I would gladly support a woman for president. Especially after George W. Bush.

However I would prefer her to be honest. To be able to recall whether she actually had ever been under sniper fire. To be able to recall whether she contributed anything in Ireland. To be able to realize that she was a huge failure in 1992 when her health plan endeavors fell flat and were universally ridiculed. She tries to portray herself as key in the Clinton administration when the record shows she performed all the required duties of the first lady. The duties that all first ladies, without any skills at all, do. She now rejects NAFTA because it is politically expedient, when the record shows she once was an enthusiastic fan.

She says the Iraq war was a mistake yet she voted for it and supported it. Her support for the war is contemptuous! Period.

She appears to be a compulsive liar.

Her campaign seems to be run by thugs. These characters seem to have been taught by Karl Rove and Lee Atwater. There is nothing wholesome about this woman or her campaign. She is a politician to the core. If she were honest and qualified, I would vote for her. But I'll defer and wait for a qualified, honest woman.

I find Joan Walsh's blind support for Clinton repulsive! Her support is based upon the fact, and only upon the fact, that Clinton is a woman. Walsh is oblivious to all the baggage this woman is carrying with her and the lies she is spouting. Clinton would bring forth another 4 years very similar to those of George W. Bush.

I read Salon for GG. Occasionally, I meander into another article.

Wow! Every once in a while a posting comes along that makes so much sense that it makes all the postings that have a different point of view, seem like pure prattle!

Congratulations!

You know, I just don't see any sexism.

But I do see a very pro-Clinton Joan Walsh, beating a very dead horse.

I had worked most of my life for, and had been associated with, very smart women. At an international "Big 4" CPA firm. In the firm there are loads and loads of very smart and capable women. Some very good, gentle people but then there are some as vile and as cut-throat and ambitious as they can possibly be.

C'est la vie!

As I said before, in my posts, I would love to vote for a woman. I think a woman is needed at this point in time considering the sorry state of the country.

But Clinton? My goodness!

She is a politician who only cares about herself. She has run a vile, Rovian campaign. She appears to have no control of events, nor have an awareness of what needs to be done.

Her persistence in exaggerating everything she has done is really pathetic!

You can say that all politicians are vile but I expect more.

Naive? Sure! I actually thought the 2006 vote would bring about at least a modicum of change.

Wow!

Listening to people proclaiming the glories of Texas surely tells me I don't get it. I know of nothing glorious about Texas. It is a state that is brown and mostly flat. It's where people get dressed up like cowboys and run around drunk, yowling frenetically, and desperately proclaiming themselves to be something special based upon nothing. And George W. Bush calls it home. And it executes a ton of people, probably innocents. Just like the people tortured by this country. Mostly innocents, trying to mind their own business. And Karl Rove, it seems to me, defines Texas.

Also I know of nothing about sexism-related prejudice used against HRC. It seems to me to be imagery employed by women who think they were also vicariously screwed by the establishment. It is not only women that have gotten screwed, it's everybody not born into privilege.

It just seems true that Obama is a straight-shooting kind of an intelligent guy and Hillary is a conniving, win at all costs, politician. Even if it means being the worst person that ever existed(after Bush and Cheney of course). It seems to me there is so much to criticize about her record and her lies and her exaggerations and her mismanagement of her campaign that ring so true. Any criticisms and almost all is valid and it is then distorted and turned around and labeled sexism. Desperation, indeed!

I neither see, nor sense any sexism against Clinton. The times I find allegations of its use by Obama alway ememate from Joan Walsh and her middle-aged supporters here.

I feel Obama is running a wholesome campaign, avoiding the hard-ball tactics of Clinton.

I am amazed that anyone thinks that there is no validity in what Rev, Wright said. Obama described the blue-collar workers the same way I would. I don't get it!

"every time you think they can't sink lower, they do."

I think Tom Payne said that about the Clinton campaign and I couldn't agree more. As for Obama getting sliced and diced by the Rovian machine, I think that machine will be very hard-pressed to sink lower than the Clintons. I am sure the republicans will try but I can't imagine them suceeding.

I was going to write a post saying that Joan Walsh, AKA Smith, and the other women on this thread supporting Hilary to be quite srewy. But you put everything I was going to say in the words I wish I could have written so well, I'll just congratulate you and I'll move on with my life. Well done!

I purchased a bumper sticker from Common Dreams that says "My America Doesn't Torture."

The general reaction was that people abhored the concept. The concept of me putting such a sign on my car. Their eyes roll and they say "give it up, you can't do anything." They think and feel I am being moronic by my meager protest.

Nobody really cares anyway!