I truly wish to convey this idea in a non-inflammatory way. I think others have posted to this effect in response to Joan's blog.

Discussions and debates about the sincerity and "warmth" of a candidate are valid during this election, especially since GWB has essentially stolen the US government from the general population. What I believe people mean when words like "sincerity" and "warmth" are used is this: trying to determine if a candidate will champion their values, and also if they will be effective in that championing.

HRC is a moderate ... a centrist Democrat. Many from the farther left don't share her values. This is not the same as hating the person. Also, HRC is a skillful politician ... but her style /for some/ seems to lack real sincerity. Another posted made the very legit point that if HRC scores a "6" on sincerity, nearly all other Repub candidates score a "4" or below. GWB scores a "1" or a "2." I want to trust our leaders ... they have incredible power. Evaluating my sense of HRC's sincerity is not "Hillary hating."

I respectfully submit that those who try to easily summarize these non-inflammatory, valid, and reasonable debate points as coming from "Hillary haters" are embodying the issue that makes this questioning of HRC valid. I respectfully submit that y'all don't see the problem because it is possibly a blind spot for you, just as it is likely a blind spot for her.

Like it or not, the Clinton's are human. They have strong points, and they have weak points. We all got to know them in intimate detail in the 90's. Their lives were exposed, in part, because of this humanness. Knowing this and acknowledging it is not "Hillary hating." As a result, HRC does embody, in my opinion, a certain reserve for the press ... some may even call it paranoia. I would feel the same way if I were her. The press is brutal, and they seek blood. As a result of these experiences ... the same experiences she is touting as her credentials to become president ... she /can/ seem to some to be defensive, mistrusting, and reactive to fighting ... even when there is no fighting present. That is what you are doing when you blanketly call reasonable debate to be from "Hillary-haters." For people who are sick of negative politics, in-fighting, partisan bullshit ... watching HRC and her supporters embody this leadership problem ... all it does is confirm why those in doubt don't want to support her.

You've always been the caretaker here, Mr. Torrance.

Quite a nightmare.

hi show me ...

your story is heart-warming, and i believe it is true and accurate. i don't doubt that HRC, like most humans, responds to the pain of others ... and like some humans ... decides to do something about it.

but i respectfully submit that your story does not address my point.

i am suggesting that HRC's "brand" ... the thing that she is selling ... is generally this:

- i am a woman, and i will stick up for women and other underpriviledged folks

- i am a strong leader, and i am able to use military force without hesitation ... but mindfully

- i know how to fight very hard to get elected, and to disarm the neocon/repub agenda

maybe there are other components that i am missing. but, if you agree that this is generally true ... i believe that when people use terms like "sincerity" or (a less accurate term "warmth") ... what they are referring to is HRC and Bill's propensity to triangulate policy based on poll data. this is a viable campaing and presidential strategy, but it also can leave one wondering "where does she /really/ stand?" all politicians, by nature, have to expand their base of support. this is how our democracy, unfortunately, works. so ... "becoming" more of a brand, and less of a person ... a savvy voter would: 1) judge if they believe that message of the brand 2) evaluate the sincerity (ie, believability) of the brand ... do i "trust" this person.

these are important questions for a voter to consider with regard to /any/ politician.

a balanced view (i believe) of HRC is that her experience with her husband in the white house resulted in two things: she basically interned for the job of president (i realize that is a loaded word, and i don't intend snarky loadedness). that's a good thing. she also had to weather controversy (not her choice) and her strategy to deal with it (which is her fault) became very polarizing to the press and to her opponents.

bringing up questions like:

- does HRC really believe everything she says, and if not how bad is it ... ie, does she lie a lot or a little ... or what does she really believe, what can i trust?

- is her style of fighting and engaging with opponents good for this country? as president she will likely pursue adversaries like iran or n. korea similar to how she engages with adversaries in politics. is this good?

- how much of her "brand" is actually true about her, or is it campaing spin to expand her base?

none of these questions ... or the questioning ... is sexist or unfounded. i encourage her supporters to work more to embrace the value of questioning. haven't we all had enough with stonewalling & defensive government?