Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
  • 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.

Hillary Clinton's Campaign: The Making of a Machine

By Steven Rosenfeld, AlterNet. Posted January 25, 2008.


Obama is not just running against another senator, he is running against personal and political ties -- the deepest Democratic campaign in years.

Share and save this post:
Digg iconDelicious iconReddit iconFark iconYahoo! iconNewsvine! iconFacebook iconNewsTrust icon

More stories by Steven Rosenfeld

Get AlterNet in
your mailbox!

 
Advertisement

It's before 9 in the morning on a chilly, tree-lined street in South Carolina's capital city, Columbia, and the minivans and cars are converging on a pre-Civil War home owned by Celia Mann, a slave who bought her freedom. There are 48 hours left before the state's Democratic primary election, and "Women for Hillary" are holding a reception before fanning out to five cities to urge women to support Hillary Clinton.

"Those of you who know me know that women's history is my passion," said Anne Lewis, who heads the Clinton campaign's outreach to women. She spoke to three dozen women and a handful of men who lingered around a historic preservation signpost that extolled Celia Mann's accomplishment. "When I read that sign and walk through that house, I think, 'If she can do it, every one of us can do it, too.'"

Those who came were a mix of ordinary and extraordinary women, from local girl scout troop leader Judy Cartwright, who said of Clinton, "She's been to the White House with her husband, and she's going back to the White House," to Ellen Malcolm, who created EMILY's List, which stands for Early Money Is Like Yeast, and has raised millions in campaign cash for pro-choice candidates for years. Motown pop star Mary Wilson of the Supremes was there, as was Rep. Laura Richardson, D-Calif., the second-newest member of the House of Representatives. "I am the same age as Sen. Obama," she said. "I am from a mixed-race family like him. Why would a young African-American woman like me support Sen. Clinton?"

Indeed, that is the question; what is behind the strength of Hillary Clinton's powerful appeal to women and others, including African-Americans, in Saturday's primary? Those assembled for the "All Voices Count" kickoff on Thursday morning had personal and political reasons for not just backing Clinton, but for making her struggle their own. Their reasons were repeated by many elected officials -- from South Carolina and elsewhere -- who were working for Clinton in the state. Together, their presence and voices have created a new and powerful political machine that is invested in expanding the legacy started by America's 42nd president, William Jefferson Clinton.

Some of those at the Krispy Kreme donuts and coffee kickoff just liked Hillary Clinton, and said, echoing the well-known campaign talking point, that she was prepared to lead. "She knows the job that she has to do and the job she is faced with," Cartwright said. "I think she is strong enough to do the job." Cartwright, an African-American, said gender and race had nothing to do with it. "It's who will be best. She's more experienced."

Standing with Cartwright was Fay Shorter, also from Columbia. When asked if she had considered Sen. Barack Obama, she replied with a feisty, "Oh, yes. But I can't do that."

"I was excited when he became a candidate," she explained. "I'm not saying that he is not smart and knowledgeable. But in this day and time, the person with the most knowledge and experience who can best serve this country is Hillary Clinton." When asked what she meant by experience, Shorter replied, "Working with her husband, naturally. But she stands on her own. I can remember when she came to Columbia to work with the Children's Defense Fund many years before Bill was president. She is a leader."

Hillary Clinton's work for children was no mere talking point in this crowd. The women here said that early effort as a young lawyer resonated with them as much as her personal fight to break glass ceilings during her career. Clinton's struggle was their struggle, they said, and no one expressed that sentiment more clearly than Marguerite Willis, an upbeat lawyer who made the rounds saying, "I'm from Florence, married to the mayor down there." Willis, who interrupted her conversation with several "Hello darling, how are you?" greetings, said she and Clinton have faced the same hurdles professionally.

"I am an antitrust lawyer," Willis said. "Hillary Clinton and I are about the same age. We have similar backgrounds. As a woman who has spent many years developing her own career, I relate to her as someone who has put in 35 years of service. I have that camaraderie. Her success is my success. We both struggle with the so-called glass ceilings."

Those were her personal reasons. But she had political reasons as well. "The issues that are most important for South Carolina are bread-and-butter issues that are important to women," Willis said. "In South Carolina, we are undereducated and underemployed. We need jobs. We need better skills. We need better healthcare. And the face of poverty in South Carolina is a single mother in the rural areas, like where Florence is."

But was not Obama, a lawyer who spent several years doing community organizing and voting rights advocacy in Chicago, also an advocate for the poor, Willis was asked. She responded with a raised eyebrow and said, "The difference with Obama and Hillary is Obama did community organizing, but Hillary worked for kids ... Women in this state make 72 cents for every dollar a man earns."

But there was more to Hillary Clinton's appeal to women than her advocacy for children, the camaraderie of pushing through social barriers and glass ceilings, and even standing with her man while Bill Clinton was president.


Digg!

See more stories tagged with: presidential primary, south carolina, clinton campaign, bill clinton, hillary clinton, hillary

Steven Rosenfeld is a senior fellow at Alternet.org and co-author of What Happened in Ohio: A Documentary Record of Theft and Fraud in the 2004 Election, with Bob Fitrakis and Harvey Wasserman (The New Press, 2006).

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


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:
What's missing here? Right - Edwards, Kucinich, and the real issues.
Posted by: thoughtcriminal on Jan 25, 2008 12:29 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Obama and Clinton are almost indistinguishable from one another - their basic policies on the invasion of Iraq, the unregulated financial system, domestic spying, and U.S. trade deals are essentially identical.

Edwards and Kucinich, on the other hand, continually bring up the issues (Kucinich does a better job of taking on the issues than Edwards does, which is probably why he's been so persistenly excluded from the debates).

The real issues include poor wages for working people, corporate-controlled trade deals, media conglomeration, global warming and renewable energy, ridiculously expensive health care, the rising gap between the rich and the poor, U.S. militarism abroad, our highly flawed and untrustworthy voting system, environmental pollution that hits the poorest regions hardest, and so on.

This article doesn't discuss ANY of those critical topics in depth, and continues to run with the corporate media's "Obama vs. Clinton" theme - when the vast majority of U.S. citizens haven't even had a chance to vote yet, or even to hear much from Kucinich, or from Edwards, for that matter.

I'm somewhat hopeful that the childish and immature bickering between Clinton and Obama on topics unrelated to real issues will lead people to vote for Edwards - but we'll see.

Right now, I'm trying to decide between voting for Kucinich or voting for Edwards - but I'll vote for whoever wins the Democratic primary, just to make sure that BushCo. is sent packing (or better yet, to prison).

However, this article is deeply disappointing, to say the least.

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

Terrorist
Posted by: HeKnew on Jan 25, 2008 1:52 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Vote Republicrat

Clinton / Huckabee in '08

A Vote of Confidence Amendment will enable the American voting public to dismiss and hold over for criminal prosecution any elected official who fails in their obligation to serve the people of the United States.

VOCA, now

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

» RE: Terrorist Posted by: willymack
Praise for Hillary, on AlterNet: I can't believe it!
Posted by: johnp on Jan 25, 2008 3:29 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
As I read this piece, I was thunderstruck. There were no republican, hateful talking points, no Chris Matthews demeaning comments about Hillary and women, it was a fair argument, made on Hillary's behalf. I almost fell over in astonishment. I was certain that AlterNet was as cowardly as all other apparently left of center, underground, media organizations, and felt the obligation to hurt Hillary's chances at every turn. But I was stunned to see, that, at least at this moment, Alternet had elected to publish a fairly commplimentary peice about the former First Lady. I'm forced to applaud AlterNet, more for its courage, than anything else.

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

» What is it with you people?! Posted by: skoog5600
» RE: Such anger! Posted by: xbj
» RE: Such anger! Posted by: skoog5600
» Gotcha! Posted by: xbj
I'm getting sick of the Democrats
Posted by: g50 on Jan 25, 2008 4:08 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I am so tired of the Clintons. I would vote for a Republican if it will cause the Clintons to retire.

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

» RE: I'm getting sick of the Democrats Posted by: nochicagoboys
» Angry person Posted by: xbj
Sorry, this comment has been removed from the system.
Sorry, this comment has been removed from the system.
» RE: Angry person Posted by: Joe
» RE: I'm getting sick of the Democrats Posted by: nochicagoboys
» Some liberal democrat you are Posted by: 2dogarage
» RE: I'm getting sick of the Hillary Posted by: nochicagoboys
» RE: I'm getting sick of the Democrats Posted by: nochicagoboys
SHEEP get TRAPPED & FOOLED again
Posted by: LookOut on Jan 25, 2008 5:55 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This story is rather typical of the faux “left”. All about celebrity candidates and how they move and pitch their slogans. Never mind why these shills actually run and for who under the skin-deep campaigns.

Shocking what the good little sheep will believe.

In the end the gullible will vote for “who will be best” at representing Fascist criminals and “more experienced” at selling the country down the river for endless war and blood money dysfunction.

The monopoly corporate parasites that put Clintons, Obama, McCaine and the whole scurvy lot into Washington must be very pleased at how easily Americans can be trapped and fooled again by the pointless charade of a “left” and “right” theatre at DC.

The cartel “machine” behind the Clintons and the rest has been same since the Gilded Age. It’s just gotten a bit more clever for its control of the media and far more vicious overall.

Those behind Clinton, McCaine and the usual government stooges see human life a small price to pay for ruling the spoils. Especially when that life is so cheerfully tricked into giving itself up.

They say power always attracts those who should least have it. That’s especially true of surface power at Washington.

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

Pathetic and putrid
Posted by: jmooney on Jan 25, 2008 7:05 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The campaign of the Clintons is pathetic and putrid and should be repudiated at the polls.

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

From the time Bill Clinton took office...........
Posted by: cisc on Jan 25, 2008 7:45 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
the sore loser hissy fit was on. Millions of taxpayer dollars, investigation upon investigation, and impeachment based on personal behavior NOT a crime against the office. Every time I hear that Hillary did nothing except be humiliated by her husband to deserve this shot, I want to vote for her more. She went to law school where she did a little better than gentlewomen's C's. She won a senate office fairly twice. She has done as much in her life and more than a few men who have sat in that chair to earn the right. I find Edwards message far more compelling. I see so much of John Kennedy in Obama, which is what scares me. The Bay of Pigs was a rookie mistake, Kennedy was a cold warrior, he served in the navy, and he had his fathers political guidance, yet he still made a rookie mistake in trusting the Joint Chiefs and the CIA. He took the blame for their wrongness, and he paid with his life for being ahead of his time. On the other hand, I would love to see a new day in American politics but I don't believe the right will accept anything less than total capitulation and I fear DEEPLY that Obama would pay for being ahead of his time with his life, these people who claim to hold life with such sanctity have proven time and again torture and murder are not an issue with them so long as the right people are dying. Hillary would bring uber competance but she will also bring extremists out of the woodwork, the rest of us can swallow an entitled elitist drunken, draft dodging, arrogant, clueless, screw up and a draft dodging, war profiteering, constitution shreading, war criminal but for God's sake a female-not a Dallas Cowboy Chearleader-President, let the next 8 year sore loser hissy fit begin!

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

» Hissy fits, scmissy fits. Posted by: jmooney
» excellent reply... Posted by: Coleman
Neighbor
Posted by: Neighbor on Jan 25, 2008 9:16 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
WHAT HAPPENED TO EDWARDS IN THIS ARTICLE?? This is one of the most disappointing articles I've ever read on Alternet...and certainly the most disappointing by the usually fair Rosenfeld. An entire article with John Edwards not even mentioned, and he was a winning trial lawyer for 20 years working for men AND women AND families? I still can't believe it, don't want to believe it.
For just ONE point, Edwards is supported by the largest state women's group in the campaign, the 1,500 from all 99 Iowa counties, also by Mari Colver, the wife of the Iowa Governor, known for her strong advocacy work for women...and children...and families, also by Kate Michelman. ETC. What gets me most is that this article seems pure lazy to not try to make it balanced and include Edwards--since Obama is mentioned frequently. I would not have had nearly the intense reaction if it had simply been a cameo piece on Clinton, but to feature two of the three is TERRIBLE.
I won't take space to outline the strong, thorough, agenda Edwards has had since the beginning for women but will suggest that everyone might find the following website interesting: www.johnedwards.com/iowa/20071102-promise-to-american women. It is dated Nov. 2, 2007. I wish Rosenfeld had read at least it before doing his article.
And let's not forget that with the bright, dedicated, tenacious, workwise, passionate and compassionate John, we also get...ditto... Elizabeth!

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

Best Election Coverage
Posted by: atvt on Jan 25, 2008 9:33 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This article was one of the best election write ups that I have read in the past 6 months. Keep up the good work and good journalism.

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

» RE: Best Election Coverage Posted by: nochicagoboys
» RE: Best Election Coverage? Posted by: Neighbor
Ignoring the disastrous effects of Clinton-era welfare reform
Posted by: mothersmovement on Jan 25, 2008 9:42 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I was struck by the comment by Clinton surrogate Marguerite Willis, who noted that women's and children's poverty are the most pressing issue in South Carolina. Since nearly every Clinton supporter interviewed for this story agrees that Hillary is running on her husband's record (even Clinton's most enthusiastic supporters acknowledge that her legislative success in Congress has been modest), the level of collective amnesia about Bill Clinton's role in pushing through draconian welfare policies is striking.

Anyone with a basic concern about the health and well-being of women and children in the United States is aware that the 1996 "welfare-to-work" act has not been effective in reducing women's and children's poverty. Only a third of mothers who enter the welfare system ever achieve employment security, and many of those who do simply join the ranks of the working poor. Recent studies suggest that most mothers who apply for welfare benefits have multiple barriers to employment (including low levels of education, poor health, physical disabilities, and mental health issues), and as many as three-quarters of welfare recipients still have at least one significant barrier to employment when they leave the system. Moreover, former welfare recipients were more likely to report experiencing material hardships several years after leaving the system -- such as not having enough money to pay the rent, being evicted, and having the phone and utilities shut off -- compared to the time they applied for benefits. The authors of a study of former welfare recipients in Wisconsin, which is widely touted as having a model welfare-to-work program, conclude that while federal welfare policy has been successful in cutting the number of needy families who receive benefits, new welfare regulations are "seriously misdirected."

The reality is that Bill Clinton promised to "end welfare as we know it" to appease culturally conservative voters and then lost control of a more moderate version of welfare-with-work-requirements legislation to the Republican machine. If Hillary Clinton is taking credit for legislation to expand children's health insurance coverage during her husband's administration, perhaps she needs to take some responsibility for her husband's woman-and-child unfriendly welfare reform act as well.

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

» Have you ever been on welfare? Posted by: asilsfable
Hillary.......
Posted by: steven w on Jan 25, 2008 10:13 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Assurance that nothing will change.

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

I am depressed!
Posted by: left-leaning-libertarian on Jan 25, 2008 10:56 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Gee, in less than a month we've taken one of the best-qualified, interesting and innovative fields of candidates that the Democratic party has seen in more than a generation, and whittled it down to where the only "serious" candidate is the most-compromised, least electable and least-committed to change. Why?

I worked hard for the Edwards campaign here in Iowa; he would still be the best, most realistic choice for meaningful change, but the MSM decided on its narrative a long time ago and you wouldn't even know Edwards is still in the race. (I suspect he will have to drop out after the SC primary tomorrow).

Obama MIGHT be able to affect some change in the system, but he has demonstrated what I consider to be a dangerous naivité about many things ranging from his ill-informed comments about foreign policy, his support for the draconian bankruptcy "reform?" and indicating total IGNORANCE of issues pertaining to the disabled (note to Obama: The Lighthouse in Chicago is a 19th-century-style make-work warehouse for blind people, it has nothing to do with dignity or empowerment). Obama also seems far too willing to trust people who do not have the best interests of the country at heart (referring to Joseph Lieberman as "my mentor," and saying that he could "work with" that flat-earth moron Senator from Oklahoma. . .NOT a good sign!) Add all this to the fact that he won't take a stand on anything lest he "divide" people and you have the making of a disaster.

So we are left with Clinton; the one candidate who cannot win in a landslide, and who won't try and make any serious changes in the system to which she and her husband are so heavily beholden.

I am depressed!

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

» RE: I am depressed! Posted by: sofla100
» RE: I am depressed! Posted by: cisc
» RE: I am depressed! Posted by: Cooltruth
When There Is No Vision, The People Perish
Posted by: sofla100 on Jan 25, 2008 11:47 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I am sure Hillary is a great politician who, together with her spouse, are well acquainted with both national and international political leaders. I am also sure she has learned to become more relaxed and more effective at relating with people since becoming a U.S. Senator from New York State. However, and as President, just what is her vision for America? Now, we can go back to the first Bush, he said he "couldn't really figure out the vision thing." And, the current Bush, we know what his vision is. American world dominance and more money to the wealthy being a big part of it. But, what woul be Hillary's vision? Being an effective manager? That's nice, but all we know is that she would "reform" everything. The only problem is that once this bureaucratic shuffling subsidzes, we still won't have single payer, universal health care, but will instead have an expensive hodge-podge system that delivers only minimal care. What about banking reform? Just how is she going to regulate this industry, an industry from which she has already taken millions in campaign cash. And as for the talk about "energy efficency" and "green jobs," this sounds more like something Obama would come up with. Fancy sounding but hardly controversial and a good sound-byte. Finally, when it comes to defense and national security, we know she would be "as tough" as GW Bush. Which means more money for the Pentagon and the wars. She also is a "good friend" of Israel. Which means no peace in the Middle East for at least another 4 years once she is elected. So, in essence, Hillary perhaps is a very good manager and very savvy when it comes to politics and campaigns, but doesn't hold a candle to the vision of someone like Edwards. However, Hillary is much more likely to be elected because she has the money and the machine, even if she does not have the vision. But without the vision, we are once again left where we started, we will just have more efficient failed domestic and international polices and programs then before under Bush.

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

:Its just theater anyway
Posted by: gulu on Jan 25, 2008 2:51 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Like pro wrestling,the rubes will come and cheer their favorite manufactured character.After the last 2 elections were so obviously stolen and not a single loosing candidate has to date even questioned the results, not to mention the 9/11 and war on terror fraud, it amazes me that some people actually think voting for any of the bought and owned criminals will change anything at all.The war party is the only game in town.The shennanigans concering the Iowa and New Hampshire primaries should raise your suspisions.The men behind the curtains own the media and tell you who are the top tier candidates so you dont "waste" your vote.Too bad your vote is doesnt count.The winner has already been selected.

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

» RE: Its just theater anyway Posted by: edgeofnowhere
Her candidacy uncovers women's response to discrimination
Posted by: odcherenow on Jan 25, 2008 3:40 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Women who are responding by supporting Hillary are not "invested in expanding the legacy started by America's 42nd president, William Jefferson Clinton". You missed it again, Steve. Women are identifying with eons of being seen as of less value than any male in the room. This campaign is the blow back from being an overlooked, overworked, underpaid under-class....as long as we are not under the sponsorship of some man. So, cool your jets about Bill. He needs to take a vacation. He may mean well, but he's eclipsing her voice and therefore, our voices.

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

Is this campaign really so different? - I used to think so
Posted by: radical53 on Jan 25, 2008 5:25 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
In 2004 we started with Kerry, Dean, Edwards, Kucinich, and others. In 2008 we started with Hillary, Obama, Edwards, Kucinich, and others.

In 2004 we dumped a newcomer who opposed the war in Iraq from the beginning. The Democrats nominated the candidate who had years of Washington experience, but who had voted to approve the initial invasion of Iraq. He consistently had trouble explaining how he voted to authorize the war in Iraq while he claimed that the President who led us into the war had done everything wrong. He went on to lose the election to the worst President in modern history.

In 2008 it appears that a much more promising newcomer is being systematically destroyed in favor of a candidate with many years of Washington experience. This experienced candidate also voted to authorize the war, but cannot bring herself to admit that her vote was a mistake. If nominated, she will have to explain how she voted for the war, began her campaign saying she would end it in her first term, and ultimately concluded that she would end it in her first year.

Haven't we seen this movie before?

There were only 3 reasons for any Democrat to vote for the war in Iraq: being in tight with those who profit from war, being too scared to be on the wrong side of the issue if the President achieved a quick victory, and being willing to sacrifice American lives in order to give the President enough rope to hang himself politically when the war went poorly. Any Democrat who fits into one or more of these categories should not be elected President of the United States.

I am afraid that a pro-war McCain or Romney is going to win, despite the Republican failures of the past 7 years. It's another incredible chapter in the story of the ignorance and cowardice of the American people. I am not just depressed; I am angry and disgusted.

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

Hillary will win the nomination but lose the election
Posted by: Ingarose on Jan 25, 2008 6:38 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Between Bill, Hillary and the media it is no doubt that she will be nominated. I predicted a year and a half ago that Hillary will be nominated but lose in the end.

African Americans, who were slow to back Obama are warming up to him. With more and more attacks by Bill against Obama, they will not forget.

As far as some democrats (myself included) and independents are concerned they will not vote for Hillary in the end.

Just as well, let us have another Republican and finally sink the ship of America. Then, only then will people wake up and vote for a third party canditate or may be consider the losers of the dems and repucs right now (Kusinich and Ron Paul).

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

Hillary! Get to know her first!!!!
Posted by: niliadis on Jan 25, 2008 8:51 PM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Hillary is incredible and if you are a woman shame on you if you can not see it. She will be and has opened doors for women. She will be incredible. All of those who have daughters that will be graduating from college, who paid for thier education the same amount of money as our sons, but are coming into jobs making less than men in the same job..This will end with Hillary. There is so much that all of you should really stop reading the bashing of the Republican media, the scum balls like Sean Hannity, Chris Mathews and the lowest of the lowest trator and small time Dick Morris and start readying, checking all that Hillary has done. Is she perfect NO-but no one is. Do your homework and realize that she has conviction, perserverance, much passion and the experience to one day make history not only becasue she will be the first Woman President but one of the best president of our time.!
Do your homework, check out the true resume and stop with this demeaning and support the womens rights and stop the media with this abusive behavior that they do not use on any male nominee! and believe be they all have thier own story but the media does not abuse the Men, but take great joy in manipulating and twisting the truth! Do your Homework and then talk. My vote will go for the best Candidate and the one that has the experience to bring our Country to the economy we once had and the Global Respect we once enjoyed!

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

Who advised Obama to run?
Posted by: chhabili on Jan 25, 2008 9:22 PM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I would like to know, what compelled a young and inexperienced upstart to think that he had any viable credentials to run for the highest office in the land? Who misguided him into thinking that over-the-top messianic pronouncements could effectively make him an agent of change at a time, when the country is so polarized that unity is a hairbrained idea?

Whoever urged him to run, played into Obama's arrogance and zealotry. The candidate of unity has now become a laughable broker of divisions within the Democratic party. An impressionable yuppie got too impressed with his ability to woo the media with his outlandish oratory skills of bringing Democrats, republicans and independents in a kumbaya to vote for him. When the Clintons pointed to the emperor with no clothes, he injected race into the campaign. Here is a man who has so distanced himself from national African American leaders that I am amazed that he now talks about race. What is he thinking? That his will be a color blind campaign?

Obama is an interloper and a subliminal agent for the right wing. They could not have asked for a better candidate in the same mold as Condi Rice and Colin Powell. The sooner he drops out of the race the better. I am quite wary of his intentions. When he boasted that Hillary's supporters would vote for him in the general elections, but that his supporters would not vote for Hillary, that is the RED flag that should caution all Democrats of whatever race. He will be the spoiler and run as an independent or he will sit out the rest of the campaign.

I hope Hillary wins in SC tomorrow. She has experience, credentials and heart for people of all races.

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

She is better and worse than realized.
Posted by: Marjorie G on Jan 25, 2008 10:05 PM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
My concern is that her candidacy has been planned for years, with the place held for her by the Clinton machine. Bill himself not only DIDN'T advocate for Kerry, but by having his book tour in 2004, he kept explaining his agreement with Bush.

Democrats were not in support on campaign 2004 because of Bills ties and do-over plans.

For those who think Edwards is great because he mentions policies you like, this populist rage happens every election cycle, and is more fringe than electable.

We have difficult states, and the Clintons have baggage. Gamesmanship with Dems and GOP that angered everyone. They're both on this scorched earth campaign that will not serve our party well.

They also reached to alternative media early, with paid opinion not honest and fair, just like mainstream media.

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

Democrats deserve what they get
Posted by: progdem on Jan 25, 2008 10:54 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The DLC and Clinton legacy is

1. An immoral foreign policy where we intervened in humanitarian crises when it got us strategically important bases (like in Kosovo) and let people die when it didn't (Rwanda), imposed a harsh and useless sanctions regime that killed thousands of innocent children in Iraq, and forced free trade pacts down the throats of poor countries.

2. A trade policy which did nothing but impoverish the working class in this and other countries, made big corporations richer and harder to regulate and violated the soveriegnty of every country party to them.

3. Deregulation policies that led directly to the failure of telecom companies, the collapse of the stock market, the Enron scandal and the current financial collapse. (biggest deal was breaking down the barrier between commercial and investment banks)

4. Welfare reform which amounted to the denial of sustained aid to poor people who live in tight labor markets (otherwise known as the overwhelming majority of poor people)

5. A refusal to undo Reagan's tax cuts to put our government back on a sound fiscal path. The surpluses were illusions produced by the irrational exuberance of stock market traders and the short term revenue growth that came from it. Every economist knew this.

If you are a democrat who cannot bother to educate yourself on these issues, then you deserve a candidate who will sell you out to corporate america. If you cannot go to the DLC website and read their position papers and note that they never defend policies based on their likely consequences, but only on how well they poll, then you deserve four more years of corporate controlled government. When your union dies, your benefits get taken away, your wages shrink, your kids can't afford to go to college, and you lose your house because you cannot pay your medical bills, you will deserve it. Because you were too busy watching American Idol to pay attention.

Your children will have to deal with your mistakes, and if they do not come to hate you, it will only be because sentiment clouds their judgment.

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

I Dugg it.
Posted by: Beagle17 on Jan 26, 2008 10:17 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I'm surprised no one else did. It's not that I am a supporter of Clinton, but this was a well written profile.

Here is the Digg link.

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

Hillary
Posted by: dealmeinfo2 on Jan 31, 2008 4:58 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Seems like Hillary has the movement now. Think there will be any shifts?





--------------------------------------------------
Minnesota Home Loan

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