Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
Newsvine
Facebook
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiOfficials at Rupert Murdoch's News Corporation have contributed to Hillary Clinton's campaign, and Murdoch himself has held fund-raisers in her behalf. Lawyers at Kenneth Starr's law firm, Kirkland and Ellis, have donated more to Clinton than they have to all of the Republican candidates combined. In addition, Bloomberg.com reports that "Large US [law] firms ... are giving thousands more to Democratic hopefuls than Republicans. Top Wall Street investment banks and hedge funds are also giving more to Democrats." We can assume that most of these donations are going to the front-runners, Clinton and Obama. And finally, Hillary Clinton's appearance last week at the Yearly Kos, was cut short by her appearance at a fund-raiser at the estate of billionaire, Ron Perlman.
Hillary Clinton appears to be the favorite Democrat of Republican haves and have-mores.
Why is this so?
The oxymoronic "conventional wisdom" in the mainstream media would have us believe that these Republicans, assuming a near-inevitable Democratic victory in 2008, are backing the most likely, and, to them, the most tolerable, Democratic candidate.
I have a different take on it. The Republicans, far from conceding the next election, believe that they may have a plausible shot at winning. But to do so, the Democrats must nominate the weakest and most vulnerable candidate.
And Hillary is the one. How so?
There are many compelling reasons why the front-running Democratic hopeful is also the most vulnerable.
- Most significantly, among the general voting population Hillary Clinton has the highest disapproval ratings of all the Democratic candidates - in fact, according to a June Mason-Dixon poll, she is the only candidate of either party of whom a majority (52%) have said that they would not consider voting. In addition, 42% reported an unfavorable opinion of Clinton, compared to 39% favorable; the only candidate with a net negative rating. These are devastating statistics which are unlikely to change significantly, since the public is by now well acquainted with Clinton. One would assume that such statistics would disqualify a candidate. However, the establishment Democrats who support Hillary are unperturbed.
- Next, "the woman thing." Though the mainstream media has scrupulously avoided the topic, the fact that Clinton is the first woman in US history likely to be the presidential nominee of a major party must be a serious obstacle to her election. This is regrettable, and I sincerely wish that it were not so. But there it is, and the Democratic party will ignore this reality at its peril. And if Clinton selects Barak Hussein Obama as her running-mate, with the first black candidate on a national ticket the "blue" populist resurgence in the South will be stopped in its tracks and the Democrats will lose every electoral vote in the South. Jim Crow, while muted, still lives. Also regrettable, but true.
- If Clinton were to be elected and serve two full terms, at the end of her administration in 2116, two families would then have occupied the White House for twenty-eight years. Many Americans are extremely put-off by the very idea of dynasties and royal families. I know that I am. Millions of voters, I suspect, would go to the polls in November, 2008 with this thought foremost on their minds: "this dynasty business must end, and end now."
- Hillary Clinton is widely perceived to be a political "weathervane" who adapts her positions and talking points to shifts in public opinion. Most of the public has had quite enough of "focus-group politics," and yearns for a politician who acts and speaks clearly with conviction and on principle. In the eighties, voters would say of Ronald Reagan, "I may disagree with him, but I know where he stands." And then they would vote for him. Pop quiz: state in twenty-five words or less, the guiding principles of Clinton's politics. See what I mean? The failure of the Democratic Congress to exhibit courage and clarity of its convictions, and its unwillingness to act decisively has resulted in its dismal public approval ratings - lower, even than those of George Bush. The public will not look kindly upon similar behavior by the Democratic presidential candidate.
- Clinton and her managers apparently believe that the winning votes are to be found in a presumed "center" between establishment (e.g., Congressional) Democrats and the Republicans. Thus they have swallowed the kool-aid served up by the GOP-lite Democratic Leadership Council and the beltway pundits. In fact, as poll after poll testifies, overwhelming public opinion concerning Iraq, the "war on terror," the rule of law, economic justice, health care, minimum wage, public education, government regulation of commerce, environmental protection, campaign finance reform, etc. is "outside" and to the left of both parties. The failure of the "official" Democrats to recognize the public mind, accounts in large part for the public contempt for the Democratic Congress.
- While the mainstream media and the Republicans have been uncommonly gentle with Clinton - one might say suspiciously gentle - when the conventions are over and the campaign begins, the GOP and the media attacks will be brutal. And Clinton will be an especially vulnerable target. As we well know by now, GOP campaign themes have no necessary grounding in fact - witness Al Gore and "inventing the internet," and John Kerry's encounter with the "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth." Hillary Clinton can be expected to be overwhelmed by a barrage of malicious rumors and innuendos
While Hillary Clinton is clearly not the people's choice (cf. The Mason-Dixon poll above), she is most assuredly the media's choice. Democratic candidates such as Dennis Kucinich and Bill Richardson, whose views on Iraq, economic justice, and health care most closely coincide with public opinion, are relegated to "the second tier" - not serious contenders. And who decides this allocation? Not the public - there have been no primaries yet. Of course, the media decides. Early poll numbers largely reflect "name recognition." And the media repeatedly prints and broadcasts the names that are "recognized."
It is clear today that Hillary Clinton has been pre-selected by the media as the Democratic nominee, with Barak Obama and John Edwards as the runners-up. As The Independent of the UK reports, "the nomination as matters stand is Ms Clinton's to lose." If, in fact, Clinton is the weakest and most vulnerable of the Democratic candidates, the mainstream media has once again served the GOP well.
As David Swanson correctly observes, "there is a pattern well established in this country of the corporate media working very hard to nominate Democrats destined to lose." We saw this "pattern" at work in 1972, when the most formidable Democratic candidate, Maine Senator Edmund Muskie, was sandbagged by a phony letter attacking Muskie and his wife. While the letter originated with GOP dirty-trickster, Donald Segretti, the media inflated Muskie's emotional response to it, fatally damaging Muskie's candidacy. The GOP and its media allies then worked behind the scenes to promote Senator George McGovern, a WW-II war hero who was defamed as a weak-willed "peacenik." In the 1972 election, Richard Nixon won forty-nine states.
Among official Democrats, and in the liberal and progressive blogs, there is widespread talk of when, not if, the Democrats regain the White House in 2008. They correctly perceive a nationwide disgust with the unconstrained greed and lawlessness of the Bush/Cheney administration, and of the six years of total compliance with this villainy by the Congressional Republicans. These cheerful Democrats are confident that the GOP record assures a substantial victory in the 2008 election.
They forget that despite recent revelations of GOP finagling, the Rovian machinery of election fraud and massive disenfranchisement remains essentially in place. The "black box" paperless touch screen voting machines, built and secretly programmed by Republican manufacturers, will once again count and compile more than a third of the votes of the 2008 election.
Nonetheless, as we discovered in 2006, overwhelming public support of the Democrats can overcome a Republican "fix." And this time, the public has been alerted to the GOP's electoral shenanigans. Accordingly, the Democrat's prospect for victory in 2008 should be excellent, unless the party once again finds a way to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.
It appears that they may have found that way in the "front-running" candidacy of Hillary Clinton.
Dr. Ernest Partridge is a consultant, writer and lecturer in the field of Environmental Ethics and Public Policy. He has taught Philosophy at the University of California, and in Utah, Colorado and Wisconsin. He publishes the website, "The Online Gadfly" and co-edits the progressive website, "The Crisis Papers".
Copyright 2007 by Ernest Partridge
43 Comments so far
Show AllPartridge's analysis is stunningly accurate. Hilary Clinton is, and always has been, un-electable. The American public knows quite well that Ms. Clinton is a soulless yuppie possessed of infinite personal ambition (like her husband) but nothing approaching a legitimate ideological identity. Clinton's pro-Iraq War vote is particularly troubling in this regard. If it's Clinton-Obama vs. Giuliani-whoever, the dems will lose badly.
The U.S. is not progressive enough to elect a female for president as other countries have already done. In Hillary's case, it's a good thing as she's a warmonger who represents Israel and the big corporations and not the average American citizen -- just as Obama and Edwards do. Edwards seems to be the lesser of the 3 evils, however.
Kucinich is the man for the job. Who cares what the media says about him. They speak for the warmongers/war profiteers.
It's pathetic that people would vote for a Rethuglican if the country were attacked. I'm sure the goons know that and will stage yet another 9/11 before the election to make sure they get back into the White House. Another Rethuglican in the White House would ensure the continuation of the holocaust of Muslim civilians, women, and children even though they're not terrorists. That's what the dumbed-down populace wants.
"(Except I do remember when I once had a job for a major corporation and was in charge of making political contributions we made sure we gave to both parties.)"
Exactly the problem.
We must be pragmatic. Victory in 2008 is essential, defeat is unthinkable. We must give the voters what they want. The last 3 Dem's in the White House were from the South (not Illinois) and we all know Gore should have been number 4. In order to regain control of the executive branch, I think we need to find an intelligent, principled, and trustworthy Southerner who made his fortune fighting the corporate structure, not working for it: ie, Edwards.
It is a lamentable fact that neither a woman nor a black man has ever won the nomination let alone the White House. In this critical race where the future of the Constitution is at stake, is it wise to offer the electorate such an unprecedented candidate? Could a "novel" candidate bring out the vote in such sufficient numbers as to overwhelm the next Rovian ploy? Sadly, I think not.
I admire Ms. Clinton & Mr. Obama but I cannot support them. Ms. Clinton's associations with Rupert Murdoch and Walmart make me uncomfortable. Mr. Obama's friends in agrobiz also cause me concern. Ethanol is not the answer to anything; it will only jack up the cost of food. Having said that, I must point out that they both have many redeeming qualities and several policies I support. Both deserve to be in the front ranks of the next administration.
I think that a victory in 2008 will depend upon attracting disaffected moderate Republican voters. If this swing vote deems the Dem candidate unpalatable then they will stay home. Clinton's gender and Obama's race give the Rove machine too much cover. Only so many citizens ever bother to vote and we cannot hope for a massive turnout of first-time voters. And the Dems need a landslide to show the world that America has repudiated the neocon ideology.
Paul, I see your point and am frustrated that whatever happens Progressives are always left out in the cold. How about calling for Progressives 'flocking' to a 3rd party's caucauses?
Attending the Dem's gatherings seems only to secure empty promises of progressive action (Nov 2006: a mandate to disappoint) in exchange for well-intentioned votes.
Play "Primary Colors" everywhere and vote for Denny Kucinich.
Electable ?
Forget about electability
It is the mainstream Media who define what that word means.
So everybody vote for the least electable candidate.
Samski:
It can only be taken over, legally, if progressives flock to their caucuses. Interestingly, I've heard NOBODY calling for this. Neither Democrats nor Progressives. The Dems would just as soon have as few people as possible going to the caucuses, perhaps not even advertise their existence. The Progressives would rather grab a sign and chant in the streets.
I've protested. And it accomplished nichts.
Sure, we still need third parties to fight on the outside -- but in a winner-take-all system without Range or IRV, what hope do we have there? My bet goes on mobilizing progressives -- if there are many -- to swarm their corporate caucuses and change the makeup from the ground up.
Every day the list grows:
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aMG30qP_Jkk8&refer=h...
One can read "name recognition" as 'brand awareness.'
It then follows that there is a product being sold and further that collosal amounts of business money is what decides elections.
We've heard from so called Democrats the Progressives must 'retake the party from within' but never hear how to overcome the enormous vested intrests.
Time for a third party.
Prof Partridge,
Wow! What a great analysis. I for one am convinced. The Democrats are doomed before the fight. I'm switching my vote (and my ideology) to the Republican neo-conservative party. Rudy and Jesus in '08!
Why this sudden change of heart? You make compelling arguments.
Well except maybe ...
"Most significantly, among the general voting population Hillary Clinton has the highest disapproval ratings of all the Democratic candidates"
Though these opinions are held in the absence of a choice between her and Rudy or Mitt and / or the unprecedented negatives of Busy Cheyney
Next, "the woman thing." Uh ... not to mention the Black "Barack" Thing. (Oh sorry you did mention it!) You really have to elect a white man (or in the case of Richardson a kind of Hispanic man). The Republicans are sure to put only white guys up for Prez and that has worked out so well for us. Americans are, as you imply, real cro-magnons. They can put women and (gasp) black men in major positions of executive power, but never President. (Hmmm. How many Americans "report" to blacks or women or black women in their jobs? Just wondering.). Ah yes, regrettable, but true.
"If Clinton were to be elected and serve two full terms ... two families would then have occupied the White House for twenty-eight years." Dynasties? Bush was of a dynasty. His grandfather and father were in politics, he and his father scions. Bill and Hillary are a couple from Arkansas. Neither grew up in the atmosphere of a privileged dynasty. But you're right. Next thing you know Chelsea will be President.. Wait! The Kennedys. Not a dynasty?
"Hillary Clinton is widely perceived to be a political "weathervane" who adapts her positions and talking points to shifts in public opinion. Most of the public has had quite enough of "focus-group politics," and yearns for a politician who acts and speaks clearly with conviction and on principle." Hmm correct me if I am wrong but wasn't George W Bush a guy who "who acts and speaks clearly with conviction" and isn't American just famished for more of that?
"Clinton and her managers apparently believe that the winning votes are to be found in a presumed "center" between establishment (e.g., Congressional) Democrats and the Republicans." Is victory to be gained from the extreme left, which is more or less antagonistic toward all "viable" candidates? The center, swing Republicans and Independents are not the answer? They were before.
"And Clinton will be an especially vulnerable target." She already is. And she's not taking any of it. From the right. From the left. She, like Reagan oddly seems made of Teflon.
Since, as you say, "GOP campaign themes have no necessary grounding in fact - witness Al Gore and "inventing the internet," and John Kerry's encounter with the "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth." Hillary Clinton can be expected to be overwhelmed by a barrage of malicious rumors and innuendos"
That's right. In fact the machine of the Right is so powerful that ANY candidate will be creamed by it. That's why I'm switching sides now. Why wait for her inevitable slaughter from the Rove machine and attacks like these from the Progressive base. You think the Republicans might like her because the left will do all the Swıftboating for them? I mean as Grandma said " with friends like these ..."
And I'm certain you are right about what you say in your opening paragraph: None of those people on the Right contribute to her because they think she has the best chance of winning. They're only investors and business people who spend all their time and money hedging bets. But not when it comes to politics. No they toss money to the Democrats because they think Americans are NOT really fed up with Bush, the NeoCons or the Republicans and that the Democrats have a chance (and maybe Hillary has the best chance since she is a more centrist than most and they believe America will support her in spite of the hatchet job the Right has effectively done on liberals, progressives and Democrats over the past 7 years.
You are right though. It's all an evil corporate conspiracy to set her up for Rove. (Except I do remember when I once had a job for a major corporation and was in charge of making political contributions we made sure we gave to both parties.)
Nah! You're right. The future belongs to the Republicans. Rudy and Jesus in '08!
Hilary is for party and family above citizenry -- her family are all Repuklicans and her party is the party of James Carville-Matalin-Stephanapolous.
An HRC regime would be every bit as hostile to a true people's movement; the Senator from Wall Street would protect Wall Street.
Hillary is a win/win candidate for the wealthy. If she wins or loses the Presidential vote they win.
Hillary the choice of mainstream media too:
1. Every time there is a debate, if there is coverage on CNN and NPR radio, Hillary's "performance" is always mentioned. Her views on actual policy proposals are not stated, nor are any candidates even mentioned, except Obama.
2. Ditto for newspaper coverage I've seen in Wisconsin papers.
Given that most Americans don't even follow politics, for those that do, its practically impossible for them to develop an understanding of the views of the other candidates. As a result, the poll numbers Hillary has generated, mainly through name recognition, are unlikely to shift based on voter preferences for any policy proposals.
The election will turn on the perceived "personal qualities" that are manufactured in television commercials and coached stage presence.
if only everyone i've heard say "Dennis Kuchinich would be a great president, but i don't think he can win the election" would VOTE and CAMPAIGN for kuchinich, then we'd have a president who might be able to turn this beast of a nation around!
(oh, and al gore can just stay out of it, thank you very much)
Yes. It's hard to take seriously someone who uses the phrase "sausage legs" in an argument. Normally, I would ignore such ad hominem attacks, but I think this points to a larger issue that there is contempt for women even within the progressive community, (eg- "I'm a progressive but.... [insert ad hominem]").
Before angry people jump on me, just think about it. Rarely has a politician invoked such animosity among conservatives and progressive alike- when, I can think of many politicians who are much worse, morally and ethically speaking, than Hillary Clinton. I can only gather that it's contempt for women masquerading as ethical criticism.
Anyway, let's leave the ad hominems at the door. At the very least, they show immaturity and the inability to form legit arguments.
I buy the analysis in this article. It is very likely that this is the case. If so, we need to formulate our plan B if we are going to take back the White House anytime soon.
I think what WJM says is spot on. Although this article gives excellent reasons why Hilary is bad I think the big money conservatives are backing her because they know she'll carry out their policies, simple.
I agree Siouxrose. Let's keep the ad hominem attacks out of the discussion - and leave the emotional irrationality to the dittoheads! Please?
I wholeheartedly agree with this assessment, plain and simple.
HOPALONGCASSIDY and JESS: Can you guys, given that you're sharing in a PROGRESSIVE forum, consider off'ing your overt sexism? It shows contempt, that's right CONTEMPT, for women. COYOTITA lays out the basis for a viable critique on this political sell-out and insider, and the key word is TRUST. Not the shape of her legs, or those grotesque comments a la "woman on woman" action. These comments OFFEND me. Should we ladies discuss the size of men's phallic extensions so they can prove to us they are men? Is that the level of discourse, shades of all the junk mail I get in my yahoo box? C'mon, let's get IT up, and by that I mean, our perspectives!
You have it right. I am a progressive, dismayed by this Pelosi led Congress, and will vote against "sausage legs" Hillary.
The author of the article needs to see the documentary "One Bright Shining Moment" which goes into greater detail on the McGovern campaign. The last-ditch attempt of the party establishment to throw in an apologist for the War had Hubert Humphrey attacking McGovern for wanting to destroy the US military.
The Dems esablishment wing got rid of Henry Wallace in time for the '44 election, knowing FDR's fragility, just in time for Hell-On-Earth Harry to order the dropping of the a-bomb.
Whenever the people threaten to take over the party, the bankers & investors & weapons' makers will be there to sabotage them.
Hillary Clinton is unpopular among the women I have talked to. She lacks the main ingredient the next President of the U.S. must have: our trust.
We can elect a woman for president that will bring with her all of the positive characteristics currently thought of as female, as well as those characteristics that males lay claim to. That woman is Barbara Lee. Now we have the perfect running mate for Dennis Kucinich. Can you see them debate the Republican team? At last, our voices would be heard!
"B A R A C K" in the voice of Billy Madison's father. Granted, the "c" is silent.
Other than that, great column. Last night's MSNBC debate saddened me greatly. Mainly, because Kucinich was, as well as being closest to me ideologically (I've known this for a decade or more), presidential. He was smart, sharp and actually politically shrewd. He took the tough questions with grace and force while the others could hardly say their names without thinking hard about what to say. I've loved the guy for years, but I never knew he could be such a contender.
BUT... of course, he can't be and the article above states it well enough. I needn't repeat it.
Maybe we should worry a lot more about who we put in the House rather than the Executive. I live in Kansas, so not only is my ballot null and void in November, I don't get a primary. I do get to vote for my Congressman every couple of years, and though Dennis Moore is no Dennis Kucinich we're not doing too bad for this neck of the woods.
The media will likely choose for us. That, or voting machines. The progressive voter should concentrate on what he or she can do to elect a decent Representative... maybe even Senator. Especially if you have a Democrat in that capacity-- get a better one.
This article is spot on!! Finally someone who just tells it like it is about Hillary as front-runner - sez who?!! Anyone the Repugs like, I run away from. They know she can't win, so they support her, and that's the only reason.
Check out Hopalongcassidy for a good explanation of why "the woman thing" is a problem for Hillary - talk about your angry white (?) male! Yikes - who done you wrong?!
I'm a woman and personally, I like Edwards best. I think the "ran before and lost" thing is a problem for him - I think he should have blown off running for VP of Kerry - but I guess he couldn't. I wish he'd tell people to go to H$$$ about his hair, though, I think a good looking man who cares about his appearance, instead of looking like a darned cowboy-hunter will help us in international relations. Why do you have to look like an oaf to be acceptable to American voters? We all know he has lots and lots of money, so what's wrong with him looking good? Maybe idiots would feel better if EVERY candidate and W had to make a report weekly on how much they spent on hair and clothing - only bald-headed angry white males are mad at Edwards' hair - it's too beautiful!! LOL!! New campaign slogan for Edwards - "Don't Hate Me Because I'm Beautiful!!"
Image-conscious Americans who won't get up off their butts and protest and vote can't say anything to me when they wake up one morning with yet another jerk Repug president!
I just dont trust Hillary, anyone who would vote for an illegal war, without even bothering to read the NIE, or the bill, then refuse to apologize. she is beyond redemption and a corporate shill disguised as a liberal woman.
Also, can you imagine Bill running around the white house as First Lady? They would have to fit him with a chastity belt.
I was always wary of O'Bomber, now I'm sure he's a flake who just gives good TV
Edwards is a sweet talkin' prettyboy southern lawyer...never trust a sweet talkin' prettyboy southern lawyer. Plus he also voted for the war without reading he bill, but has a least apologized.
While I tend to agree with Gravel on a lot of things, particularly the "follow the money" deal, he is an unpredictable freak who may go alzhiemers at any time
Biden looks like Bill Clinton, talks like Geroge Bush, and probably is worse than either
Richardson is Mexican...Mexicans scare the hell out of Americans, so zero chance. If he offered to do the job for half price under the table, he maybe could get VP, as long as he promised to cleaned the oval office at night.
Dodd also voted for the war, and the Fascist...err. Patriot act, and otherwise is pretty much a non entity
Kuchinich has the best voting record, and says all the right things, but he is an elf. If he cant make hmself heard now, it will likely be inneffective as President as well.
I see nobody in the Democrat field thatwould make a viable Progressive President. Besides, the dems as a whole have shown themselves to be craven corporate lickspittles who run like kicked dogs whenever the Republicans raise a newspaper over their heads, so no hope there at all.
Hopefully the new and improved Al Gore 2.0 will run as an independent.
Nail on the head. When loyalbushie David Brooks goes on and on about HRC, you know the GOPathologicals are up to their same old crap, which is "how to win elections any way possible other than with solid ideas and true leadership."
In a country of 300 million, one Clinton president per lifetime is the rule. The entire world is sick of hearing the word Clinton. We can, and must, do better.
"We can assume that most of these donations are going to the front-runners, Clinton and Obama."
You assume wrong. Obama does not take money from PAC's or lobbyists. Like Howard Dean, the majority of his money comes from small donors. Average donation is around $200.
If Hillary's negatives are so high, then who is going to vote for her in the primaries? Lobbyists and their spouses? I hope that the current polls, as the author stated, basically just reflect name recognition. Studies show that most people don't make up their minds until a couple weeks before an election. Hillary is damaged goods, and while she talks the good talk (always conscious of the audience), I think many people will vote in the primaries for Obama for change, or Edwards, for electability and substance.
Never has a political party (the Dems) been given more ammunition by the oppoition (the Repubs).
Watch them shoot themselves in the foot with it by nominating HER.
The fix is in folks. If Hillary wins or loses to the Repub the ruling class still wins.
As Paul Simon wrote in Mrs Robinson: "Anyway you look at it you lose"
He was talking about us, friends.
After Hillary is coronated at the Democratic convention and the progressive media (with exceptions like CD) get in line to kiss her pants suit (hoping for government jobs); I hope they will at least publish this piece next to their "lesser of evils" endorsements.
It'll make for a nice chuckle at the DC victory cocktail parties. And if she loses, they can always blame Nader, Kucinich, [INSERT YOUR FAVORITE DEMON HERE], OR THE VAST RIGHT WING CONSPIRACY THAT SHE HAS BEEN SO COURAGEOUSLY FIGHTING FOR THE PAST 15 YEARS.
On the other hand, Hillary would be the GOP's favorite Dem. I often tell my conservative acquaintances that Hillary will get elected, and that I will not like her as President, but they will. Just look at her voting record on American Empire: she is all for keeping the military presence high profile. And her family and the Bush family are friendly and arguably in cahoots. If we do get a dynastic presidency, it will be because we are walking down the same path as the ancient Roman Republic. When the financial power became concentrated in the hands of a few leading families, they avoided civil war by trading off power, triumvirate style. If there is a Bush-Clinton cabal, it has arranged transfer of power nicely and cares little for what the plebs think. Ave Caesar, morituri te salutamus!
Who gives a poop about the elections; red or blue, we are screwed.
What if they held an election and no-one voted?
General Strike Sep 11. No work, no school, no shopping!
She's AIPAC's favorite democrat too. If not for good progressive jews, I would write in Mel Gibson.
Hitlery is strongly hated by half of the population, liberals and kkkonservatives alike, she can't get elected. That's why Republicans are supporting her.
Finally. Someone has said this:
"Next, "the woman thing." Though the mainstream media has scrupulously avoided the topic, the fact that Clinton is the first woman in US history likely to be the presidential nominee of a major party must be a serious obstacle to her election. This is regrettable, and I sincerely wish that it were not so. But there it is, and the Democratic party will ignore this reality at its peril. And if Clinton selects Barak Hussein Obama as her running-mate, with the first black candidate on a national ticket the "blue" populist resurgence in the South will be stopped in its tracks and the Democrats will lose every electoral vote in the South. Jim Crow, while muted, still lives. Also regrettable, but true."
There are more people than you may think out there who won't vote for a woman just because she's a woman, or a black man just because he's black.
I find it interesting how the MSM has been pounding her name at us ever since BEFORE Clinton left office in 2000. This has been a LONG delusion, constantly telling us how "popular" she is among the people. But talk TO the people instead of AT us, and you find a very different story.
I would suggest that this article is missing one possible point, and that being that the right wing knows who they are dealing with. They know her original upbringing is rich and conservative. They know that she loves money just as much, if not more, than she loves anything on this planet. She clearly loves the attention, the influence, and the power she gets from hanging with big money, and she makes no bones about it.
Her candidacy is a MUST have for big money. If she loses, like the article's author believes, they win. If she wins, they win. Do you HONESTLY think that someone handing her big bucks WON'T get her ear faster than some poor family looking for relief?
It's not specifically HER that I don't trust, it's the money. I have never trusted big money, and I never will. Money's only goal is it's own furtherance, even to the point of suicide. It's like a pathogen that takes over the life of it's host and kills it, ensuring it's own demise.
Because like the miserepublicans, she espouses a comparably evil Bush warrin' policy, whereby it takes US rape, plunder and pillage to raze a child (or a Half MILLION of them) in the Middle East (so do the Edwardsians and Obamanibles) for Their OIL (Operation Iraqiranistani Liquidation)! Better switch to Kucinich.
Yep-most sinister is how the media is setting it up. All it would take is a minor terrorist attack at home or abroad right before election time and the US will pick republican no matter how bad they are.
After his Pakistan comment, Obama looks out of it. Edwards is the most electable and has a lot of good ideas. I would think he can overcome the negativity of his Sam Malone hair fixation. His health care plan is the best of the major candidates and I believe he would work to overcome or slow the rich/poor divide that could ultimately tear the country apart.
Spot on analysis. Hillary will easily win the nomination and lose the general election in a landslide. This is the ONLY way the Republicans can hope to win in 08 and they know it.