestinians. When their candidate or ideloogy can't stand on its own legs they simply resort to supersticious, hysterical psycho-babble. Aren't you getting kind of weary of having your brain locked-up, your tongue-tied by this silliness? These are not arguments. They are more closely related to magical spells designed to produce torpor and befudlement. It takes a mud and dung-caked village idiot to vote for this polician. After reading this article and some of the comments, I really need to go take a bath.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Opportunistic Neo-Liberal Posted by: ekipnrut
Tara Downer
Posted by: Tara Downer on Jan 28, 2007 8:31 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
At the sesquicentennial of women's rights in Seneca Falls, I heard Mrs. Clinton speak for the first time. She stood in front of a packed high school football stadium, and almost everyone there had decided by the end of her speech that we had elected the wrong Clinton. By the end of the day, the local press was printing similar statements. She presented her facts using ethos, pathos, and logos and completely floored the entire audience.

In fact, Republican politicos have reported that her health care plan was shouted and shut down because she had ALL the answers to all the questions (without referring to notes). They were actually afraid that if the public heard her arguments for and about universal health coverage, it would be a done deal. Too many congress people owed the pharmaceutical and insurance companies too much to allow the obscene profits to fall.

As I read most of the comments on this article, I realized that most commenters don't begin to understand the complexities of our political system. Does the DNC equivocate? Absolutely. Do they put pressure on Democratic frontrunners to cut back on Liberal rhetoric in order to win elections? Absolutely. Do any of you think that a Progressive can win a national election in any other way? Winning elections takes money and strategy. Leave it up to Hillary to persuade her haters that she may have a better handle on reality than any of her opponents. Unlike most married couples (who also suffer through infidelity), she learned it, in public, at the culminating moments of a 45 million dollar investigation of her husband, the most powerful man in the world. Plus, she has the perspective that few others have, a history of dealing with all the other powerful people in the world.

It also occurs to me as I read the other posters that they would do well to read Plato's short Allegory of the Cave. Most of us see only the shadows of our representatives. Their votes may be based on perspectives that we can't see. As a former instructor, I have seen many college students change their opinions radically when they learned some of the uglier truths of American history. When a politician changes her mind on an issue, it may be related to learning something new, not selling out or flip-flopping or whatever negative connotation can be attached to changing or not changing a view.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Tara Downer Posted by: kay07
Hillary Needs to Return to Her Progressive Roots
Posted by: zeitgeist1979 on Jan 28, 2007 11:37 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I miss the Hillary that took Rabbi Michael Lerner's (author of "The Left Hand of God") excellent ideas on a Progressive Spirituality to heart and thus was able to provide America with a meaningful and powerful vision. Now all you get is a watered-down version of Hillary, a version full of DLC meaningless and even worse, pathetically ineffective mantras that have been overused waaaay too much in American politics. Hillary needs to take some cues on how to become more charismatic and accessible from John Edwards (I mean just look at how he launched his presidential campaign-from the streets, not from a air-brushed internet video like Hillary) pronto!!!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

My personal opinions.
Posted by: kay07 on Jan 30, 2007 4:51 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I see the usual banal conversations about Hilary Clinton on this website. While you have a right to your opinions and don't have to vote for her, this is just more of the repetitive drone I see on other websites... "Oh my God , she stayed with Bill, she is just trying to further her own political asperations," actually it hasn't worked in her favor much... but you all are constantly going on about Bill's affairs (as if the Republicans have never had them and are totally above board and honest and have never had scandals, I guess they must keep closer guard on their skeletons in the closet though) But if she had dumped Bill? I can hear the same old tune from you all,"She dumped Bill to further her political career." She's vicious and coniving." The fact is, she doesn't live by your standards and chose to stay in the marriage with him for better or worse, I guess, that is personally her business I'd say, whether you approve or not. It's not affecting your lives in some negative way is it.. You say you want a candidate who will say it straight and talk to us honestly, not really, you really want to hear what you want to hear... Even if Congess had voted differently about the war, you be screaming ,"Soft on terror" as you so accuse many dems of now... Face it ,we get exactly what we deserve as a govt, because we love the controversy, sniping and gossip about scandals, kind of a perverse way to make us feel better? You think a candidate isn't in it to win, DUHHH, of course he is . Yes most politicians and not just Hilllary play it by ear and mistakenly try to be all things to all people many times, she hasn't been the only one.. What I find partricularly ugly, is the republicans did launch a smear campaign against Clinton to further their agenda...and to regain power. They weren't above board about it, it is usually how they work to discredit any candidate, launch an all out assault and attack offensive and totally discredit and villify their oponent, and we buy it hook line and sinker... "A disgrace", they said. "Dems needed to clean up their act... Well now that the headlines reads of the many Republican scandals..." foot in mouth disease I guess. Will they clean up their act... I would hold them to the same standards as the dems, by the way... Jack Kennedy and other presidents were notorious for having affairs and it was no well kept secret, even daddy Bush is rumored to have had affairs... Why do certain people love to hate Hillary, I don't know, but it is often said we hate in others what we least like about ourselves... All presidents have had their weaknesses, and strengths, positive and negative points ,some have been more effective than others,and there has been corruption in both parties at times..if there is a pillar of perfection I've yet to see it... Good luck on your holy grail for the perfect president, you won't find it.... Politicians aren't dumb, they play to their audience exactly what we want to see and hear, and see and hear....We like the drama , it excites us.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

to add.
Posted by: kay07 on Jan 30, 2007 5:05 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I'd also like to add , why do we as Americans hold our politicians to higher moral standards than ourselves, I remember watching the news on tv here one night and they had done a poll, and it is estimated that in 60% percent of marriages, they admitted to straying, both men and women. A shocking revelation about our society, not hardly... a reality check, it is called humility, people who live in glass houses should not throw stones...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I couldn't resist, sorry..
Posted by: kay07 on Jan 30, 2007 5:26 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Hey all, I got a size 42 bust, will ya vote for me? LOL

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I'm going to say this
Posted by: kay07 on Jan 30, 2007 5:41 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Do we analyze and nitpick at men in political position or power because of the size of their d---, or perhaps their toupes. Hey ya , a little robust around the waist there.The fact our culture is still sexist, women have to measure up to some impossible standard like Barbie, be sex objects, look pretty.. play dumb and be the docile submissive types....blah, blah, blah, it is sickening and we need to grow up... Maybe the truth is we can't handle a woman in power because we feel that she has it all ,sucess, power,money, and we don't.... Perhaps because she refuses to play into a stereotypical role of how a woman should be, or should act , we just lay on everything we can find fault about her... The senator that said she was ugly and made such sniping remarks about her appearance and her sexual appeal should say alot about his values and how he views women... petty, petty, petty...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]