I agree with you that Hillary Haters seem long on vitrol and short on reason . Some accuse her of being too political and having no core values . Yet when you show them the duplicitous nature of Mitt Romney( who ran a pro choice liberal when running for Governor and now is a pro life when campaigning for the nomination ) or Rudy ( who was for Gun Control as Mayor but not so now) they are speechless .
That being SAID I find it a dangerous thing for her to be the Democratic Nominee and for precisely the reasons in the article . She generates ENORMOUS negatives even among women
THAT is NOT good news for the Dems and may explain why Murdoch is backing her . Whatever the reason I feel that if we nominate her we will once again SNATCH defeat from the jaws of Victory . If ANY of the Republican Nominees wins the Presidency we may NOT be able to salvage our Republic

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

1) Her duplicity and downright lies with regards to the non-threat that Iraq posed, as laid out in exquisite detail by Scott Ritter and other UNCSCOM inspectors THREE YEARS BEFORE THE INVASION.

2) Even after she voted to authorize an illegal war on trumped up charges against Iraq, she followed the precise pattern she followed on her Iraq vote in voting for the Lieberman-Kyl amendment declaring the Iranian Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization.

Of course, Hillary would be better than any of the GOP candidates, but we'll cross that bridge when we come to it.

On a purely pragmatic level, I don't think Hillary or Obama can win the White House in '08. As much as Americans claims to be way past issues of gender and race, I can't see enough people getting past the idea of a woman or black man being the "leader" of the country. I don't think we're there yet, especially in these xenophobic times.

I expect the Dems to nominate Hillary and then she'll get smacked up in the general election by Romney or Huckabee.

And at any rate, getting the "right person" in the White House, ain't gonna make a damn bit of meaningful, progressive difference unless massive numbers of people are willing to get out there and change the moral and political atmosphere to make change possible.

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

i don't like Hilary is because she doesn't stick to her ground, or ideals, like Kucinich does. but i don't hate her for it. she's a politician, and that's what you have to expect out of her. anything truthful is bonus.

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

I also feel the visceral anger when I imagine Hillary becoming president. The reasons are many.

We need a visionary leader for this country, someone like Dennis Kucinich or Al Gore. Hillary is not a visionary. Her vision is to become President. It doesn't go much further. I loved her vision 10 years ago, but that we should be past that now. We need a new leader with a new vision.

Secondly, I don't want a Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton presidency. That would be horrible. We would be the laughingstock of the world, more than we are already.

When I listen to candidates, I get an inner feeling about who "gets it" and who doesn't. Obama mostly gets it, Edwards totally gets it, and Kucinich owns it. But Hillary doesn't seem to get to the heart of issues, and talks around them. I am tired of phony rhetoric, and I want a President who knows how policy affects regular people.

Finally, Hillary is getting the most money from corporations and lobbyists. Her allegience is to corporations, not to the American people. In that way she is no different than Bush.

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

1) Iraq. She's a colonialist. She's a neo-con. Voted for the war. She only finds fault with the execution of it, not the war itself.

2) She'd raise taxes. The last thing this government needs is more money. Why can't they get from their supporters(corporations). Americans pay the taxes, corporations get the representation.

3) Slimy. Expect 4 more years of lies. She's Bush in a dress.

4) Has done nothing in the Senate which demonstrates her ability to be President.

5) She's said nothing about restoring democracy, therefore I must assume she's happy with the destruction of it. Free Speech Zones? Nope. Black Water Mercenaries? Nope. Due Process? Nope. Corporate personhood? Nope. Torture? It's just a talking point.

6) Cannot trust anything she has to say, so there's no reason to spend a vote on her. "Better than Bush" is not enough of a reason.

7) She would expand government. Last thing we need is more government. They have proven themselves to be unworthy of trust, and unable to do anything productive.

8) Where's the Iraq exit strategy? Oh yeah, there isn't one, because there's going to be no exit from Iraq. She's going to continue Bush policies in the middle east.

9) Hillary Clinton is one of the top Democratic recipients of pro-Israel funds. I want a President who is working for the USA, as a full-time job. Not working the night shift for Israel.

10) Since she's been bought and paid for by Israel, she would attack Iran if the opportunity(excuse) presented itself.

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

I will refrain from saying that I just don't trust Hillary since that is not a "tangible" reason. But the tangibles still give me plenty of reason not to like her. Here are a few:

1. She voted for the Iraq war (and later said she did not read the State Dept. brief on WMD's)
2. She voted for the Patriot Act.
3. She voted to RENEW the Patriot Act 5 yrs. later!!
4. She is a hawk on Iran.
5. She's letting that shiester Terry McAuliffe run her campaign.
6. She took money from Murdoch!!!

There are plenty of other reasons why Hillary is not to be trusted. The American worker has been getting screwed hard the last 25 yrs. I don't see someone with giant stake in Walmart doing anything to change that. Hillary, put your money where your mouth is!

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

Voted for Patriot Act....Voted to renew it. This is the most Orwellian and unAmerican law since Reagan's Omnibus Drug Bill.

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

... because, unlike most Hillary supporters (niliadis, for example) my knowledge of her political career is not limited to her campaign press releases and that ghost-written stack of kindling she calls a biography. Once upon a time, Hillary was a crusader for civil liberties, for democracy, for the best traditions of American freedom and justice. But time has a way of changing people, and Washington D.C., doubly so. The Hillary Clinton who genuinely cared about Liberty and Justice For All is long gone, replaced by a sock-puppet of the military industrial complex who cares only about furthering her own political career. She'll bandwagon with anyone--and I do mean ANYONE--who she thinks will help her get what she wants, from the Communist Party to the PNAC and anything in between; she's the best presidential candidate money can buy.

Other comments above have succinctly summed up the reasons why I will not under any circumstances vote for Hillary Clinton. And I'll add one more to the pot: a few months ago during the first Youtube debate, the candidates were asked whether or not they would hold meetings with foreign leaders--even America's enemies--to discuss peace. Clinton's response was impressively cynical: "I don't want to be used for propaganda purposes. I don't want to make a situation even worse." You combine this with her stance on Iran and Syria and you get the overall message: Hillary believes in a form of diplomacy that involves aircraft carriers, threats, sanctions, isolation, unilateralism. This is nothing more than a thinly-veiled rehash of Bush-style imperialism.

I refuse to vote for Hillary because I refuse to vote for an imperial president. I have no desire to dominate the rest of the world economically, politically or militarily, so I will not vote for any president who does.

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

I wore out the "5" key on my computer.

If only some of the above commenters were at that symposium. That would have been fun to watch.

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

I don't care for Hillary because I wan't a President who is willing to stand up for what they believe in even when it's unpopular. I believe MLK said something to the effect of "A measure of ones character isn't where they stand during times of comfort but where they stand during times of trial and controversey? Does Hillary ever take a stand without having run it by the polls and focus groups? Other than voting for the Iraq war (which was popular at the time) has she taken an "unpopular" stance on ANYTHING soley because it was the right thing to do?

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

She is in bed with AIPAC and zionist ideology.

She won't say so publicly, but that is the reason she voted for the Iraq war, and why she voted to label the Iranian guard as a terrorist organization.

I'm a life long Dem, but depending on the Republican candidate, I'd switch parties before I'd vote for her. It's unfortunate because I was hoping to be bale to elect a woman president, but she's not the one.

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

I do not hate Hillary but I do profounsly disagree with her on some issues and this coupled with the obvious greatness of Barack Obama have led me to support him. To suggest that Obama is secretly an Iraq War cheerleader in the Hillary mold is patently untrue. He opposed this war in 2002 and has continued to do so since then making speeches on several occasions highlighting his opposition. The votes on war funding are extremely difficult votes to make because no one, regardless of their view on the war, wants to jeapordize the troops. As long as our soldiers are in harm's way they should have all the support they need. This is not the same as supporting the war and Obama is the only major candidate in either party to have taken a consistent anti-war stance since the start. Further, Hillary's apparent gleeful willingness to join in the saber-rattling with regard to Iran is a dangerous reminder of her lack of judgment over foreign policy issues.
In saying this however, it should be made clear that I think her a vast improvement over any of the Republicans and she would be an adequate President. But this is the problem: adequate ain't gonna cut it. We need inspirational leadership and judgment (which she has proven she does not have) to tackle America's and the world's problems and to bring about the change we need. Obama brings all this and more to the table.

I do not hate Hillary but I disagree with her on what I think are wholly reasonable points of contention. The question we should be asking is why do you, sir, appear to dislike Obama or the other Democratic candidates so much? Why do you like Hillary so much?

Obama '08!

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

I don't HATE her, but I want a LIBERAL

she's not

she moves relentlessly and calculatedly toward an imaginary "middle" that she feels will make her popular (or just electable)
just like her husband, but without his brilliance and empathy.

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

She is a neocon parading herself as a liberal. She doesn’t come close to representing liberal ideals if she did she wouldn’t be a Zionist or apologist for the genocide of Palestinians. I find her and her arrogant idiocy personally offensive. If she is the chosen candidate I will not vote.
At a recent debate when she was asked how she would handle working with leaders of the Middle East as a woman, her response was very pompous and a little pathetic from an American, given that the Islamic world has already had its first woman president. While here in the 21st century in enlightened America the very idea of a woman or a black man being president is historical and baffling to people.

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

there are definitely legitimate reasons to hate Hillary. Alternet posted a story in the last month describing how Hillary gets more funds from defense companies than any other Democratic OR Republican candidate. Thus ensuring her anti-war rhetoric will be just that.
There are similar issues with her healthcare plan. While during Bill's administration she seemed ready to challenge pharmacueticals and insurance companies, she is simply buying into it further, and now with an unreasonable mandate program.
None of the candidates are ideal, but I would hate to see a closeted Republican in the White House.

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

I know Bill is not Hillary and Hillary is not Bill, but you can bet your bottom dollar that they share very similar political views, philosophies, and tactics.

-Triangulation - She will pander to anyone to get power and stay in power. This political theory is what brought us the Defense of Marriage Act, Don't Ask Don't Tell and other gems like that.

- Liberal she ain't - she is dead center if not leaning right. We need someone much farther to the left to help swing the balance away from the far right wing government that we have had since 2000.

- Monarchy - If she is elected that would mean the most powerful political offices in our country have been held by two families for as long as I have been alive (born in the early 80's) Bush Sr under Reagan...then Bush Sr himself...then Clinton for two terms...then Bush Jr for two terms...now Clinton again? There are monarchs who have reigned for less time than these two families have held sway over our government.

Edwards has come out most strongly against corporate power, for gay rights, and for universal health care. Barring him I'd be more than happy for Obama to take it.

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

I have nothing against Hillary Clinton as a person.

I reject her as a Presidential candidate and Democratic Party leader because she promotes global neoliberalism backed by US militarism. She represents the DLC vision for the Democratic party, which I absolutely abhor.

DLC-type neoliberal-militarism shares the same fundamental goals as Republican neoconservativism, but with a bit more emphasis on multilateralism. In otherwords, it aims to be a more competent and efficient form of military-backed predatory corporate globalization. I can't support that global agenda.

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

will you even read the replies, I doubt it.

Anyway, you can count on the Dems to nominate another lame duck, thinking about it, it doesnt matter, demopublicans=republicrats=corrupted souls.

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

Why do you hate Guilliani and you can come up with about the same reasons to hate Hillary. Only Guilliani got divorced.

Really we don't need a New Yorker or a legacy in the White House. She has connections mainly with the republican party. She hasn't spoke out against NAFTA and there are plenty of women that I would rather vote for who are not attorneys.

Seriously Hutchinson, how much money have you made on cows? Don't put yourself in her pocket.

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

All of the above. But also simply that unflinchingly shrill, spinescraping voice of hers. There is an attitude of unrelenting self-righteousness to which she is patently not entitled.

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

It's an absurd question but I'll answer it: I don't. I'm perfectly content to have her as my Senator even though she's not the best one we've ever had (far from it - that title belongs to Daniel Patrick Moynahan)

An article on ALterNet this morning is called, "How Hillary Can Lose the Election". It should be Called, How Hillary Will Lose the Election". Forgive me for souning like a broken racord but why do you think the big pharmacuitical companies and Rupert Murdoch have been funding her campaign? It's either one of two (or both) reasons:

1. They know she can't win and they are determined that she will be the nominee

2. They have her in their pocket.

Not a very rosie scenario any way you slice it or dice it. We're you aware of the fact that John Edwards leads every poll in winning the election next year against all Republican contenders? Why isn't the corporate media reporting this fact? BECAUSE THEY WANT HILLARY CLINTON TO GET THE NOMINATION!

C'mon, folks! Wake up!

Tom Degan
Goshen, NY
Spin, Smoke and Mirrors

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

She is hated, as the author knows but does not clearly state, because of gender bias. Gender bias is alive and well in this society. It goes across all points of view and women as well as men subscribe to it. Hillary Clinton (note that she is always referred to by her first name) is a true politician. Like her rivals but no more than her rivals, except the far left ones who have nothing to lose, she has equivocated, taken corporate money and compromised principle in order to win. So have Obama and Edwards. However, unlike Obama and Edwards, she is a female, A female with power who has a real shot in a country that has NEVER ran a serious woman candidate-a candidate who might actually win. This is scary on a gut level to many men. It is clearer with Republican men, because most of them have their sexist religions to back them up and Democratic men also cloak it Better. "It's not the right time, she's not the right woman, she can't win, it's a conspiracy by the right to give her the nomination." The excuses go on and on and come out of the mouths of liberal males, who will deny to their last breath that a women in power scares them. The respondent who called Hillary Clinton "Bush in a dress" expressed gender bias most clearly. It's sad, but someday with some woman, if not this one, it will end. I hope in my lifetime.

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

Do you really want to know? Just listen to her:

“I am delighted to be the Senator from Punjab as well as from New York”

I am a career computer programmer. Most of my friends are (or rather, were) IT professionals. Nearly all of us have been driven out of our lifelong careers because of the Neo-Liberal destruction of the American workforce in order to enrich corporate CEOs, as practiced by Hillary and Bill and their buddies in the Bush cabal. Hillary has been relentless in her push to increase quotas for guestworker visas such as the H1B, L1, and the upcoming F4, which allow 25 year old young men from India (mostly of the Brahmin caste thus supporting continuing racism in india) to replace 45+ year old Americans (and displacing nearly all Blacks and women in IT--last hired and first fired...once again supporting discrimination against minorities in the US). The guestworkers then become the backbone of the offshoring operations to destroy even more American jobs, and the destruction of even more American families.

I've had to pick the toys of a five year old off the lawn after her grandmother, her sole support, was evicted after being unable to find any work as a system administrator, and the only job available (part time in a flower shop) was unable to pay the rent. Other friends are now driving trucks or cleaning bedpans.

I'm the only one left still trying to make a career in IT, and I've been unemployed for five of the last seven years, and have to take large pay cuts to get the short term jobs I can get.

What Hillary, as Senator from Punjab and head of the India Caucus, has done to destroy American families would only increase under her presidency. So I can never support her or vote for her. Ever.

Due to Hillary and the Neo-Liberals (many of them faithfully supported by those here at Alternet), I may well get to spend my retirement fighting over which cardboard box I get to place over which heating grate. So will many of you who are too naive and gullible to realize that it *will* happen to you just like it did to me and so many of my friends. But I have pledged to spend my unemployment working full time fighting against the election or re-election of any politician who sells out American workers.

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

On February 1, 2007 Senator Hillary Clinton prostituted we the people of America in her pandering address to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee/AIPAC.

Senator Clinton claimed, "Both Israelis and Americans know so well, a democracy is far more than just holding elections. Democracy has to spring from an active and open citizenry dedicated to tolerance, to respect for differences, to the rule of law, to policies that lift us up not tear us down as fellow human beings, and to the value of human life."


American Israeli, a 2006 Nobel Peace Prize Nominee, the Founder and Coordinator of ICAHD/Israeli Committee Against House Demolitions has consistently affirmed that, "Israel is a not a democracy but is an Ethnocracy, meaning a country run and controlled by a national group with some democratic elements but set up with Jews in control and structured to keep them in control." [Chapter 2, "Memoirs of a Nice Irish-American 'Girl's' Life in Occupied Territory", eileen fleming]

When Israel became a state in 1948, it was contingent upon upholding the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights which guarantees in Article 13 that:

(1) Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each state.

(2) Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country.

Israel encourages any Jew without any pre-existing historical tie to the land to migrate under the Law of Return and all receive immediate citizenship and all rights and privileges including state-financed language and Jewish history immersion, free and subsidized housing, job placement and welfare assistance while seeking employment, medical, dental and other benefits.

Israel abetted by USA blind allegiance has blatantly refused to uphold UN Resolution 194, which guarantees the Right of Return-or compensation to the indigenous population which was forced from their homes in 1948 and 1967. Clinton is unmoved by the facts on the ground that the indigenous peoples of that land have been denied human rights and dignity and that they are illegally dominated and oppressed with the aid of USA's "$1.8 billion a year in military aid and $1.2 billion in economic aid, plus another $1 billion or so in miscellaneous grants, mostly in military supplies, from various U.S. agencies. Tax exempt contributions destined to Israel bring up the total to over $5 billion annually." [Page 24, Understanding the Palestine-Israeli Conflict, Dr. Phyllis Bennis. www.tari.org ]

Clinton continued to satisfy the ignoble lusts of AIPAC as she continued to deny the truth, "Israel is a beacon of what's right in a neighborhood overshadowed by the wrongs of radicalism, extremism, despotism and terrorism. We need only look to one of Israel's greatest threats: namely, Iran. Make no mistake, Iran poses a threat not only to Israel, but to the entire Middle East and beyond… U.S. policy must be clear and unequivocal. We cannot, we should not, we must not, permit Iran to build or acquire nuclear weapons. And in dealing with this threat as I have said for a very long time, no option can be taken off the table."

On Feb. 10, 2007, Dr. Phyllis Bennis, a secular Jew, journalist, prolific author, Mid East analyst and Co-founder and Co-Chair of the US Campaign to End the Israeli Occupation stated, "Iran has signed the NPT, which allows them the right to have nuclear power and to enrich uranium. The 185 non-nuclear states have agreed to give up the right to have nuclear weapons and the five nuclear powers that signed the NPT agreed to get rid of their nuclear weapons...

TBC

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

If The Wall were actually built on Israeli land, Clinton could get a pass on her procuring for AIPAC funds, but a map of The Wall super-imposed upon Palestinian aquifers clearly illuminates that The Wall is all about grabbing land and resources from the indigenous peoples of that land.

Reported in the august, Washington Report on Middle East Affairs, "Financed with U.S. aid at a cost of $1.5 million per mile, the Israeli wall prevents residents from receiving health care and emergency medical services. In other areas, the barrier separates farmers from their olive groves which have been their families' sole livelihood for generations." [Page 43, Jan/Feb. 2007]

In Jeff Halper's April 2005 edition of Obstacles to Peace, A Re-Framing of the Palestinian-Israeli Conflict, he wrote, “Missing from Israel’s security framing is the very fact of occupation, which Israel both denies exists…and that “security” requires Israel control over the entire country…rendering impossible a just peace based on human rights, international law, reconciliation.” [Page 1]

During one of my four interviews with Jeff, he told me this joke:

“The Israeli government simply does not want to take responsibility and the USA government ignores the situation. Do you know why Israel does not want to become America’s 51st state? Because then they would only have two senators!"

They certainly have one vocal demimondaine and ultimate craving consummate pandering politician who is currently lusting for the American Presidency.



Eileen Fleming, Reporter and Editor
Http://www.wearewideawake.org/
Author "Keep Hope Alive" and "Memoirs of a Nice Irish American 'Girl's' Life in Occupied Territory"
Producer "30 Minutes With Vanunu"

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

because she is spineless and for the other reasons stated eloquently above. I am vehemently PRO-Constitution and her unwillingness to reject the so-called Patriot Acts is enough to make my blood boil. Go Dennis.

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

Perhaps someone can tell me why I first began receiving rabid anti-Hill emails while Bill was being bashed. It was shocking at first, almost as if it was all her fault. I think it just grew from there. But it doesn't make any more sense now than it did then.

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

There are hundreds of reasons to regard Hilary Clinton with contempt, as is amply shown by her record and by the comments currently posted in the present discussion.

I will add my own Top Three listing here.

Hilary Clinton stood by silently while the trade embargo against the Iraqi people, enforced and maintained by her husband, killed 850,000 Iraqi children. To state the obvious: Clinton supported alarge scale crime against humanity here.

Hilary Clinton voted in favor of the invasion and occupation of Iraq, which together have, so far, led to the deaths of more than one million civilians. More than 500,000 of the dead are children. To state the obvious once again: Clinton has supported a large scale crime against humanity and war crime here.

Hilary Clinton supports Israeli policies that every day violate the human rights of three million Palestinians. To state the obvious: Clinton continues to support this ongoing crime against humanity.

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

Does that answer your fatuous question Earl?
Hope so.
This isn't about Hillary being a woman or even a politician. It's about here being a lying war crimes appeaser. And no she's not the only one, but she is, by virtue of her position and the real opportunity she has had to influence US government decisions, which few of the rest of us have, one of the worst.

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

Its when I see articles like this that I realize all over again something I have known for a long long time.. that the Democrats are completely out of touch even with their own "base" and that they are wholly beholden as a party to the agenda of corporate America.. not to voters. They are wholly anti-democratic. I say this because choosing between the two candidates that corporate interests have picked as acceptable is NOT democracy.

Hillary will most likely be selected as the candidate for the Dems, and hardly anyone actually wants her outside of blind followers, sexists who will vote for her because of the "qualifications" in her pants, and the party/corporate elite. She stands a good chance of losing. But why should the corporate elite care? They support both sides.. and both sides choose candidates that are approved of by corporate interests.

The idea that we live in a democracy isn't a farce. Its an outright lie.

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

The reason I hate Hilary has nothing to do with her politics. I think she's a perfectly competent politician and would make a fine president, if elected. Depending who she were running against, I could easily see voting for her and being fine with my vote.

The reason I dislike her on a gut level I think is an instinctual woman thing.

That is, when her husband was being a louse, running around with interns, she didn't kick him to the curb. I personally have a big fear about a husband cheating on me. I think it would cause me a lot of pain and that's why I strive to find a trustworthy man who'll treat me right.

So when I see another woman accepting behavior I abhor, that is what makes me angry - all politics aside. It's on that level - and only on that level - that I have trouble with Hilary.

But like I said, I think she's a fine politician, and would make a fine president.

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

she voted to go to war with Iraq (she was not fooled by evil men in the White House), she voted on making the Qods force a "terrorist organization" (repeating the same mistake and with probably the same "explanation" when it goes south), she voted for Patriot Act I and II, she co-sponsored flag desecration bill, she votes to continue funding an illegal/immoral war, she objects to the war on Iraq (only after it became "safe") on the grounds of inefficiency, not morality or legality. She helped "deform" welfare as we know it. She failed in her health-care proposal. She fails to call for the impeachment of Bush/Cheney and the rest of the liars that routinely lie to her and the rest of the Senate. She admits to never having read the NIE which preceded Bush war on Iraq. She was a Director of Wal-Mart (not a friend to the working-class)

But mostly? She has an unquenchable "will to power" and I think she is closer to the Machavellians running US policy currently than she would admit to. She "stood by her man" because without Bill she is not going to have a power base. She is, what I would call a feminist of convenience, using "feminism" as both a crutch and a weapon. She started out a GoldWater Republican (and leopards do not change their spots)

This is a person that truly represents the other wing of the National WarParty (motto: Our oil is under their sand and we aim to correct that). She will be the candidate of the too loyal opposition and for that reason I urge Americans to strike/boycott in 08!

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

Health care is perhaps Hillary Clinton's signature issue. But during Bill Clinton's presidency, Hillary took the lead on a plan that was a love letter to the five giant corporate insurers, that would have handed them control of over a trillion dollars of health care spending, newly privatizing $400 million in public money. A plan that she developed in partnership with those corporate giants at Jackson Hole. A plan that earned the opposition of hundreds of smaller insurers. Remember Harry and Louise? The big insurers had no part in that campaign. A plan that was far too complex to sell to the electorate. Rather than take on the health insurance industry as a whole, she took sides with its wealthiest and most powerful segment. This was against the people's interest. Millions have suffered for it and continue to suffer for it. Ultimately, her plan set back efforts to reform our health care financing system by more than a decade. She remains, among the candidates from all parties, the one that has taken the most money from the health insurance industry, and her current proposal reflects that.

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

Hillary Clinton played a lead role in wiping out the "New Deal" policies that had so successfully enabled people to move out of poverty. Our economic disparities dramatically increased. She actually began working toward "dismantling the social safety net" prior to becoming First Lady. Public dollars were simply tranferred from aid to our needy over to covering the costs of continued "tax relief" for our richest. Above all, and precisely because it was a Dem administration that enacted these policies, fulfilling the greatest dream of the ultra-conservatives, the discussion of American poverty was simply removed from the public forum, as the previous comments here show. Today, we as a nation believe it is wrong to help the poor here ("don't feed the pigeons"), yet see nothing wrong about pouring billions of tax dollars into "tax relief" for corporations---which they use to move our jobs to foreign nations. There is no outrage about the sharply increased rates of hunger and homelessness, etc.

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

I don't even hate Bush. He's been enormously successful. I admire him. However I disagree with his every utterance and I find myself in the same position regarding Hillary and Bill who have both in their own way presided over the collapse of the Democratic Party that enabled the right wing takeover of our country (they were not alone: the DLC and other deceptive "democrats" helped). All you have to do is look at the results from the Democratic Party since Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan (they laid down for him and never got up); and you have to wonder what would be the motive to vote for Democrats absent at least an apology or some acknowledgment of 30 years of steady losses, as opposed to waiting until the right-wingers bring about the collapse of our system so that a modicum of justice might be demanded from a currently distracted majority. It wouldn't be pretty but it isn't pretty now, either.

This is not a time for hate or love but for hard critical thinking and productive action.

dci

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

If I wanted to elect someone with Sen. Clinton's voting record, I'd join the GOP. Just about every evil scheme Bush has gotten through Congress has her signature affixed to it. She inspires such loathing among Republicans and fails to inspire a majority of Democrats about anything that her nomination is tantamount to a default win for the GOP in '08.

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

Click here for a full page of reasons! Then, after you have had your fill of her, hit the "BACK" link (at the bottom of the page) to see how she fits into the larger set problems that must be confronted.

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

that most people don't even stop and question what's going on. The propaganda has been a huge part of the right-wing rhetoric and has become ingrained. Like the so-called "Clinton-Bush fatigue", (funny how that seems to come from the right)where we're supposed to be getting tired of the Clintons and Bushes being in charge. Well, the Bush's have been in positions of power since the Nixon days, and Bush, Sr was most likely in charge during Reagan's, so that's a long time with disastrous results. But Bill Clinton was only in national office for eight years, and the entire time the right wingers were trying to destroy the Clintons politically and personally. Hillary-hating is just more of the same propaganda.

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

The very insinuation that people who "hate" on Hillary (most don't actually just hate her--except for maybe our friends on the right--they simply don't TRUST her and for lots of good reasons) have no basis on which to criticize her is a huge fallacy. Hillary has demonstrated herself to be, over a lenghty time as First Lady and in the Senate, out-of-touch with people at many levels of society, motivated primarily by the same corrupt system that has railroaded the American experiment closer to the brink of failure than ever before in its recent history, and completely and repeatedly insincere about her issue positions.

There's just no reason to criticize people who criticize Hillary by calling her out on what she desperately wants to hide--that fact that if you trust her you will be burned.

This entire article is nothing but a straw-man defense of her, not any honest effort to evaluate the legitimacy of those who have excellent reasons not to trust her.

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

since Bill was elected. Remember when we had fair elections?

They have been working to destroy her for years now. I have nothing against her except she is too central for me, but I know she will bring out the right wing nut cases who will come out in droves and rig voting machines to defeat her.

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

All of the above comments on why we don't want Hillary in the Whitehouse are valid. But I didn't see any mention of both her and Bill's relationship to the Bilderberg group...an elitist, corporatist group with a long history of planning a one-world government by them with the rest of us as controlled peons. The present Bushco admin. has been all about setting up the controls of the U.S citizens with "marshal law" executive orders right down to S. 1959 which is in the Senate now (and I hope you are all writing in to protest it). Ask yourself, will Hillary strike down all the unconstitutional orders and repressive laws Bushco has created if she becomes President?? But don't trust me on this...google it and find out for yourselves how scary it is. Then you can rent "America:From Freedom to Fascism" and get really scared.

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

"With Great Power comes Great Responsibility."

That's why most of us have negative feelings about her, and all the other craptastic candidates chosen for us by the aristocracy.

Ya hear that Earl? Grow up and join the 21st Century already.

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

I don't hate Hillary. I would love a woman in the Whitehouse. BUT

I'm not a Clinton fan because I believe we'd have four years of talking about her hair, her dress, her manicure,her shoes. I don't think the press will let us solve the serious problems facing this nation with Hillary at the helm. Frankly the masses are just to shallow to deal with reality.

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

Google video 'clinton chronicles'. Get your news from the internet before it's too late. Vote 4 liberty + justice. Wake up. Become the media. Join the rEVOLution.

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

I think one's position on Hillary is governed entirely by party, governmental philosophy, and gender considerations. I think straight male WASP types, the bulk of neocon and GOP voters, hate her because her intellect, like Adlai Stevenson's, is threatening and offensive to macho sensibilities. If you read David Brock's Blinded by the Right, you come to the conclusion that the Richard Mellon Shaifes of this world so despise the Clintons they would do anything short of assassination (which, for all I know, may still be "on the table") to prevent her ascendancy. I live in Texas, and we see a lot of "Anyone But Hillary" stickers on SUV'S all the time.

Middle class women don't trust her because they're a little jealous of her talent and moxie. Younger, struggling workplace women admire the same traits, but she's nowhere near as handsome as Mitt, enough eye candy to last at least four years. (On the other hand, some of these ladies might want an abortion some day, and if Mitt has his way, there'll be no freedom of choice.)

Liberals of both sexes dislike her vote on the Iraqi invasion, and many view her as either a sell-out, cop-out, or evidence that "there really isn't any real difference between the two parties."

Evangelicals think she's likely just as immoral as Bill, and some of their women folk probably equate her Tammy Wynettist take-Bill-back exercise of Christian forgiveness as nothing more than staying hitched for opportunistic political purposes.

Me, I can't wait to see her debate any of the phoneys, hypocrites, bigots, Dangerous Lunatics, and single-issue candidates running for the GOP nomination. She'll wipe up the stage with the lot of them. Go, girl, go!

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

Martin Luther King made the statement that a person who does not have a cause they are willing to die for is not fit to live. This applies to Hillary in spades. She has yet to advocate any cause before it becomes mainstream and has no star to guide her. She has done nothing that was unpopular just because she felt it was the right thing to do.

It isn't so much what she has done, although parroting Bush is bad enough, but what she hasn't done. She has never fought for the underdog, she has never spoken truth to power, she has never stood up to oppression. She reminds me of the Catholic Church in postSpanish Conquest Latin America, mouthing platitudes about caring for the downtrodden while doing quite well, thank you, by making sure they don't do anything to interfere with the power structure.

An example? How about the funding she's been getting from the health care industry including Big Pharm. Those boys don't just throw money away. They know that they will get a good return on their investment. The same thing applies to the military/industrial complex as well as the financial sector that is responsible for the present mortgage disaster. All of these people have been funding her almost exclusively with mere pittances to other candidates.

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

Hillary Clinton has a certain body language that tends to evoke a negative reaction among men. She is the parent that does not listen. She is the mother without feelings. She is the wife who is always correcting her husband´s opinion. She is the woman who doles out sex for good behavior. Her feelings and opinions matter and she defends them with a form of discipline that reminds one of the teacher that corrected one in the primary school. Hillary is not the person you love. She is the partner in crime. If caught then she has the better argument as to why you should go to jail and she goes free. She is the person you say yes to get rid of her. When she first arrived in Arkansas with Bill Clinton she lived his sexual handicap and used it or perhaps promoted it to bind the relationship. Her defense of Bill Clinton with Monica was a down right lie but she forced staff and employees to tow the line. The statements of the secret service or the people who had or have contact with the Clinton´s are aware of the friction created by living with Hillary. In Bill´s case if he leaves her then he is exposed to her wrath. The one daughter binds them. The past and present business dealings are also ammunition to keep Bill in line. Hillary is confronted with the Web2.0 world and she is not in the position to hide her past but she through her contacts is able to punish any one who steps in her path. I think Hilary is goal orientated and is prepared to hurt or stop anyone, who is ready to confront her, with out moral or logic. When wrong she has a reason and a scape goat. She is not willing to prepare a good lie because she feels strong enough to control and stop the press questions. I think that Hillary is also a victim of herself. She could not get a man for the basic reasons and managed to get Bill based on some unknown reason, perhaps something that is a personal disaster to the both of them. I think they both have a problem and express themselves accordingly. Regarding her political values she is not willing to make her stand in an open field. She has to have a corrupt scenario in order to escape the responsibility of her doings. If she fails in this election then she will be out in the open and will have to deal with the pending legal problems that Bill and she have with Peter F. Paul and perhaps Norman Hsu. It is absolute critical that she get elected and then she can force the courts to delay or over look their situation. I do believe that many of the supporters have not taken the time to research Hillary and Bill. If so then they would have fear for them and perhaps the country. I could see Hillary creating a crisis to avoid having to expose herself to an honest legal system. I could see her putting pressure on the special interest groups to support any defense mechanisms she can conceive of. Take Hillary´s problems and combine them with Bill ´s doings and both will end up neglecting the public interest. The Voters will be the last in the survival chain. Looking at Bush and seeing what he has done and how no one was in the position to stop him then I can vision how the scene will look when Hillary gets rolling. Hate for Hillary is too much. Rejecting her, preventing her, stopping her for the want of better words. Contempt for the lack of a moral standpoint or an understanding and respect for the meaning of America yes. The Chinese say that to hate someone is a sign that you need them and this is the highest respect you can pay them.
I can only say God bless America and protect it,

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

Her chief strategist is Mark Penn, CEO of Burson-Marsteller. A partial list of Burson-Marsteller clients whose public images they were hired to refurbish is posted below. The CEO of Burson-Marsteller is Hillary Clinton's pollster and chief campaign strategist, Mark Penn. A brief list of some of their most unsavory list follows. Don't have a link for the most recent--the toy company that imported the date-rape drug.

Philip Morris
Second-hand tobacco smoke is good for you.


Entergy Nuclear and its little problem with their cooling towers collapsing on their nuclear power plant in Vermont
No big deal.


Three-Mile Island 1979 accident
Nukes forever!


Union Carbide and its Bhopal chemical disaster in India 20 years ago
Just dead brown people. Yawn.


The government of Saudi Arabia three days after 9/11, embarrassed by the hijackers being mostly Saudi
Our 'ally' in the war on terror.

Former Romanian dictator Nicolai Ceausescu
Just misunderstood.


The military junta that overthrew the government of Argentina in 1976
what 'disappeared' people?


The government of Indonesia, perpetrators of genocide in East Timor
Genocide? Nope, just an uppity province.


Their newest marquee public relations client--Blackwater mercenaries
Fundie whackos armed and dangerous


And don't forget that Burson-Marsteller has long bragged about its successful tactics for countering union organizing
'Modern' workers certainly don't need unions.

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

http://www.thought-criminal.org/article/node/909

In addition to taking a gander at this site, consider her campaign contributions from Rupert Murdoch, the Australian fascist and FOX News owner.

Consider her voting record of unbridled and unapologetic support for the Bush campaign and Iraq war.

Then see her video of endorsement of the Iran war:
The real big election winner may well not be Hillary so much as the Republican neo-cons and Christian Zionists who win if she wins.

Don't believe it? Just google 'Hillary Clinton AIPAC' and then try 'Rev. Hagee AIPAC', the self described Christian Zionist, and you will see that Hillary's agenda is not only a reflected by her abysmal voting record for the Bush agenda, but a committment to AIPAC for a nuclear invasion of Iran. She has tacitly endorsed of the rapture cult. She is the darling of the Israel lobby that has tirelessly pushed for invasion of Iran.

Hillary = perpetual war and war profiteering and corporatism.

That is why Hillary Clinton is a pox on America.

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

It's simple. We hate Hilary because she is a politician. And we expect something more from her because she is a woman. But if she were to play the game differently, we would collectively chant that she is acting just like a woman, she's not a realist and too soft. In short, Hilary is screwed no matter what she does because of our conflicting beliefs about gender. Finally, all of your reader's comments are beside the point. Their explanations do not explain the venom in their critiques and the media focus on her.

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

Bush Bush Clinton Bush....
Enough.

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

Why is that so many stupid people assume that if you are black and supporting Obama, it's because of his race? These are the same idiots who think all women are supporting Hilary. People like that never stop to think that those of us who may be supporting Obama or Hilary might be doing so because they agree with their politics.

It's funny that no one ever asks white guys just why they're always willing to put yet another white guy in the Oval Office.

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

I think Mr. E.O.Hutchinson should just resign. He seems not to have the time or desire to research why people would dislike Hillary and print it...Yet it IS being put out there by other reporters/columnists. Check out this : http://www.fpif.org/fpiftxt/4802 An article in Foreign Policy in Focus on Hillary's support of Bush war policies. Then google Bush Sr.'s friendship with Bill. Then google Bilderberg candidates, then Starr cover-ups.

Why don't you do some research, Mr Hutchinson??

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

She is a Democrat In Name Only, as are so many of our Democratic Congress members. She sounded exactly like Bush and Cheney in 2002 with the speeches she gave in support of the war and how Iraq had WMDs and Saddam had something to do with 9/11. She is a war monger and a corporate whore.

She's had 15 years to come up with a health plan, but she takes lots and lots of money from the health insurance companies and now she's in their pocket and would require that we pay into this corrupt system. How is that fixing our broken health care system? Dennis Kucinich is the only one with a Universal, not-for-profit, single-payer healthcare-for-all plan paid for with the $300 billion spent on paperwork alone generated by the private health care industry, and the millions of our tax dollars that go to these companies as government subsidies. If the health insurance companies are done away with, more than enough money is freed up to ACTUALLY give us health care instead of corporations profiting from NOT giving us health care. Hillary and the rest of the candidates are just a bunch of insurance salesmen.

Hillary is now saying things that are completely opposite of how she has voted in the past. Her advisers tell her not to take a strong stand on anything- to stay neutral. I want a President with courage which is something she completely lacks. She panders to the right hoping they'll like her, but she needs to accept the fact that no matter how much she acts like them, they'll never like her, so she might as well try to keep her "base" (the left, supposedly) happy.

She disgusts me. But the others aren't much better. Besides Kucinich & Gravel, the rest really aren't that different from Bush.

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

This has been great. Let's do it again sometime.
You bring the matches and we'll bring the gasoline.
I think you did this on purpose. (Not that 'ol Hil doesn't deserve the stake...)

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

Yeah, Earl, and why don't you read your own Alternet's article on Hillary's racist drug war stance. And I vaguely remember staff complaining about a lot of racist slurs during Clinton administrations...do some of you readers remember that? Have you been bought out by the corporatists, Earl?

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

THE TORRES-VIGNALI CONNECTION is explored in detail in a congressional report that resulted from Pardongate, when revelations surfaced that President Clinton granted clemency for Carlos Vignali Jr. — convicted of drug trafficking and sentenced to 15 years in federal prison in 1995 — along with other convicted criminals and one-time international fugitive Marc Rich. The granting of clemency occurred after payments were made to Clinton’s brother-in-law, Hugh Rodham, the brother of former first lady, New York state senator and 2008 Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton.


Released in March 2002 by the congressional Committee on Government Reform, “Justice Undone: Clemency Decisions in the Clinton White House” details Hugh Rodham’s involvement in the Vignali affair, as well as the long business history Vignali once shared with George Torres.

The report takes to task top L.A. elected officials, including county Supervisor Gloria Molina, then–state Senator Richard Polanco, then–state Assemblyman Antonio Villaraigosa and U.S. Representative Xavier Becerra, among others, for lobbying on behalf of Vignali Jr., in light of his drug conviction and the fact that DEA agents long suspected Vignali Sr. to be involved in drug trafficking — along with Torres. While a member of the California state Assembly, Villaraigosa wrote the first letter on Vignali’s behalf on May 24, 1996.


Saying Hillary Rodham Clinton was a leader who offered a new path, Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa today formally endorsed the New York senator and former first lady in her race to become president of the United States.

Villaraigosa will also serve as one of the four national chairs of Clinton’s campaign for the Democratic nomination for president, it was announced.

At a televised news conference from the UCLA campus in Westwood, Villaraigosa praised Clinton’s approach to domestic issues, particularly education, and her pledge to help end the war in Iraq. The pair earlier toured the preschool at UCLA’s Krieger Center. — La Times

http://mayorvillaraigosasdemons.blogspot.com/

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

Here's the simple explanation, which traces back to a nursery rhyme,which traces back to a
Roman philosopher: "I do not like thee Doctor Fell, the reason why I cannot tell, but this I know and know full well, I DO NOT LIKE THEE DOCTOR FELL."
It's a gut level reaction, although pretending to be a rational one, which is how most political choices are made. A recent book by psychologist Drew Westen, "The Political Brain: The Role of Emotions in Deciding The Fate of the Nation", explains the psychoneurological process to which most of us fall prey.
But there is an upside to this. If we muster the courage to examine our emotional reactions, whether to Hillary or any other hot-button political issue, we can ferret out the underlying reasons for our choices. For myself, I don't trust her sincerity for a number of reasons, but I believe she would do a better job as president than all the Republican prospects, except maybe John McCain. But given a choice of those two, I would vote for Hillary simply because she would select Democrats as cabinet members and heads of important agencies [for example, FCC]. And that would be better for the nation and the world.

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

Her association with Wal Mart and the fact that Rupert Murdoch is backing her. Friends of my enemies are . . . not my friends!

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

Your assertion, Earl, that because one vacant Hillary-hater is stumped when a microphone is stuck in front of his face, everyone who opposes Hillary must be irrational and inarticulate, is itself an irrational leap.

I don't hate Hillary, but I oppose her, and I'll vote for a third-party candidate if she's the Democratic nominee. And I have no difficulty expressing my reasons.

She's corrupt.

She takes money from many of the same corporatists that gave us Bush.

She is part of a political dynasty which, we have seen, pursues a corporatist agenda with scarcely less vigour than the Rupugs.

She'll give us an FDA staffed by corporatists, just as her husband did. She'll shove free trade down our throats and continue to destroy the American middle class. She'll continue the corporatist war in Iraq and fight to protect Big Oil interests there. She'll refuse to use increased taxes to wean us off of burning fuels that are leading to global warming. She'll fight against government-sponsored universal health care and will fight to protect the insurance industry, no matter what abuses exist. She'll honor Bush's deregulation of just about everything and continue down that super-capitalist road.

She's not one of us, the progressive wing of the Democratic party. Can you blame us for rejecting her?

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

For those of us who hold the core values of the American Progressive or Liberal voter Mrs. Clinton is the proper candidate for the times, which certainly do not favor a rational, humanistic approach to public policy. With her at the helm we do not have to fear that the wealthy will be seen as more virtuous than the poor, or that her executive team are anxious to play "war" with real soldiers and guns, or that sexual infantilism will underpin social, medical, and educational programs.

While she may not really be a good listener, her experience in Washington over the past 15 years has taught her to play a better game of soliciting opinions on matters she thinks she has already figured out. Where necessary she will accommodate the opposition, believing that half a loaf can make a lot of sandwiches, and that she'd rather be President than Right.

We had a brief period of true Liberalism during the 50's and sixties, as one conservative law after another was struck down and government was expected to study and solve the big social ills of poverty, prejudice, educational failure, and crime. While things were far from perfect back then, a Progressive was consoled with the understanding that we seemed to be headed in the right direction.

Of course, the war in Viet Nam grew into a monster that brought down what could have been a much more golden age. Ever since then we've lived in a reactionary phase that has swept away much of the progress made so long ago, and we find ourselves having to defend against the re-emergence of McCarthyism, religious domination of the public sphere, and xenophobia.

If we evaluate the current scene realistically, we must accept a leader whose heart is guided by Eleanor Roosevelt but whose head is the network executive who knows what will play in Peoria.

Like many other old Lefties, I'm much more charmed by some of the other public figures who are running for the Democratic nomination, or COULD be running, but I think we need more Hubert Humphrey today and less Gene McCarthy.

Ol' HHH was really an OK guy, anyway. And let's face it, he'd have done a lot more for us than Tricky Dick did. C'mon, let's show a little political maturity: get behind Hillary, who'll get the best possible job done under some really awful conditions.

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