Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
Newsvine
Facebook
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiHillary Clinton: Why is She Hated by Progressives and Right-Wingers Alike?
America's anti-Hillary Clinton alliance is growing by the day
WASHINGTON -- There is something about Hillary that raises the blood pressure of otherwise easy-going Americans - and they don't need to be Republicans. At a 4th of July barbecue, with the band working its way through the "Battle Hymn of the Republic", I made the mistake of asking a pleasant young woman what she thought of Hillary's chances. Red white and blue fireworks were going off over Capitol Hill, as she morphed into the sort of person who goes on the Jerry Springer Show. She would "never, ever" vote for America's most famous politician, she said. More than 50 per cent of Americans agree with her.
With everyone on tenterhooks over terrorism and the looming defeat in Iraq, there is a febrile atmosphere in the US. Many are taking their anger out on Hillary as she attempts to break through the last remaining glass ceiling. Something called the "Hillary Conundrum" has emerged to cause deep unease inside her party while giving comfort to the Republican party, which by now should be in disarray.
The most seasoned political honchos are uneasy about the candidate who looks like a shoo-in as next year's Democratic nominee for the presidential elections. Hillary has the war chest, a formidable political machine and she is riding highest in the opinion polls.
She is probably the most competent in the field. Virtually everyone agrees that she should have the best chance of wresting the presidency from the Republicans in 2008 and repairing the damage from the wrecking ball (omega) of the Bush presidency. She also has Bill Clinton by her side, a formidable campaigner who took to the road for the first time in Iowa this month.
But behind the scenes, Americans are deeply worried at the prospect of having Hillary (and Bill) back in the White House. While she inspires ordinary women voters, men are not so moved and she has the highest voter-disapproval ratings of any top-tier candidate in the race. She also has a big problem with left-wing feminists.
The writer and director Nora Ephron (You've Got Mail, Sleepless in Seattle) who describes herself as a fully signed up "Hillary resister" seems to be one of them. The resisters are people "who can't stand her position on the war. Who don't trust her as far as you can spit."
They believe, says Ephron, that Hillary "will do anything to win, who believe she doesn't really take a position unless it's completely safe". This is the same Nora Ephron who some years back exclaimed: "I love [Hillary] so completely that, honestly, she would have to burn down the White House before I would say anything bad about her." That was in 1993, when America was another country and Bill Clinton was just settling into his first term in the White House.
A couple of years later, with the Republican attacks on the Clintons in full spate, Ephron spoke to the Wellesley class of 1996 (a girls-only college that she and Hillary graduated from: "Understand," she said then, "every attack on Hillary Clinton for not knowing her place is an attack on you."
So how did it all go so wrong for Hillary? How did right- wing America's favorite "femi-Nazi" end up being disliked as much by "progressives" as by conservatives? It's a subject being endlessly debated
"The truth is that Senator Clinton has a woman problem," said Anna Quindlen, a Newsweek columnist. "The fantasy was that the first woman President would be someone who would turn the whole lousy system inside out and upside down. Instead the first significant woman contender is someone who seems to have the system down to a fine art."
Jane Fonda says that Hillary is a "ventriloquist for the patriarchy with a skirt and a vagina. It may be that a feminist, progressive man would do better in the White House."
For Fonda, the big disappointment was Hillary's 2002 Congressional vote giving George Bush the green light to go to war on Iraq. It turns out that Hillary didn't bother to read the top-secret intelligence report, that she as a senator was given access to before the vote. The six senators who did read it all voted against, because the still-secret report seems to have persuaded them that the case for war was flimsy.
"Women sometimes bend the wrong way just to prove themselves to men," remarked Fonda. "But when we learn to listen to ourselves, that will be revolutionary."
Americans might well ask who is the real Hillary Clinton? Her potential supporters are certainly having trouble working it out. Is Hillary a liberal who has been victimized by a "vast right-wing conspiracy", or a scheming political control-freak who will stop at nothing in her bid to become the first Mrs President?
Hillary's tightly disciplined campaign team point out that for every Fonda or Ephron, there are thousands of women, neither feminist nor left wing who really admire her. She was the top choice of 42 per cent of Democrat women voters in a recent poll and is far ahead among independent voters.
The pollsters, hot-dog turners, political strategists and armchair pundits all agree that Hillary has a more than 80 per cent chance of winning the Democratic nomination. But can she win the election they ask, or is she going to bring more heartache to the party, just like John Kerry last time around?
Everyone has a different reason for predicting failure. There's the "political baggage" theory, which holds that she is fatally tainted by the scandals of her first stint in the White House. The "revolving door" theory says Americans are sick of alternating Bush-Clinton dynasties. The "woman as commander-in-chief" theory predicts that Americans obsessed with terrorism want a man to do their bombing. And there is the issue of Hillary's frighteningly high "negatives" which Gallup recently put at 50 per cent.
Many of those who are worried about global warming and America's imperial overstretch hope that Al Gore, who continues to maintain he will not run, will enter the race at the last minute. Bob Borosage is one of those. A veteran of many elections, he ran Jessie Jackson's presidential campaigns in the past, he is an organizer for the liberal wing of the Democratic Party. At a reception for high-rolling donors to the liberal cause, he said he would prefer it if Al Gore won the nomination.
"Gore has every chance of becoming president," he told me, "but if he dares to enter the race, Hillary will pluck his eyes out with her talons."
This is the other part of the "Hillary conundrum". She is widely perceived as a ruthless campaigner. Her campaign team, which calls itself "Hillaryland", is notoriously secretive and disciplined.
Borosage was waiting for Hillary to arrive at his annual Take Back America conference, a kind of global gathering for left-wing Americans. It was being held in the Washington Hilton hotel, known locally as the Hinkley Hilton, after John Hinkley's attempted assassination of Ronald Reagan in 1993 - but more of that later. The hotel has just been bought by the basketball player "Magic" Johnson and is where some of the biggest political gatherings take place in the capital.
Soon Hillary would arrive and sweep down The President's Walk, a corridor in the Hilton that leads to the main conference room where 3,000 people were waiting. The corridor is lined with daguerreotypes and photographs of every US president and their wives, from a 1789 image of George and Martha Washington to the latest incumbents, George and Laura Bush.
Among the images is a photograph of Hillary from 1993 when she and Bill first entered the White House and she was determined to make her mark as an independent woman. She wore her hair long and un-styled and was much criticized for it. She called herself Hillary Rodham Clinton. Everything she did got America's back up. Before she even opened the door to the White House, she outraged millions of ordinary moms with a catty remark that instead of having a career as a lawyer she "could have stayed home, baked cookies and had teas".
Her name was always a troubling issue. Hillary stunned her friends when she announced on her wedding day in 1976 that she would not be taking her husband's name but would remain Hillary Rodham. Bill's mother wept at the news and a campaign adviser warned presciently "Hillary Rodham will be your Waterloo."
Later on when Bill lost the election to be Arkansas governor she decided she was Hillary Clinton after all. Then within days of his inauguration as president she became Hillary Rodham Clinton and set about installing herself as "co-president". She quickly established herself as the president's most trusted adviser, and plonked herself and her "Hillaryland" entourage in the West Wing, steps from the Oval Office.
With well-chronicled and calamitous effect, Hillary then set about trying and failing to reform America's broken health care system. Meanwhile she bulldozed her way through Washington, making needless enemies for the Clinton presidency in the media and among the capital's power elite.
She created a public-relations disaster on Day One when she gave secret orders to the Clintons' press man, George Stephanopoulos, to have a corridor that gave the White House press corps access to the West Wing blocked off. Unsurprisingly the first 100 days of the presidency were marked by unprecedented hostility from the media.
Bill and Hillary Clinton had come to Washington with the ambition and determination to change the country for the better. But equipped only with a tin ear, when it came to working with people on her own side, Hillary managed to alienate some of the most powerful Democrats, starting with the New York Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan who urged patience in reforming health care.
When Bill Bradley, then a senator, suggested changes to her plan he was dismissed. Forget about it, she said, threatening to "demonize" anyone who stood in her way.
As Bradley recounted later to the author Carl Bernstein: "It was obviously so basic to who she is. The arrogance. The assumption that people with questions are enemies. The disdain. The hypocrisy."
It was at the Washington Hilton on 30 March 1981, that the last assassination attempt on an American president took place on US soil. President Ronald Reagan had just come down the same President's Walk and was leaving the hotel via a side entrance after speaking to an audience of unhappy trade unionists. Six shots rang out as John Hinkley fired his "Saturday Night Special" into the President's entourage. One of the "devastator" bullets, designed to open up on impact, hit the president in the abdomen, almost claiming his life.
Now, some 26 years on, security arrangements for the presidential candidates appear no better organized than they were on that day. A phalanx of secret-service agents protects Hillary Clinton and her main democratic rival Barack Obama, who addressed the same Take Back America conference the day before.
But despite worries about terrorism - one of Hillary's big campaign themes - security for the candidates seems extraordinarily sloppy. There were no metal detectors, no ID checks or even cursory searches of the audience. The average inner-city American high school has tighter security.
Finally, Hillary arrived. Wearing a silk yellow top and her hair stylishly cut, she made her entrance into the lion's den of liberal Democrats, who are both excited and disappointed with her at the same time. Tightly scripted and brimming with confidence, she launched into 30-minute speech in which she accused the Bush administration of "a stunning record of secrecy and corruption, of cronyism run amok... of [putting] ideology before science, politics before the needs of families".
The crowd, putting aside whatever doubts it had, stomped and cheered as she blasted Bush. Then she moved on to the subject of the war in Iraq and the mood suddenly changed. It is only this year, as public hostility to the war became overwhelming, that Hillary, once the most enthusiastic backer of the war in Iraq, suddenly changed tack. But while she rescued her candidacy from oblivion, she has not apologized for backing the war in the first place, and remains a big advocate of the so called "War on Terror".
From the stage, she praised the success of the American military in toppling Saddam Hussein and said it was the Iraqi government which was to blame for the current mess.
The audience booed and heckled as she continued: "The American military has succeeded. It is the Iraqi government which has failed to make the tough decisions that are important for their own people,'' she said, unable to finish her sentence because of a chorus of the uproar.
Members of CodePink, so named to mock the US government's color-coded terrorist warning system, tried to drown Hillary out. But she talked over them and by the time she finished her speech the audience was back applauding her. It was nothing in comparison to the performance of Barack Obama, the day before, when the audience would not let him leave the room after a barnstorming speech.
Some 15 years after Hillary Clinton was first introduced to America, the fascination continues. There are by one count 17,000 websites devoted to her - mostly negative - the most famous of which is the Hillary Clinton Quarterly. Her life, her name changes, her makeovers, her shifting politics and her marriage are grist to the mill of the late-night TV chat shows and morning queues at America's Starbucks. The New York Times last year assigned its crack investigative team to work out how often Bill and Hillary slept in the same marital bed and put the story on the front page.
Following "interviews with some 50 people and a review of their respective activities" the writer discovered that: "Since the start of 2005, the Clintons have been together about 14 days a month on average, according to aides who reviewed the couple's schedules. Sometimes it is a full day of relaxing at home in Chappaqua; sometimes it is meeting up late at night.... Out of the last 73 weekends, they spent 51 together. The aides declined to provide the Clintons' private schedule."
The Clintons have taken over from the Kennedys as the most picked over family in the country. As Jay Leno put it: "According to a new poll, 15 percent of Americans say that Sen Hillary Clinton gives them the creeps. The other 85 percent say she gives them the willies or the heebie-jeebies."
My neighbour in Washington, who spent his 4th of July talking politics at a local barbecue party said: "The only circumstances in which I would vote for Hillary would be if she first divorced her husband."
Another self-confessed Hillary hater explained some of the animosity: "She's hated because she personifies liberalism. It's her politics, her name, her stupid smirks and her pride. Her carpetbagger ways and her socialist tendencies. Oh, and also her husband. It's the insistence that they are always right, even when they are wrong."
This is mild compared to some of the commentary in the media. Take right-wing pundit Ann Coulter - a sometime guest on Good Morning America. She is putting it about that(omega) Hillary Clinton is gay: "I'd say that's about even money on Senator Clinton coming out of the closet in 2008," she says.
As anxious as Democrats are about Hillary, Republicans are increasingly fearful. John Podhoretz, a columnist with the New York Post has written what he calls "a wake-up call to the Right" to keep Hillary out of the White House.
He thinks she poses a huge threat: "I was in conversations with conservatives who seemed confident that Hillary Clinton could not possibly win the presidency," he wrote, "that she was too polarizing, had negatives that were too high, and that she was not likable enough to make it to the White House.
"As I examined these presumptions, they began to seem very hollow to me - and the notion that Hillary was unelectable began to seem like a delusion."
Podhoretz's view is that Hillary can win the election if she gets the votes John Kerry got - 59 million - and Republicans should assume that she can get those votes. "It will take a heroic effort to get more people to the polls," he says. "And right now, Republicans seem more intent on fighting with each other."
Despite the worries of the Left, the Democrats are - reluctantly at times - lining up to back her. Hollywood, a key source of fundraising for Democrats has been difficult to crack. Many have already thrown their lot in with Obama and there is a notable scarcity of star power at Hillary's fund-raising events. Barbra Streisand, known as a friend of Bill Clinton, shared a head table at a recent fundraiser. But even she is hedging her bets and backing three candidates, Hillary, Obama and John Edwards.
"I'm very excited about the strength of the Democratic field for the 2008 presidential election, and I'm looking forward to a lively and healthy primary debate that discusses the key issues facing this country," she said by way of explanation. But in a sign that the tide may be turning in Hillary's favor, she has recently landed some important supporters. Al Sharpton, the radical black firebrand and king of America's racial politics, says he is backing her, after a lengthy campaign to win his support. He took his radio show to the Take Back America conference and cheered her on for attacking the "plantation" politics of Republicans whereby decisions are made behind closed doors. "I absolutely back her," he said.
A major boost to the Clinton campaign came in June when Stephen Spielberg, the biggest Hollywood fish of all came out to endorse her. "I am convinced," said the most successful filmmaker ever, "that Hillary Clinton is the most qualified candidate to lead us from her first day in the White House." The endorsement from one of the most influential people in America (Time magazine named him one of the 100 Greatest People of the Century) was just what Hillary's campaign was looking for.
How soon will the man with a soft spot for stories about ordinary people coming into contact with extraordinary beings shoot an advertisement for Hillary? Spielberg may be the one to ease the worries of millions of Americans who so viscerally dislike her. s
Hillary Clinton is just an old hippie at heart. Once a make-up free lawyer, accessorizing with over-sized glasses, before falling for a man with political plans even larger than her own hair. Then meeting his mother. It is thought that Bill's mum, Virginia Kelly, groomed Hillary from the start. Apparently the immaculately fashion-conscious Kelly was shocked at how plain her future daughter-in-law was. And so Hillary's makeover began. During her husband's presidential campaign, Hillary scraped her hair back into one of her many hairbands and wore muted suits - ever the supportive, yet subservient wife (at that stage).
Once in the White House, friends, and no doubt her teenage daughter, advised her to take more of an interest in fashion. She experimented with Oscar de la Renta and a little known conservative Washington designer brand called Tamotsu. The First Lady also courted Ralph Lauren through charity work, but try as she might, she never looked polished. Even designer Carolina Herrera - a favourite of the current First Lady, Laura Bush - says simply that Hillary "never found her way". Websites were dedicated to the growth and ever-changing style of her hair, while the cruel American press nicknamed her "sausage legs" and "your thighness".
It is no wonder, then, that Hillary fails to have a sense of humor about it. On her recent presidential campaign trip to Iowa, she complained to the crowd that the press make too much of her appearance and clothing. When one journalist asked what she was wearing to one press event, Hillary's PR snapped, "What's it look like she's wearing? It's a white jacket. Just like I'm wearing a black shirt, and you're wearing a pink one."
Yet suddenly, the one-time First Lady, sometime first lady president, is looking immaculate. There are rumours of $1,000 haircuts and a $2,000 make-over from Barbara Lacy, a Hollywood make-up artist, and it has been money well spent. Yet the ever-present trouser suit is going nowhere and she adapts it for the audience. New York - dark suit and Bruno Magli heels (serious); LA - bright suit and flats (fun); Deep South - earth tones, no jacket (one of you).
Hillary treats clothes like a costume and changes them as often as her character. She wants to be taken seriously as a political figure and not as a fashion figure, but for once designer Donatella Versace has a point: "I can understand (trousers) are comfortable but she's a woman and she is allowed to show that. She should treat femininity as an opportunity and not try to emulate masculinity in politics."
* Journalist, author and socialite Tina Brown said her support of Hillary Clinton "went wobbly" when she backed the war in Iraq, but she otherwise admires her. "There is nobody with her depth and grasp; she's so well-informed. And what I love about her is she's so tough. This is a woman who never sleeps, who's had everything thrown at her, who has been so trashed and she has come back. And I do admire that," she admitted.
* Maya Angelou announced her endorsement of Hillary Clinton for president in a video tribute. "I would encourage her to be a long-distance runner. Be in this thing to win," said Angelou. "You've got a lot of help and a lot of people care for you - not just admire you, but really have profound affection for you."
* Actress Elizabeth Taylor said she was donating $2,300 (£1,150) to Clinton's campaign, confessing she admired her vast experience and outspoken nature. In a statement, Taylor said: "I have contributed to Senator Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign because she has a mind of her own and a very strong one at that. I like the way she thinks. She is very savvy and a smart leader with years of experience in government, diplomacy and politics."
* Clinton recruited 'The Sopranos' to help her win votes. The former First Lady poked fun at the recent finale of the mob drama by re-enacting the series climax with her husband Bill Clinton for a light-hearted TV campaign ad. She persuaded 'Sopranos' regular Vincent Curatola to join her. In the spoof, the Clintons, both huge fans of the show, are browsing a menu in a diner - just like Tony and Carmela Soprano were at the end of the TV series - when Curatola, who played mob boss Johnny Sack on the show, walks past and gives the politician a filthy look.
* American rapper, composer and music producer Timbaland hosted a fundraiser for Clinton on the last day of the first-quarter fund-raising period for presidential candidates. The fundraiser was reportedly billed at $1,000 per attendee. According to election figures, Timbaland contributed $4,600 to her campaign.
* Actor Paul Newman and his wife Joanne Woodward both donated $2,000, while 'Walk the Line' star Reese Witherspoon gave $1,000. Chat-show host Jerry Springer added $4,200 to the cause, while singer Nancy Sinatra handed over a modest $200. Other contributors include the actor Edie Falco (who played Carmela Soprano), Playboy founder Hugh Hefner and actor Danny DeVito.
*Singer Barbra Streisand, a friend and supporter of former President Bill Clinton, has previously made contributions to the successful US Senate campaigns of Hillary. This time, the singer gave money not only to the New York senator but to two other would-be Democrat Presidential candidates, John Edwards and Barack Obama. "I'm very excited about the strength of the Democratic field for the 2008 presidential election, and I'm looking forward to a lively and healthy primary debate," Streisand wrote.
© 2007 Independent News and Media Limited
164 Comments so far
Show AllIt just appears that H.R. Clinton has had a vendetta with
the American people ever sence Bill got caught with his
pants unzipped and was impeached. If H.R. really, really,
does care about this great nation, she would with draw
from the presidentual race and go into hiding. Then we
could concentrate on the other four demojerks!
baska,
Try not to blog while drinking next time. You would make more sense.
But seriously, that you so adamantly refuse to even consider that some people won't vote for her just because she's a woman says a lot.
Welcome to the real world, baska. You don't need to be psychic to understand this.
Here's the deal...
The capitalist class realizes what a mess their boy Bush has made of things with our credit card economy and wars in Iraq/Afghanistan being financed by future enemy China. In order to preserve the "integrity" of Republicans and their anti-tax rhetoric, they realize that taxes are going to have to be raised by the next president to keep America on an even keel. That's why Hillary will be our next president. I can see the set up now...the establishment class are going to love socking it to the good ole boy in the South. Will they vote for the chick or will they vote for the Mormon? That's right. I believe our choice will be Rodham-Clinton/Richardson versus Romney/Bush (as in Jeb). Hillary will win because she's already made agreements with Rupert Murdoch and the Trialateral Commission. Even Nancy Pelosi is in on the deal (to put impeachment off the table so Hillary will become the first woman president).
The election is a joke. I'm just worried that the Clinton machine will lynch Obama so badly that he won't be able to run in 2016. They are going to do to him what the media did to Howard Dean...pure character assassination that renders his political career obsolete.
I'm still hoping for a miracle that Obama will be the nominee, but my money's on Hillary (but I'm donating real money to Obama's campaign). And all these people on here with their lovefest for Kucinich, I don't get it. When I worked on Capitol Hill in 2000, he was a complete egotistical jerk to me. He's a phony who says whatever it'll take to get a faction of loyal purists to support him. He's nothing but an elfish nerd on a big ego trip. I agree with what he says, but I don't trust him personally. I've seen him in action on Capitol Hill and he is nothing but a phony. I hate to burst all your bubbles, but there is no such thing as a pure candidate. If you want purity, vote for Jesus. Otherwise, you have to accept that they are all human and prone to mistakes.
At least with a President Hillary Clinton, you know the media and opposition party won't let her get away with the kinds of lies that Bush has gotten away with. She will be scrutinized like a woman claiming to raped by an athlete. We shouldn't expect to have a perfect president...but vote for the one who most shares our values (between the two main candidates) and the one who will most likely be held to a higher standard of accountability.
Something to think about. Let's Barack our world next year!
End the war. Defeat the slimy pundits and despicable media. Make America great again. Vote Kucinich. It's just that simple. There's no other choice.
No way we'll have 25 years of Bush followed by Clinton, then Bush followed by Clinton again, not gonna happen. This horrible woman is the left's worst enemy. RUN NADER RUN.
RE: WILSON THE PSYCHIC ON CLINTON AND THE "WOMAN" ISSUE
wilson July 16th, 2007 4:59 pm
"That Hillary'S gender doesn't matter is the great non-issue lie we are all telling ourselves because..."
...Wilson the Psychic's magic x-ray vision lets him see what "we are all" really thinking.
"[M]any 'liberals' and 'progressives' will adamantly refuse to vote for her- honestly, just because she's a woman. Though they'd never admit that to themselves or to anyone."
But they can't fool...Willlsonnnn the Psychic, who was born with special powers to see the sexist evil that lurks in the hearts of progressives.
Hillary will be far worse than any Republican. It's Kucinich for me.
Be well and enjoy the day.
For More of My Modern Musings
2007 Blogathon For and To Resist | July 28th - 48 posts in 24 hours | Support Community Based Progressive Change by Becoming a Sponsor.
VERN: Our time on this volatile earth is precious, so thank you for taking the time to share the DATA to apprise those who might be swayed by gender over content, what this woman's record is based upon.
Kivals: If I could choose a few people from this forum to have coffee with (or a drink) you'd undoubtedly be ONE, but dear man, military feminist IS an oxymoron. The true content of feminism is an understanding of the fundamental humanity of all persons, of both (and the middle near third ground) genders! Growing balls to do "it" (war) better than a man, is not the path to a sane or sustainable world. The mars model of conquest, bloodshed, and endless wars is what is passe; and for women to identify with it (hello, goddess Athenas), is detrimental to human evolution at this point in the nuclear-armed game.
Iwarrior, Even if you are still maturing into your calling, your realizations are profound because you are part of the 11th ray coalition, one sworn to the path of that truth that is no respecter of persons. Translation: Most Aquarians are born with a built in bull shit detector. Real travesty to your sign that Reagan sold out... ruled by the rebel planet Uranus, Aquarius has been endowed with natural effervescence, the capacity to attract others and LEAD on the basis of a commitment to the greater good, the realization that one's bounty ought not come at vast expense to others. (Each sign has its own mold, or Divine ideal... few of us live up to the full potential, but it's similar to the way the ancient navigators cast their lots at sea, guided by the stars and their sextants... each of us has an interior north star that's been implanted to guide the journey of the soul through its embodiment in earth. In times like these, finding that inner Truth is so important!)
Vern,
Whew! Some log! Thanks.
Give it a rest, micki
What an organization was, and who founded it 60 years ago is no measure of what it is today. Do you think the Republican leadership of 60 years ago would recognize today's 'Republican' party? I know quite a few former Republicans who don't recognize it.
Hillary Clinton will always be on the side of large corporations. On a pre-neocon scale, she is definitely on the right. Even on the neocon scale, she doesn't look progressive. (I suspect Nixon would have done about as well, perhaps better.)
If I were brain-washed by the right-wingers, I would believe that Clinton is a 'flaming liberal,' a leftist barely this side of Che Guevara.
To those who want to make her sex an issue: I don't care that she's a woman. It is irrelevant. It is every bit as absurd to vote for a candidate solely because she's a woman as it is to vote against her solely for that reason.
"No matter how much the "left" may dislike her as I, I am going to have to see her as president for 8 years.
Obama is sometimes 20 points behind her in the polls."
Nah. Most folks are not paying much attention at this point. More people than usual, yes, but not most. This far out, polling is more about name-recognition than anything else. This far out in the last POTUS primary cycle, Leiberman was running away with it. Don't pay much attention to the polls until September. Then, still don't. I will vote for may favorite candidate (Kuccinich) no matter what he is polling when my state rolls around. If you are going to sell your soul, wait for the general election. The primaries should be about picking the one you like best, the one who deserves it the most. Just my two cents. Cheers.
I wanted to like the Clintons for a long time. I really did. I certainly don't hate Hilary. I feel the same way about Barack Obama and John Edwards for that matter.
But they just don't seem progressive enough to me. I see too much compromise on the parts of each of them.
Like Bill Clinton for example. This is just my opinion as an ordinary working person, but it seemed to me that his biggest problem was that he wanted everyone to like him. He was afraid of being called a left-wing socialist, so he acted like a soft Republican. He had this thing about bi-partisan support. Look at him now, he's bummin' around with Dubbya's dad. They sit next to each other and do interviews together like a married couple.
Obama is similar. I read an excerpt in his book The Audacity of Hope where he said something along the lines that he pined for the days when D's and R's would hash out solutions to the world's problems together over brews and stogies.
They both appeared to feel as if both parties truly had the best interests of the American and world populace in mind, that they're far from an oligarchy, that they all simply disagree on how to better the USA and the planet.
Perhaps that is how it should be. After all, they are public servants. However, what we instead have is a clique, a glorified mafia that exists primarily to protect and benefit itself and thusly maintain the status quo or in their ideal vision, send progress rolling back down the hill.
Politics imo isn't like religion. There may be different paths to God, Allah, Heaven, Nirvana, The Great Spirit, etc. , but Left and Right in this arena both don't take you to the same destination.
Progress benefits damn near everyone. Conservatism benefits only a select few. It's very simple.
And that's why Kuchinich is the one who will get my vote. A poseur he is not, and that's what our gov't is full of...poseurs.
Wow, lots of people here voicing opinions, as usual. Excellent.
Here's mine:
Hillary Clinton, and those who have been arguing in favor of her on this forum, rely on the same heart-tugging emotional response flotsam while the whole time dancing and dodging around the ONLY relevant chunk of data in the whole debate... Her voting record.
Hello people, this lady is a SENATOR! She has cast votes on many issues, and from that we can see how she will be as president. Simple yes?
I'm not going to bring up list after list of voting records here (mostly because I think there are many shills here who are PAID to have an opinion, they don't sway to facts) but I promise you that Mrs. Clinton has not been a legislative progressive.
Oh, in case you don't know, Common Dreams isn't a Democratic forum, it's a Progressive (party-be-damned (kinda)) forum.
If you really are defending Clinton and BELIEVE it, then use thomas http://thomas.loc.gov to enlighten yourself on the lady's real priorities.
Was this essay subsidised by BP or American hate radio?
He didn't start a paragraph saying her hair was stylishly cut did he?
NEXT
To johncpt (July 16th, 2007 1:48 am): You wrote that Hillary Clinton's vote for the Iraq war was not indicative of true hawkish sentiments, but merely "an effort to set herself up for a presidential run". And that is supposed to be a mitigating circumstance? That is supposed to be a reason to support her (or at least, not a reason to oppose her)? When Hillary Clinton voted for war on Iraq, she voted for the cold-blooded premeditated murder of thousands of innocent people. And we are supposed to forgive her for that because it was done merely as a tactical political move? I might consider forgiving her if she asked for forgiveness, but she has expressed no remorse for her vote for the mass murder of innocent Iraqis. As far as I am concerned, her unrepented vote for aggression against Iraq would disqualify her for the presidency even if she were "perfect" on all other left-wing issues: even if she were in favour of national public health insurance, free university tuition, legalization of drugs and a $10.00 minimum wage, I couldn't support her, knowing that she had voted to kill thousands of innocent people merely to advance her political aspirations. Think about it this way: what if she had voted to authorize Bush to kill 10,000 Jews in gas chambers, just because she thought it would improve her chances of becoming President some day? What would we think of her? Would we say: "Oh, well, that's politics, you know. She voted to put those Jews in gas chambers because she didn't want be accused of being overly sentimental and weak on defense - her being a woman and all." Well, a lot more than 10,000 innocent people have died as a result of the unprovoked aggression Hillary Clinton voted for.
Mark Marshall
Toronto
Once again the question presents itself: Vote for a 3rd party candidate and help the Repubs win or, hold your nose and vote for a Dem who is little, or no, better than a Repub.
The dilemma is that both of these positions are essentially correct.
I admit that I have moderated a bit on supporting a Dem in '08 but Hillary is not one of them, for almost all the reasons spelled out above.
This problem won't go away so it must be systemic. Any suggestions about how to make things work?
Most of the "if only" solutions I see (including some of mine) appear to be divorced from political reality.
Thanks
"Meanwhile, many "liberals" and "progressives" will adamantly refuse to vote for her- honestly, just because she's a woman. Though they'd never admit that to themselves or to anyone. Because they're liberals, or progressives, or democrats, or whatever."
wilson,
Sorry, but that's just a big ol' bucket of bullshit!
Hell, when Bill was in power, I wanted Hillary to take over. She seemed like the level-headed one with some amount of integrity. When Bill proved to be a triangulating, NAFTA fasttracking, FTAA sucking, corporate pig, Hillary seemed to be the one who might have the sense and integrity not to fall for much of "men's club" games. Wilson, Hillary is part of the "men's club!" The fact that she has a vagina and speaks a couple of octaves higher than most men, means diddly because she's proven to be just one of the guys, and not a very discerning one at that - witness her abysmal vote for an illegal war and then her refusal to come clean on her putrid vote.
By the amount of vitriol in this thread, it's plain that we're being set up for another fall come 2008. We're going to lose no matter who we vote for, and if the wrong person wins, many Democrats will point the finger at someone else. People who keep doing this are insane. In fact, they're worse than insane - they are the Borg!
Someone said this, talking about how people hate Hillary because of her politics, and not because she's a strong woman:
"She waffles, she weasels, she changes position based on what group is around or what seems most popular at any given time."
Yes. She does. Um, hello, THAT'S WHAT POLITICIANS DO. Well, what most of viable ones do, anyway. Yet how many male politicians are vilified to the extent that Hillary is because of their "waffling"?
That Hillary'S gender doesn't matter is the great non-issue lie we are all telling ourselves because this is America and sex discrimination is illegal and a woman really can be president if she wants to!
Meanwhile, many "liberals" and "progressives" will adamantly refuse to vote for her- honestly, just because she's a woman. Though they'd never admit that to themselves or to anyone. Because they're liberals, or progressives, or democrats, or whatever.
So, go ahead. You vote for your beloved Kucinich or Gravel or Nader, instead of Teh Woman And let's see how much better off this country is when the Republicans win again.
iammmyself: Look, she's not my favorite person either. She's a politician, and I tend to have no respect for politicians.
I'm just saying that there are a lot of people out there who won't vote for her precisely because she's a woman. But only blatantly sexist people will admit to it.
This isn't true of EVERYONE, but I think it's true for more than we're admitting.
And, I agree with you, by the way, that we are being set up for another fall in 2008. The Democrats continue to let the Republicans define the issues and, frankly, with their lack of courage, they deserve to lose.
It's unfortunate that the rest of us have to deal with their failings as a party.
The TRUTH; Hillary would never win the presidency because
America is a patriarchal society.....the majority of the
registered voters would not vote for a woman, sad to say.
Now that she is becoming sneaky about her politics, fair minded
voters will be turned off from voting for her too.
Americans for Democratic Action (ADA) traces its founding to January 3, 1947, when a group of prominent liberals, including Eleanor Roosevelt, gathered to form a broadly based and inclusive liberal political organization. Although the ADA sought to nominate a candidate other than Truman at the Democratic National Convention in 1948, it managed to retain good relations with the president upon his reelection.
In contrast to the Progressive Citizens of America, whose members favored cooperation and accommodation with the Soviet Union, the ADA was avowedly anti-communist, providing a forum in which liberals could work for progressive policies without being redbaited. Notwithstanding its anti-communist credentials, however, Senator McCarthy targeted the ADA and implied that its liberal positions indicated a sympathy toward communist ideals. As McCarthy increased his attack in 1953, ER agreed to serve as ADA's honorary chair and, thereby force him to call her a communist as well. Many ADA leaders believed her courage "saved" the organization.
A bulwark of anti-racism and strongly in favor of expanded civil rights, the ADA took early liberal stands on a broad range of social, political, economic, and military issues, including American involvement in Vietnam, the environment, and abortion. Perhaps it is best known today for the annual ratings that it issues for members of Congress based on their positive voting records with respect to liberal causes.
Americans for Democratic Action (ADA) is an American political organization advocating liberal policies. The group was established by prominent Democratic Party leaders in 1947.
The ADA has played a significant role in many major national movements - civil rights, women's rights, opposition to Vietnam and Iraq wars - while supporting landmark legislation that resulted from these movements. ADA continues working for social and economic justice through lobbying, organizing, research, and the support of progressive candidates.
The ADA is well-known for its rankings of legislators. The ADA tracks how members of Congress vote on what it considers key issues and gives each member a rating from 0, meaning complete disagreement with ADA policies, to 100, meaning complete agreement with ADA policies. A score of 0 is considered conservative and a score 100 is considered liberal.
Founding members include:
* Eleanor Roosevelt
* Hubert Humphrey
* Arthur Schlesinger, Jr.
* John Kenneth Galbraith
RE: CLINTON FAILURE TO READ CLASSIFIED INTELLIGENCE REPORT PRIOR TO VOTING ON AUTHORIZING IRAQ INVASION
canuckchuck July 16th, 2007 1:44 pm
"She voted for the illegal invasion of Iraq, without even bothering to read the damn intelligence report…and STILL refuses to admit her mistake."
I would not assume Clinton failed to read it by mistake.
It can be assumed that she would have known the gist of it through others. If Clinton never actually read it, it seems more likely either that a) she shared the gung-ho bellicose mindset of the right, and spurned the document as an impediment, or b) it appeared politically expedient - not only in the short term, but in the longterm - to support the invasion, and reading the NIA would have weakened Clinton's justifications (both at the time and now) for that support.
Note that these two explanations can both be true.
Either way, I would not take Clinton's so-called explanation at face value. Her approach to foreign policy - itself dependent on the DLC's domestic political calculations - has always been right wing. Clinton's support for the war and refusal to apologize for that support are not personal, they reflect the political calculations of the DLC.
My fear is that Hillary would be a more enthusiastic war maker than Cheney-Bush, rationalizing it as a necessity of defense. She clearly wants to show that she can be tough and muscular in foreign policy to convince voters that she will do what it takes to defend the country and that she's not a push-over.
But, that does not end if she wins the election.
What then? She will be forced to deal with the nations of the world, many of them with the culturally-ingrained notion that women are weaker and lesser citizens. Logically, she will feel compelled to prove that she cannot be taken advantage of by nations that stereotype women as weak.
I believe this translates directly to more violence overseas in a Hillary Clinton Administration than we would see from the other candidates. Not that Hillary is a warmonger, but that she would rationally view a very strong and muscular foreign policy as an essential component of defense of the country against those that might see a female President as an invitation.
Now, the other thing is -- if more than 50% of the public has said it would not vote for Hillary, why is she being presented relentlessly as the front-runner? If the anti-Hillary sentiment is truly so high, she represents the worst chance for the Democrats to win in 2008.
Is it possible the media is collaborating, wittingly or otherwise, in the undermining of Democratic chances in 2008?
RE: AMERICANS FOR DEMOCRATIC ACTION (ADA) ON CLINTON
micki July 16th, 2007 11:55 am
"Americans For Democratic Action give Hillary a 95% positive rating on her votes in the Senate."
ADA is a Cold War liberal organization whose first and main concern was distancing itself from right wing accusations that liberals were soft on Communism.
It was slow to oppose the Vietnam War relative to other groups. It has never been at the forefront of progressive movements or causes.
It seems that many of the fascists who run Wall Street (and the country) are thinking the public has gotten wise to all the rich white male fascists they have run and figure this time they will have to run a rich white female fascist. "Look people, this is something new, this is progress!" I do not think they are sweating it.
Capitalism kills, let's kill capitalism !!
If it looks like a duck , acts like a duck, then you the American people better duck; Hillary is a politico and to even bring the sex issue into the equation shows how little progressives have progressed in the last 50 years, they are flat chested women still burning bras!
The Democratic party is not progressive it is regressive and yes just as oppresssive as their contemporarys in the GOP ranks.
For you who mention Hillarys Health Bill, it was not Hillarys it was a group of mainly california finacial big boys , yes Insurance comanys are finacial institutions, who saw a chance to make a killing and the killing would of been your fellow americans.
To this day the full text of Hillarys plan has not been released to public and the public goes on hearsay and innuendos of how great it was.
It was even worse than the GOP plans of today.
It was a complete triage managed care with teh welathiest getting the cheapest benfits and the poor getting very limited coverage.
It was eleitist and went by your value to society, a DR was worthy of bnetter care than a Wal Mart worker or catfish skinner.
It would of made mandatory payments from everyones paychecks inot what we today call medical savings plans, you pay your bills with your own money and they allow you to deduct the tax savings not the cost of even aspeirin.
Bill Clinotn should of been impeached for his Arkansas and for his politcal shenanigans and both he and Hillary jailed but in doing so the money stolen from US Fedeal Housing funds by both Republicans and Democrats in HUD FHA, FHa, yes there are two differing oens, and even GI Bill loans to small buisness and houses all money laundered through Arkansasa.
He even had to get John Glen of Arizona thefts to help defend him and Glenn got a free space ride for his payment.
The Clintons and their supporters were and still are low lifes dressed in tax payer and corporate bangles and beads. Bureaucrats and wanna be players whose identiy is dependent upon pigs with gold rings in noses.
Packaged for consumption by an American populace fed on lies and ready to buy anything they think they will get for free.
Can't vote for Kucinich or people of conscience?
Why not?
Could be you do not have enough courage to vote your convictions and swallow the line from democrats and repubs of they can't win.
Sunshine progressives and that is why we the little people in Us will never progress.
immp, it is obvious that nobody here bought into your gender-war argument, so give it up. In fact, kudos to progressives in general for seeing past this non-issue.
We have evolved, immp, and now view all candidates as PEOPLE, and not by their gender. It's not the '70s anymore.
Taking your silly gender issue a few more silly steps:
1. Clinton has a problem because she's a woman
2. Kucinich has a problem because he's short
3. Edwards has a problem because he's from the South
4. Obama has a problem because he's black
5. Romney has a problem because he's a Mormon
6. Giuliani has a problem because...forget it, too many to list
If I were to list all of them, all of them would be unelectable for one reason or another.
Stick to important candidate issues, and join the rest of true progressives in determining who is and isn't a better candidate.
The U.S. is not only a profoundly racist country (check the prisons) it is also a profoundly sexist country. Have we reached the same numbers of females in the congress or senate, supreme court, CEOs of major countries,that we have in the population? No! No! No! and No! Do we have pay parity yet? Again, No!
As my first sociology Professor said, "Do we all think that this state of affairs is an accident?"
I have never voted for HRC but certainly will when she gets the nomination, because my first choice is certainly not going to get it in this greed ridden, corrupt tryanny that passes for a democracy.
Hillary Clinton could once and for all put to rest the myth that feminism and progressive politics are connected. Hillary is a militant feminist corporatist, and probably a fascist, and is determined to prove that a militant feminist can be as dedicated to world hegemony for US corporations and the military-industrial complex, through war and robbery, as much as any patriarchal man.
And that is why she inspires hatred across the political spectrum. Probably the only way she can win the general election is if Bloomberg runs and runs hard.
This presidential campaign has been completely taken over by the main stream media, with their 'debates' and deciding winners. It is all about coffers and polls, not about issues and New Ideas to solve the domestic problems facing America, as well as ending this foolish war and beginning another. Drowning out those candidates who appear to have some solid ideas is unfair and ultimately a detriment to the political discourse.
My question of Hillary would be? How supportive of you of shutting down the Federal Reserve? I think most people know what the answer would be?
http://www.freedomtofascism.com/
Kucinich for Pres. Hillary for V.P. Balance
A sampling of Clinton's votes:
YES on:
6/28/05: This was the vote to pass HR 6, a sellout of the environment to the nuclear, coal-burning and automotive industries. The emphasis on nuclear and coal facilities could leave the United States a radioactive, mercury-ridden deserted land. A couple hundred million or more children and adults could be killed by nuclear meltdowns and/or mercury poisoning. The bill sells out to those who want to make inefficient cars and thereby will continue to subject millions of Americans to the risk of death and serious health conditions, aside from the risks of mercury-poisoning and radiation-poisoning..
YES on:
7/01/05: This was the vote on H.R. 2419. The last vote before passage was a vote to reject an amendment to prohibit the use of funds for the Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator and instead utilize the amount to reduce the National Debt This has billions in funding for nuclear weapons activities. It contains full funding for Yucca Mountain, a project designed to make California a radioactive wasteland, to irradiate the Colorado River and to make much of the nation's food supply dangerously radioactive. It also uses billions of taxpayers dollars to fund nuclear weapons activities. This is perhaps the coldest, most inhuman bill voted upon this year.
Yes on:
6/09/05A: This was the confirmation vote on Richard Griffin for a lifetime appointment to the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals. Richard Griffin has a history of taking extreme positions harmful to the environment, civil rights and the rights of workers, strikers. and consumers.
Yes on:
6/09/05B: This was the confirmation vote on David McKeague for a lifetime appointment to the Sixth Circuit. McKeague has a judicial activist history of being a strong opponent of the environment and of privacy rights. The approval of both Griffin and McKeague places the future of the natural resources and the health of the residents of the area covered by the 6th Circuit in grave jeopardy.
YES on:
5/24/05: This was the cloture motion on Priscilla Owen for the 5th Circuit. Torture-proponent Alberto Gonzales even called Owen extreme. Her record shows that she is anti-environment, anti-employee, anti-civil rights, anti-human rights, pro-discrimination and pro-polluter. This was the critical vote - the confirmation vote was a sure thing once this passed.
YES on:
5/10/05: HR 1268/HR418 involved two bills re-combined in committee. Since these bills both are catastrophic to human rights and human life and were originally two separate bills, though they were voted on together following the conference report, each of the two bills is being counted here. HR 1268 is an appropriations bill which gives profits to contractors who benefit from wars and which acts as an excuse to continue the war and the killing in Iraq. HR 418 presumes to override Articles I,II and III of the U.S. Constitution and to give the power to commit acts of terrorism, murder, torture, etc. to Michael Chertoff, a man connected with individuals involved in financing 9/11. It also eliminates political asylum in the United States by requiring the victims of persecution to obtain written proof of the persecution from the governments that are persecuting them. It also sets up the basis for a Nazi-style national ID Card while making the highways more unsafe and terrorism more likely.
YES on:
4/21/05B: This was HR 1268, the appropriations bill which took funds away from veterans injured in Iraq and from education, heath care and services for children, the elderly and the needy in America and gave approximately $81 billion dollars to those who were profiting from death.
AWOL on:
3/10/05: This was the actual vote on the bankruptcy deform bill, guaranteeing that credit card issuers can now steal homes from veterans, laid-off workers and people with serious medical conditions. (my note: although the senator did vote "yes" on nearly the exact same bill the year before.)
YES on:
2/15/05: This was the vote to confirm Michael Chertoff, a proponent of water-board torture, an individual connected to the financing of 9/11 and the man behind the round-up of thousands of people of Middle-Eastern descent following 9/11. By confirming him the Senate, in effect, endorsed terrorist attacks on America, water-board torture and racism.
Refused to stand for:
1/06/05: This was the opportunity for Senators to stand up for democracy and honest elections
The above information was mined from The Patrick Henry Democratic Club
http://patrickhenrythinktank.org/sen-score5.html
This is only a look at the last 8 months, and this list ONLY looks at the votes where she abandoned the Democratic Party principles. In other votes, she voted with the Democratic values.
If you look at her overall performance, she generally supports the social values of the Democratic party, but not the economic values. She never votes against increasing Defense Appropriations, War Money, and seldom votes to limit the Power of BIG Corporations, or seldom opposes judges KNOWN to support Corporate Management over LABOR.
Senator Clinton DID vote against CAFTA which passed with the help of other DLC defectors from the Democratic Party. Since the Corporatists had already ensured they had the votes for passage, her vote AGAINST CAFTA is not really significant.
This is the reason that "looking a the voting record" can be misleading. Politicians "swap votes" every day. A vote against CAFTA (or whatever) was meaningless once the PTB had the necessary votes for passage. The Powers that buy votes don't demand that each bought politician vote "their way" every time. They ONLY demand that their anti-LABOR legislation PASS every time. After that point, "their people" are free to "Cover Their Asses".
The votes "in committee" and the positions advocated from "the floor" are more significant than a quick look at the voting record. Even mre important are the positions that they choose to REMAIN SILENT on (thereby giving tacit approval), though these are harder to document.
For comparison,
Patrick Henry rating for:
Senator Clinton= +32
Senator Kerry= +75
Senator Kennedy= +110
Senator Boxer= +130
Senator Lieberman= -235
Well Micki-
I suppose I could list all the previous Republican doners and activists who now have done a "rethinking" of Clinton but I doubt your lecturing self righteousness would even allow you to entertain the truth because it would shatter all those dearly-held illusions.
Meanwhile, Bush came right out and stated that what has to happen in Iraq is for the scurity situation to improve to insure that American vital interests there and in the region aren't threatened. Here is Hillary-
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/15/AR2007071501112.html
See any light between the two?
ADA gives Charles Schumer a 100% rating.
Americans For Democratic Action give Hillary a 95% positive rating on her votes in the Senate.
Oh, so Vern, you believe what Richard Mellon Scaife says when he claims he is sitting on his wallet this time around on his Hillary-Hate-Fest?
He ponies up the money under his various foundations for all manner of reichwing vendettas.
Sheesh. And you think I'm uninformed!
Back to basics, cut out the politico-mambo-jambo talk about this person or that person.
The religious right has bullied its way into mainstream, and the shallow values which it presents and endorses don't represent the way most Americans feel. We need a leader who will stand up for what is really important to the average person and inclusive of our diverse population; someone who has a clear vision and can articulate some semblance of the truth about humanity, attempt to accomplish equality and spread the message of acceptance of diversity in America. One who will put her efforts and attention into protecting and improving the quality of life for Americans in America. We need a leader who can communicate through language and actions to rebuild the spirit and lives of the American people. GO HILLARY!
RE: WHY NOT HILLARY? "IT'S THE ISSUES STUPID"
Clark Kent July 16th, 2007 11:09 am
"Why don't we like Hillary? It's about the issues stupid."
Yup. But to repeat earlier post - also, a right wing Democratic Party has set up its most right wing candidate - in the media, and, I think, in the Party. HC is not just running: she is being 'run' by the dominant, conctrolling DLC flank of the DNC.
Consequently, Clinton does not just lead in public polls - she has been pre-annointed and set up to lead early. The process by which this occurred deserves to be focused on in a separate article.
Yo micki--
Why don't you get a clue instead of spewing your bile here at the people who actually took the time to inform themselves.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/19/us/politics/19clinton.html?ex=1329627600&en=b31de88a19f787aa&ei=5124...
Hillary would be any kind of president that her corporate backers want her to be. She would not be any different than George W. She would be just as polorizing as what we already have. The only differnce between her and and G.W., is at times, in public, she wears a skirt.
We (some of us) don't just dislike her, it is a feeling that we have been there, done that and let's get on with change.
Instead of bitching about Murdoch's and Big Pharma's dough going to Hillary (or any other candidate for that matter), why don't y'all focus on publicly funded elections? This election cycle is further validation, that we need publicly funded elections so that there is the possibility, at least, of more and better competition in our elections' process.
It would be wonderful for the republic if Big Pharma, the military-industrial complex, and financial institutions didn't hold the key in the nomination process.
Eight for Hillary, eight more for Jeb, and that will give us 36 straight years of the Bush-Clinton dynasty in this so called land of the free. Put her up and the dims deserve what they will get, DEFEAT.
jon
Connecting the dots; from human behaviors to ecosystem decline
http://StudentsForTheEarth.org
I loathe Rupert Murdoch's policies, especially as they relate to corporate power in communications.
However, if Murdoch hosts a fundraiser for Hillary Clinton, Jesus Christ, or Adolph Hitler that is his perogative. Corporatists like to cover their bases in all things political.
Siouxrose, I don't have to re-read the thread to understand the self-righteousness expressed here. It is palpable. You see TRUTH through fogged lenses, IMO. How can you say that about Hillary's "would-be" policies? People voted for Bush on the promise of his "would-be" policies -- remember he touted himself as a compassionate conservative. Yet, he is anything but compassionate. Face it, you hate Hillary, pure and simple. That's fine with me if you object to her, but PLEASE do it on the basis of facts, not crapola manufactured by Richard Mellon Scaife and all the other Clinton haters.
As far as being guilty of my "own version of sexism" -- you make no sense.
"Severe opposition is a measure of success (because) one inevitable result of winning a majority change in consciousness is a backlash from those forces whose power depended on the old one."
- Gloria Steinem
I couldn't say it better.
Why would common dreams run this article? It contains zero information and substantial disinformation.
Why don't we like Hillary? It's about the issues stupid. It's about her failure to take a stronger progressive stand. Helping Hillary play the "don't-hate-me-because-I'm-a-woman" card is just sickening, discussion-ending bullpoo.
The fact that Rupert Murdoch attends her fundraisers and gives generously should tell you something.
"Of course I'll vote for her if she is the nominee, because the neo-cons must be destroyed. But I suspect the 'cons want her running more than any other candidate."
Had Enough summarizes the conundrum that we are forced into every single time. The Democrats are masters at framing the issue as one of either voting for them or getting the worse of the evils - the Republicans. If we, the unwashed masses, dare to think of voting our consciences, we are pilloried as spoilers and the ones responsible for every evil that befalls us. Of course, the Democrats can always count on enough acolytes and sheep to keep the mantra of fear going. It stinks!
It's imperative that we (read, those who are not fooled) to keep our eye on the corporate ball. To paraphrase Bill's campaign motto - it's the corporate money, stupid! Both (read, the Republican AND the Democratic) parties are so far up the corporate money ass that nothing significant will change with either in power. We will merely forestall the inevitable by voting for either.
Hillary is but one small example of the oligarchic plutocracy that runs this nation and the world. It is ultimately up to us to read the writing on the wall and screw our courage to the sticking place. If we don't, we have no one to blame but ourselves. Of course, Democrat apologists will always find someone else to blame.
Hey, is that Ralph Nader I just saw spoiling the latest Great White Hope's chance?
Jesus, what a bunch of maroons.
Hey, the primaries haven't even started. If you want to dump Hillary, DO IT. Vote, get out the anti-Hillary vote and at least try to take this thing back into your hands. The MSM runs articles every day declaring that the candidate who raises the most campaign funds is the automatic winner. In a word, plutocracy. It's time they were proven wrong.
As far as Hillary Clinton being on the far-right -- check out her voting record in the Senate. It's considered by the REICHWINGERS as liberal!
Many people on this thread are basing their "judgments" on pure emotion, rather than on reality and facts.
Some say they'd take Ron Paul as an alternative to Gravel or Kucinich. Huh? Ron Paul may be saying the right things about Iraq, but other than that he is a me-me-me, selfish, anti-government, anti-social program, anti-everything libertarian who has a very far-right voting record. How can he possibly be a viable alternative to K & G?
peacemaker: Maybe it would serve useful to view it within the context of your name rather than how the Right sees it. In order to be perceived as tough and capable, Clinton adopts the bluster of the most foolhardy war hawk. That is fundamentally more triangulation rather than opposition to an attitude that has failed us--yet clinton exhibits no independence or alternative to this macho bluster. Why would I, as a woman, want to support a woman, who emulates the worst qualities of male testosterone stupidity?
She has boxed herself in and her only recourse is that she will be shoved down our throats and given a pass by, given cover by, never challenged by the corporate power structure she has aligned herself with.
Johncpt, Micki & Immp: I hope you re-read this thread. The TRUTH is there IS no discernible difference between Hillary's would-be policies and the awful, murderous status quo.
MICKI: Whatever your academic rationales, the glib way by which you bypass independent women thinkers' aversion to Hillary has NOTHING to do with what's at stake or involved! I like powerful women of PRINCIPLE, not sell-outs! Making gender trump decency and the basis for political discourse makes you guilty of your own version of sexism.
REDWRITEON: Good points.
PEACE IS TRUTH: I hope you're right about the 3rd party emerging from this broken nexus.
MBURTON: You are probably right.
FAZZBOT: right on!
GAIL: good points.
She is hated by so many because she has been bashed in the 'right wing press' and by the religious nuts from the day she appeared on the scene! They harped day after day, after day about her! They have demonized her and made her into something she isn't. It's sad because I think she is an strong intelligent woman who would probably make an excellent President. But, you can't fight what people have been brainwashed into believing. It's sad but that is what has happened. Most people like that are terrified of strong women. They don't trust them. They think they are evil (look at all the previous comments). Ambition in a man is accepted but it a woman it's the mark of Satan. There are to many 'Redneck's' in this country. I just wish people in this country would grow up! We are missing a lot of good candidates because of people letting their prejudices get in the way of common sense.
HR Clinton is just of many candidate who are better than W, but I'm still with Kuchinich, Gravel or yes even Ron Paul, can they beat the big boys, don't know. HRC just another flag bearer for the corpartists, along with Pelosi until proven otherwise. How, more substantiative action to bring troops home, end the occupation.
I lost a lot of respect for H.R. Clinton when she cosponsored the flag burning bill.
Mrs. Clinton is very personable...but then, so is George W. Bush. I would love to love her, but I just can't. I am one of those who does not trust her as far as I can spit. Most recently, what I hold against her is the fact that she--out of all the dem. candidates--has taken the most money from the Health Industry. How on earth are we ever going to fix the healthcare system in the US if our top politicians are all in the pockets of the insurance and pharmaceutical companies?? Shame on you, Hillary.
RE: WHY DO PROGRESSIVES REJECT HER? 1) RIGHT WING; 2) FOISTED ON DEMOCRATS BY THE RIGHT WING, DLC-DOMINATED PARTY
IMO, progressives reject Hillary Clinton for two reasons:
1) Not only is she right wing, she is the most right wing candidate of the flock; this is shown not only by her early support for the Iraq invasion, but her continued support for it.
2) Progressives correctly grasp that - once again - the DLC-led Democracts are setting up a rigged horse race, where they are promoting the most right wing candidate - and, thereby, giving a big FU to the majority of its electorate.
Hillary is just too beholden to AIPAC. She made a deal with the devil and despite all the money and support it will backfire. Anyway, if it's just a woman president you want- vote for Obama.
I would like to see a human who practices humanity selected as our leader. Frankly, Clinton fails the test.
Nader isn't a spoiler but a person who actually has given us a real choice for a new direction in the last two elections. It's the people who didn't vote for him who spoiled it for themselves. Ralph Nader passes the test.
I don't care how she labels herself, Clinton is a Republican. Corporate-loving, power-hungry, never-made-a-mistake, hubristic politician - she's about as a much a Democrat as Ronald Reagan.
micki, if Clinton were in favor of checks and balances, we'd be hearing something from her about rolling back the power-grabbing excesses of Bush. As has been pointed out before, she wouldn't think of depriving herself of any of them.
The corporations who own and drive the MSM know that, with Clinton as the Democratic candidate, they are sure to have one of their own in the White House, no matter which party wins.
redwriteman July 16th, 2007 12:13 am
"My problem with Hillary is that her husband, as a democrat, pushed through the most damaging two pieces of anti-democrat legislation in recent memory. The Telecommunications Act green lighted the formation of media monopolies and NAFTA put American workers in direct competition with third sweatshops. Possibly if Hillary repudiated both of those democracy destroying acts and promised to reverse them, I would be more inclined to vote for her."
Clinton supporter, Ruport Murdock, loves media monopolies! And third-world sweatshop labor has been a god-send for the already super-wealthy who share their bounty by the $$millions in the form of campaign contributions. NAFTA legislation was the perfect vehicle to destroy the power of the Middle Class in this country and enhance the power of the corporate elite. Isn't that what "free trade" and globalization are all about? Welcome to the New World Order and a return to the days of surfdom and robber barons.
There is energy in hate so I try to quell my Hillary Clinton antipathy. Suffice it to say that as a NYC peace and justice activist, I am frightfully opposed to another Clinton presidency.
Hillary has taken her NY base for granted and despite calls and emails gallore voted for the illegal invasion of Iraq. Her healthcare plan was weak (see above), albeit better than nothing. Her Wal-Mart board stint should not be ignored. While she shouldn't be blamed for her husband's awful NAFTA policy, she hasn't repudiated it to my knowledge.
Interestingly enough, the one thing political my rightist brother and I have in common is the 2008 presidential race:
Hillary Clinton NO -- John Edwards YES. Interesting.
Edwards cares about the working people and the middle class are being, to use the title of Thom Hartmann's great book on the subject, SCREWED. If my rightist brother and I can agree on something political, there is hope.
i learned my lesson, sort of, eight years ago voting green. i swore i would vote democratic the last time and this coming election. I would not vote for hillary clinton and it is about so many things...especially if you dig into the Clinton administration they were no better than this bush admin. just more tactful. i would vote for bloomberg believe it or not.
Bernice said this about Hilary's health care plan from the early 90's:
"...but the plan she offered then is THE ONE (single-payer) that would take management of (and ridiculous profits from) our health care system our of the hands of the insurance industry and drug companies."
This statement is wrong. Her plan would have given the big insurance companies a bigger stake in health care and frozen out the smaller players. The small insurance companies fought the move. And, tt was not a single payer plan, like Conyers' H.R. 676 is.
I loathe the fact that every time we have an election, we get some relative from president's passed. What a joke.
Someone want to tall me why Clinton is characterized repeatedly as "smart"? She is shrewd, true, but smart?
She has mannerisms that cause the same viceral disgust as watching the Bush imbecile's incorrect use of "the" as "thee" as if it was a royal proclamation. Like the vapid, kinderteacher nodding she does everytime sleazy Bill speaks, or the adoring glances she gives Bill in photo-ops in the hope that his "charm" (same as her "smart"), rubs off.
It is a poorly researched article, much of the info gleaned from recently published exposes. I would never characterize Clinton as a "hippie"--and there was no mention that she was a Goldwater Girl or that she sat on the board of Arkansas based, Walmart. It is no accident that Walmart became the company store of the US, serving as the chief distributor of cheap goods and trinkets from China, under the Clinton years. Cheap affordable goods for a population with less consuming potential, offshored jobs to exploited slave labor while bypassing environmental restrictions of the US. Globally operating Corps are rolling it in, as reflected in the stock market--no reflection on the economic realities of the majority of the American people.
What bothers me about the Hillaryland steamroller is people desperately rally around team D candidate as the answer to the Bush disaster--not weighing the lack of policy differences or the failuere to hold the Bush gang accountable on any meaningful level. Kucinich and Gravel play an essential role of exposing the pass complicit Centrist Dems are getting by constantly yanking down their drawers. It is surreal the way the truth is simply ignored, but the conversation between the 2 insiders indicates, despite their marginalization, Kucinich and Gravel have Clinton and Edwards very nervous about the fact that less and less people are drinking their koolaid.
Ending the war and withdrawing does not mean a continued presence in Iraq to, as Bush out and out stated, secure our vital interests there and in the region.
Oil and Israel.
Jeez! Did this article push some buttons, or what?
She has Rupert Murdoch raising money for her campaign!!!
It doesn't really matter why Hillary is hated and it doesn't really matter whether you vote for her or not. She will be our next president because the Illuminati have selected her to fulfill this role in the next fake election between the fake duality of repug vs demoslut.
There are a very few honest politicians out there but Hillary is most certainly not one of them. Look at that plastic idiot girl smile of hers. She can't even lie well like a politician should be able to do in order to get elected - even when she's not flapping her lips about nothing at all.
Hillary will be elected and a slightly different set of policy positions will be used to further your enslavement to the fascist state of the NWO. You have no choice, you have no say in the matter. It's high time you all woke up and realized this. Do you really think the war will end or that you will avoid the concentration camps being built by Kellog Brown & Root for FEMA if ANY of these mainsteam candidates are elected?
Demoslut fascist candidate or repugnican fascist candidate it's all the same and it's all smoke and mirrors. If voting made a difference it would already be illegal.
re: Dennis. The media loves a fight and is hungry for a viable candidate. With anti-war sentiment running as high as it is in the country today, why would they block out Kucinich? They research everything. They live and die by ratings and poll numbers. Everyone who watches television news knows who he is. He's not invisible. They are not covering him more because he's not speaking to a large enough majority. It's about the numbers.
Hillary Clinton is a Rorschach. Forget this article ... read these comments.
She's a neo-liberal. She's a fascist. She voted for the Iraq invasion. Like a huge majority did (All but Kucinich I think, but more on him later.) She refuses to "pull out now" as most politicians agree is implausible. Most analysts agree, it will take a long time to get out. She seems to be telling everybody what they want to hear. How else can she get elected? Forget Bush, every politician who has run for office in my lifetime has done this. Is it called reaching for a consensus? Does it really make them hypocrites? Or do they just look that way to people who have Right or Left wing ideological agendas? She takes money from Corporations. Gasp! Have any other funding resources in mind? (I used to work for a corporation's PR Department. We gave money to all sides, but we gave the most to the one we thought would win.) She messed up the health care plan? And no one else has? What we have now is so much better? Murdoch gave her money. Do you think Murdoch threw the fundraiser (it was for the NY Senator by the way) because he loves her or fears her? Get real!
Then there's all the stuff about her legs, her hair, she's too made-up, she's not made up enough, she's a feminist, she's a slave to her hubby. Are you people serious?
I mean it. Are you serious about this democracy? One of you stays home to wash your hair instead of voting (wow!) and another votes Green in protest! What do you think the Republicans will be doing while you are washing your hair?
The Republicans hate the idea of her running. Do you know why? Because she has a snowball's chance in hell of wining. Because she's taken every insult and scandal their insult and scandal machine has thrown at her and she's survived. Talk about a Teflon candidate. Do you know who the Republicans would love? Gravel. Kucinich. Cindy Sheehan. Their lie generation machine will eat these people alive and the only reason they haven't spent any money on it yet is because they do not register on the Richter scale. And why don't they? Is it really a big media conspiracy? Or is it that these people haven't gained traction with the pluralistic majority? Mike Bloomberg? Yeah another Billionaire. Great idea.
Nader continues to threaten that he will run ONLY if Hillary is nominated. Only her? The rest (some front-runners) are OK with him? I thought he said there was little difference between the two parties. Which is it Ralph?
By the way by saying this he lays one controversy to rest. He admits he's a spoiler. He admits he'll split the party to defeat her (like he did Gore) He is OK with the fact that it will install a Republican? Boy. He'll show her. (And us.) BTW: This is not a demented egomaniac?
Jack Hitt wrote an article in Mother Jones a while back about Hillary hate. It was about none of this. It was about the fact that she was a woman, that she had common middle class roots, that she wanted to be in politics. He gave it a title like "Why everyone hates Hillary - You're not going to like it."
But please do go on doing all the research for the Right wing about every thing she ever did that can be used to tarnish her. Please go on and on about the Iraq thing blithely ignorant of the fact that a Democrat will be obliged during the convention to come up with a real plan ... just know that you're not going to like that either. And remember that a Republican will not end this war. (Put Ron Paul up there with Kucinich and Gravel.)
Please forget that the Right wing is the enemy, that the Republicans will make everything we hate worse and please do go on with your lives.
Because if you can afford to say all this crap and tear down the only candidate we've got with the best chance of winning (with what 15 months to go and no one on the horizon?) I am sure you can get on with your life. Because that means you're not worried about going to Iraq, paying your medical bills, paying for education, cleaning up the planet, etc. Please do dream of a better place, with better candidates and a less brainwashed populace … do please do dream
Just get out there and help people register to vote. And make sure your voting district does not use any of the "new" voting machines. Accountability starts at home.
Hillary already spent her time at the White House with her husband. Currently, she's just a dolled up Margaret Thatcher who switches her tune way too much. Your typical politician who thinks they've mastered the system.
Vote for Kucinich. And request more debates on PBS or other public Access channels...
"...but I'm still with Kuchinich, Gravel or yes even Ron Paul..."
I cringe every time a Kucinich supporter claims they also support Ron Paul. On every issue except the war, Kucinich and Paul are polar opposites. Kucinich would strengthen labor, environmental, consumer, and healthcare rights.
Paul doesn't even recognize these rights - believing that dog-eat-dog is the highest human conition we should strive for. Likewise, Gravel is a moderate version of Paul.
To all the Democrat and other voters who are worried about or opposed to a Hillary presidency: You better get active and make sure the only principled, non-corporatist, true anti-war candidate in the league wins the Democratic nomination. Go on, check out his track record and do what you know in your heart your country and the world need: A candidate who not only knows about the spiritual values that underly our existence, but speaks (out) about them and translates them into feasible policies. All he needs is people who believe that this world is worth their vote and who know that impossible is only what you don't believe in. Dennis for President!
johncpt July 16th, 2007 1:48 am
Viable? A candidate who fifty percent of the electorate say they would never vote for? She's viable all right, viable for her Repug opponent. No wonder Rupert Murdoch is pumping money into her campaign.
Pathetic, this attitude against Hillary. She has her shortcomings, but she's the best "viable" candidate in the running, on both sides. All the others are either easy pickins for the republicans, or are rejected by a majority of the electorate. All these people that "refuse" to vote for her, are a pain in the ass. I suuppose you'll allow another republican half-wit to get in, just to satisfy your selfish and adolescent spite? I'm amazed at the blindness and stupidity of this stubborn attitude. A substantial number of democrats (so called) will refuse to vote for Hillary because of her vote to allow Bush to conduct a war. Unbelieveable! How on earth can anyone be so shortsighted as to believe that her vote was a sign that she's a hawk, rather than what it almost certanly was: an effort to set herself up for a presidential run. God forbid that this shortsightedness causes her to lose the presidency, and it falls into the hands of a Bush clone. God almighty, what does it take to awaken people to the risk they're taking with our democracy; our country?
Hillary IS the status quo. I think the pollsters should ask the obvious question of Democratic voters: Would you prefer another candidate to Hillary? I'd personally vote for
anyone but her. I refuse to hold my nose and vote for someone I really don't believe in.
Kucinich is the only one that says what I think.
John from Portland
My problem with Hillary is that her husband, as a democrat, pushed through the most damaging two pieces of anti-democrat legislation in recent memory. The Telecommunications Act green lighted the formation of media monopolies and NAFTA put American workers in direct competition with third sweatshops. Possibly if Hillary repudiated both of those democracy destroying acts and promised to reverse them, I would be more inclined to vote for her. I am sick of democrats trying to prove they can out-republican republicans. Our best chance is to get a larger progressive-friendly majority in both houses of congress, so at least we can hold any potential democratic president's feet to the fire.
Ms. Clinton lost my vote when she visited Israel recently & posed in front of the apartheid wall and said that the "wall is good for Palestinians."
Sorry, but to endorse the brutal Israeli occupation & claim it is good for Palestinians reminds me of the arguments
used by slave owners when they claimed that the "Negroes were to childish to have freedom"
She is as much of a warmonger & hyprocrit as the current occupant of the oval office.
clarification... people do not like Hillary because she is a corporate puppet and also entirely controlled by AIPAC.
micky: hahaha, Hillary Clinton is a capitalist and elitist just like the major top contenders. She doesn't represent the interests of the US working classes at all, but the interests of the war mongers and the oligarchies
Micki,
I think what a lot of people are objecting to is the fact that Hillary is a corporate puppet and also entirely controlled by AIPAC.
In my humble opinion, anyone who supports Hillary Clinton deserves the same fate as an Iraqui prisoner in one of American prison camps.
They are no better than Bush"n" Corp and the GOP supporters.
They are just as much to blame for this countrys failing as are the Bushys.
Has nothing to do with a woman or man, but whomevwer ius best for country, the littel b's who think it does are as warped as any red necked GI sodomizing prisoners.
Their own petty desires coming to the fore and one damn reason the Dcemocratic party has no solidarity today too many males and females chewing on the rag!
Yes Hillary is more man than most GOP but if being a man is brutality greed and piwer sucking leeches like hillary then this country indeed is in sad shape.
Hillary is yes a pawn of AIPAC and will keep this country in permanet warfare and tax the living hell out of the citizenry to support her corporate sponsors.
I don't care if the best candidate for bringinh back a form of democracy is the ugliest transvestite in world as long as he she or it is An american and does not let party, corporate or sex come before countrys needs.
Oh, one more thing.
Karl Rove is laughing. He's happy as the proverbial clam.
He's in propaganda heaven because all you Hillary-haters are doing exactly what he wants you to do. He laid the trap and you've taken the bait. You are helping him -- and his anti-democracy goons -- do their job. Hate, hate, hate.
Hillary isn't even my first choice for president, but I am astounded by all the ridiculous, hateful, unfounded, emotional, unverified "reasons" for your vilification.
Yup.. Karl Rove has you in his hands.
serop2: u are right, you are very right. US Voters don't know how to vote !!