- Top Features:
- War Room
- Glenn Greenwald
- Broadsheet
- Joan Walsh
- Camille Paglia
- Since You Asked
- Follow Salon:
Read other letters about this article
What was this, an exercise in source-stroking? It's as timid an article as Hillary Clinton is a candidate, though at least it's not smug, self-righteous and incapable of accepting blame or responsibility, the traits that are coming through loud and clear in Hill's refusal to say those three simple words, "I was wrong." We already have a stiff-necked, competitive asshole in the White House; why on Earth would we vote for another? Let's face it, the sort of politician you describe so well is the type that typically finishes sixth in Iowa with about 3 percent of the vote. If her last name weren't Clinton, that's where this one would finish, too. Haven't we had enough of the legacy candidates to last a lifetime? Sorry, but it's time for something new. This candidacy is WAY too '90s to fly as late as 2008. I'll give you this much -- at least you didn't bring up the Inevitability argument. Should we take this as a sign that she's not inevitable anymore?
