Site Presented By
Sunday, Nov 8, 2009
That was a stupid vote she cast on October 11, 2002. Twenty-three senators were smart enough to see through the Bush cartel's lies. Senator Clinton was not. She is not even smart enough to admit her vote to authorize the illegal invasion of another country was WRONG (as Edwards has admitted). The post by chas was exactly correct. We are almost toast. If we are to have any chance at all of preserving a decent quality of life for the survivors..we need strong smart HONEST leadership. Not somebody holding a finger to the wind seeing which way the consuming masses are being blown. Senator Clinton is NOT the candidate we need. Obama maybe or Edwards or (sigh) Al Gore.... And we aren't going to be helped by taking control of Iraqi oil reserves and giving it to the oil companies. (see Antonia Juhasz OP Ed piece in today's NY Times). Taking away Iraq's control over it's oil will make all the people who hate us hate us even more. Which candidate is going to holler about the Iraqi oil control issue? We're toast.
Hillary Clinton presents a great opportunity for the left to grow up, a sort of do-over for the Clinton administration. That's her appeal and it's undeniable.
Hawwww. hee!! hahahahahahahaah! rolling on floor! you're kidding, right? the left to grow up and get practical and do something sensible, accept reality, etc? haaahahaha hee
hee chuckle ROFL! good one! heehheheh.
it's pretty funny to listen to people talk about how unelectable Hillary is and then propose Obama as an alternative
And complain about how ambitious Hillary is!
Remember the premise that Gore was no better than Bush? That turned out well.
Granted many of the people writing anti-Hillary columns are republicans paid to trash her and to capitalize on the looney left's paranoia that Hillary is too moderate.
the looney fringe left doesn't care about whether they defacto give the GOP another 4 - 8 years while they behave like children as usual. Screw who got hurt by Bush the last time they pulled this crap. They just don't care .
I think normal Democrats are going to have to pull this one together with independents and right off the fringe left if we want to the WhiteHouse in '08 and to keep Congress.
It may be the best thing for the Democratic Party in the long run in fact.
I'll say that I don't really trust Ms. Clinton, but many people that I respect do, and that must be worth something.
First, as to the pandering, I agree that Clinton acts much like a panderer, but I think the real questions we have to ask here is: to whom is she pandering? The subtext of all of the liberal and lefty complaints that she is a panderer is that she is not pandering to them, and indeed she doesn't seem to be. If she were, she would have long since caved in to the voices on the left calling for a clear apology for the VOTE. Instead, she refuses to, insisting that she did the right thing, which starts to look a lot more like hubris, or blind adherence to the decisions made in one's past.
Second, I think it would behoove the Dems to be mindful of just why the Republicans are paying so much attention to Ms. Clinton. It may be because they view her as a significant threat, but I'll tell you, having spent 12 years in a solidly red southern state, I think it's just as likely that they know that nothing will unify the right and galvanize it in support of a Republican candidate faster than Hillary R. Clinton being the opponent. THIS, is why she is unelectable. Not because she won't have enough support on the left, but because nationally, no one could have more opposition from the right.
In the end, in being a pragmatist (thanks Shapiro!) one has to ask himself or herself, do I want to support a candidate that panders to the other side and is likely to be the strongest uniter of the opponents? I don't.
I'm clearly not the only person inspired to write a cranky piece to Salon about this piece, but, sincerely, from the bottom of my heart, I must ask Salon editors to STOP. Seriously take a step back and recognize the good will from loyal readers you are squandering in your narrow minded propaganda fest.
I used to look forward to checking in on Salon every morning, but lately I find myself visiting less and less. I am a loyal subscriber to Salon...get that...a paying subscriber, who has seriously found myself contemplating canceling my subscription. Your unaccountably nasty Osama bashing combined with glassy eyed anti-think pieces like this on Hillary are convincing me that the intellegent, balanced resource I used to rely upon is disappearing. Add to it pieces on how the Dems can "Swift Boat" Guliani...I mean, really?
If I was interested in biased, ignorant and ill informed reporting, I'd go to Fox. If that is what Salon is interested in doing now, sad to say, you're losing a loyal subscriber.
Nor am I big fan of nominating Northeastern senators for president. In the entire history of this country, we've only elected two sitting senators to the presidency.
The Democrats have been handed a golden opportunity. The Republicans have already trashed their own platform on fiscal conservancy and ethics (Ney, Cunningham, Foley, anyone?) If the Democrats run a candidate who is strong on national security (such as Richardson or Clark), it puts the Republicans on the defensive and only allows them social conservatism as their unquestioned plank. Fine.
As a woman and in wartime, Hillary is going to be forced to become more of a hawk. She won't be able to help it, all of the stupid questions will be about her fitness to serve as Commander-in-Chief. Assuming she has any progressive plans, they'll get drowned out in the dialogue. Plus, all of the marvelous anti-Clinton drivel will resurface AGAIN and we'll get to hear about it all over AGAIN. Can't we get some fresh drivel for a change?
I really wish Senator Clinton had decided to stay in the Senate and serve as Majority Leader.
Much of the initial coverage about Fort Hood turned out to be wrong. Is there anything wrong with that?
The accountability imposed by another country for the CIA's kidnapping and torture reveals much about our own.
Fox News' morning show plays to type, talking about whether Muslims in the Army should face "special debriefings"
219 Democrats and one Republican join in favor of the legislation, which passed by a narrow margin
The survivor and author is upset about comparisons some on the right are making to genocide
Salon headlines in your mailbox
