Site Presented By
Sunday, Nov 8, 2009
We are ready for something more. "Authentic?" That's not the word I'd choose. I'd rather have Hillary Clinton over Bush, but I would much rather have a person of vision & courage first. And I AM a Moderate. I want more.
Oh - and keep trying, Salon. You haven't sold us on her yet, apparently.
What you say about Hillary can be said about ANY Democrat. For ANY Democrat, there are voters who never vote for them.
There are NO Democrats who cannot be smeared or swiftboated. None. So forget about finding some Democratic candidate who will be invulnerable to the smears, you won't find one. What we need is a candidate who knows how to stand up to the smears and fight back.
With Hillary, at least the smears are old hat by now. And she and her husband have proven that they know how to stand up to the smears. I wouldn't count Hillary out and I wouldn't start calling her a loser. So far, she hasn't lost anything, at any time.
This is not to say that other Democrats couldn't handle the smears and fight back as well. Obama and Edwards evoke confidence in this regard as much as Hillary does. I'm hopeful that we're not going to see another Kerry this time around.
Hillary will win the democratic nomination and will become #44. She knows this is her year similar to 1976 when a nobody named Carter beat the establishment candidate. The Republicans will assist her by running a nobody candidate in which nobody will care to listen to nobody and focus instead on the CLINTON juggernaut. Iraq will not even be an campaign issue because Bush will compromise with Congress by telling everyone to keep their heads down, and for Godsakes, no more patrols. Hillary will not want to carp on Iraq because it will remind anyone listening of the VOTE. The Democratic consultants and focus groups will see to it that the issues are as bland as possible and keep their candidate out of harm's way (no Bill O'Reilly for our Hillary). Voter turnout will be an unexciting 35% and everything will be very predictable and decidedly bland. Richardson will be on the ticket because he knows how to be bland and predictable, takes orders well and comes from a bland state.
How do I know this? Just follow the money!
I haven't read your article. However, the introductory blurb states why I could not support Hilary Clinton. She is not authentic. She is not an authentic anything.
I am a registered nonpartisan. I used to vote both sides of the aisle, but I now wonder how I could ever vote for any Republican for any office, after the abuses of the past few years.
However, I could not vote for Hilary Clinton at all because of her aggressive stance on Iraq, her enabling of George W. Bush. Period. She has no core values or vision for the future - rather, she thinks she's earned some stripes and is entitled to a certain amount of fealty from the left - and that she can lick her finger, test the winds, and then deserve support for whatever the winds tell her her position is.
No. I will leave the presidential ballot blank before I will vote for such a calculating, dismissive, cement-souled candidate. Even if it means another disastrous Repub regime.
Democrats MUST start putting candidates with genuine heart, concerns, vision and ideas out there. I think Obama and Edwards are on the right track - they have places they want to take this country to and they have an innate, caring, honesty that pierces the gloom of the political landscape.
I cheered when Hilary won New York the first time. But she's turned out to be not a moderate, but a run-of-the-mill calculating office-seeker, all ambition, no heart. You can't cover that up by speaking intimately on the web from someone's living room or rushing and gushing in all the right (left) places. I think she lost it when she made the cookies.
Trust is going to be a huge issue by the time George Bush packs his (faux) cowboy hat and heads back to Texas. We will truly need a "uniter, not a divider" who can pull a disillusioned American populace away from meanness, division, conflict, horrors of war, the Bush scandals yet to come - and FATIGUE - towards rebuilding a civil society of respect and care and rebirth.
Hilary should concentrate on doing a good job of representing New York and using her celebrity to assist truly worthy candidates. There's a job out there that's just bigger than her and we can't afford another diminutive president.
I've been with Salon since the beginning but no more. Walter Shapiro's superficial bit of flakery for Hillary is the end.
I'm not a huge John Edwards fan but decribing him as left-anything is just daffy. A rich, southern tort lawyer is the left? Just for pointing out the reality of class in this America?
Mrs. Clinton is an opportunist. Her career path and policies are consistent when viewed from the perspective of what benefits her above any principle. Every aspect of her life appears to be calculated for her own advancement. Why the right-wingnuts hate her is more a testement to their idiocy then her virtue. In fact, much of her support appears to be a reflexive reaction to the right's irrational dislike.
Her vote on Iraq can not be explained by anything other than political calculation. If she can triangulate and calculate on pre-emptive war in the Middle East what issue could possibly outweigh her self-promotion?
Thanks, Walter. I was on the fence about renewing my Salon membership whe it expires in three days. You just gave me the shove I needed.
"What you say about Hillary can be said about ANY Democrat."
Actually, Chief, was I was saying about Hillary CAN'T be said about ANY Democrat. That was kind of the point. Consider these percentages from a Feb 12th WNBC/Marist Poll:
Clinton (25 Support, 30 Consider, 43 Oppose, 2 Unsure)
Obama (17 Support, 42 Consider, 32 Oppose, 9 Unsure)
Edwards (12 Support, 45 Consider, 35 Oppose, 8% Unsure)
So you see, Clinton rates high in "Oppose" and low in "Consider/Unsure" compared to the other 2 front runners. You got that, Captain?
Also, about your other comments:
"For ANY Democrat, there are voters who never vote for them."
"There are NO Democrats who cannot be smeared or swiftboated. None. So forget about finding some Democratic candidate who will be invulnerable to the smears, you won't find one."
I'm pretty sure I didn't suggest that anyone can win EVERY vote or be INVULNERABLE to smears. Because that would be a batshit crazy thing to say. The point is a simple one: compared to the other candidates, HC is more vulnerable in the polls. I'd recommend that you work on your math and reading skills a bit, then get back to me.
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"
The survivor and author is upset about comparisons some on the right are making to genocide
Once seen as a lunatic fringe, reactionary anti-women groups are courting respectability
Salon headlines in your mailbox
