Letters to the Editor
-
"whatevs"
I'm just as politically disillusioned as the next person (and a feminist to boot), but I get really tired of the extra negative criticism heaped upon Hilary Clinton because she happens to be female (news flash: I also don't happen agree with her on every issue!). The first two letters here have basically hissed, "she's not a winning candidate!" without offering any proof for or against the argument. What is it about her that gets your panties and manties in a bunch (like Bill Maher)?
Oh please, and Kerry was a winning candidate? If you saw her voting record without a name or gender attached, you'd see her as any other moderate Democrat. The proverbial Old White Guys would see her record and complain and grumble, but when you put a female face to the profile it causes them (and others) to spew that she's the Devil.
It's a girl thing, and don't try to tell me otherwise. It disgusts me, and you should be ashamed of yourselves for going the extra mile to slam a candidate because of her XX label; she's no more "evil" than anyone else with her platform.
-
Someone has to lose to McCain...
...might as well be Hillary serving as the sacrificial lamb. It would a laurel for the Dems--first woman to head a major-party ticket--and after she loses, that would be it...she would have had her shot. Back to being a blue-state Senator for the next thirty years or so. Actually, I think this is a lot of hooey...idle wishful-thinking until things get down to brass tacks for '08. She might get as far as Iowa, a la Howard Dean, but one hopes that rational heads prevail in time to thwart her nomination. That's assuming the Democrats want to try and win, however.
-
Re: Whatevs
"I get really tired of the extra negative criticism heaped upon Hilary Clinton because she happens to be female."
I never said that's why she makes people's skin crawl. I voted for a woman for VP, and I would vote for a woman for president. Women candidates don't make me upset, I've voted for countless, but what does are candidates who had a chance to fix our healthcare system (or at least the naked ambition to do so as a neophyte) and let us all down. And she sent us to war in Iraq because she thought it would get her elected this time around.
Is she no worse than Kerry? Maybe a little worse, but as I recall he didn't get elected either, and he didn't divide the left base like Hillary will. Tons of lefties like me will NOT vote for her in good conscious.
Her supporters think she's populist folk hero just because she IS a woman. In reallity, she's is a political failure who says what she needs to attain and keep power. In that sense, no worse than the next guy but less likeable, and more of a disappointment.
Meanwhile, thousands of Americans and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis are dead and millions of Americans have been without health insurance thanks to our progressive folk hero, Hillary. Read her autobiography if you don't believe me that she stands for nothing but her own aggrandizement, when she's been given every opportunity to actually make a difference to this country.
-
I remember
I remember when Hillary Clinton decided to run for Senator of New York. They same voices were raised crying out, "She'll never win!" and, "The Republican Machine will eat her alive!" Many pointed out that New York may be liberal downstate, but upstate was made of Conservatives who would never vote for her, ever.
And then she ran and the Republicans, so eager to defeat her, stumbled all over themselves. Guliani dropped out. His replacement, Rick Lazio (remember him?), was such a goof that he fell down during a parade and had a ridiculous looking fat lip for weeks. He tried to stalk her podium at their debate and force her to sign something or another and came off looking like a foolish bully. Meanwhile she went on a "listening tour" of upstate New York winning both their hearts and their votes. And then she won her Senate seat.
And she can win again.
I love when people underestimate Hillary.
-
We need to get serious...
I can empathize with those who are disappointed with Hillary not being everything they want. I'd guess that all of us Progressives want the best possible answer to the last 8 years under Bush. The fact that HR Clinton doesn't meet all of our wildest fantasies is a good, no great, sign. She's smarter than all of her detractors.
Hillary has been through the fires. She knows exactly who her enemies are, how to put them in boxes while stealing there constituents, and keep her base loyal (if not completely energized). I've watched her make political compromises as Senator over the last few years and I've genuinely liked what I've seen. As any student of politics knows, you have to give in order to get in the Senate. Although I don't agree with many of her compromises, I realize that she is playing the game to win and I have almost no doubts about where her true heart lies. When she upsets me, an ardent Left-winger, she's picking-up an Independent sitting on the fence - AND keeping me.
The reality of our 2 party system is that she needs to make these compromises to win. Until we get a Parlimentary system like the Germans, keeping it real for the Left Wing won't get you elected (I guess you could argue that Bush won by constantly pandering to his base, to which I don't have a good rejoiner off the top of my head).
Finally, we Democrats need to get over our naivete about electoral politics and go for the jugular in the future. You don't see Republicans splitting hairs about their candidates like this. HR is a rock star who deserves our support. Once she's in, she is going to do great things. If you're disappointed in her, take comfort in the fact that she'll throw some red (blue?) meat to her base when she appoints her cabinet and the heads of the beauracracies. Mmmm....Al Gore as head of the EPA, John Kitzhaber at the Dept. of Health and Human Services, past president of Greenpeace at the Department of the Interior, Wesley Clark as Seceretary of Defense, Maxine Waters leading the Justice Department. The list goes on...