Letters to the Editor
-
Oh Jesus
Are these Hillary supporting letters real? Most of the Democrats I talk to (though not all) feel close to same way about her as I do - that she has the establishment's backing but is unelectable.
By now we know that Hillary has by far the highest negatives of anyone running for President. My question is, what has Hillary done in her career that makes up for her inarguably high negative image in many people's eyes? Has Hillary ever taken a brave stand on behalf of a just cause when it wasn't politically expedient?
I urge everyone to read the essay "Senator Hillary Clinton: All Show and No Substance." Just google the title. The essay's scope is not wide ranging, but it does zero in on a particular aspect of Hillary's political cowardice and coziness with the establishment.
Maybe the real problem with Hillary is not her corporate friendly triangulated policy prescriptions (identical to those of her husband), but instead lies in her unelectability, despite said lame views. At least Bill was better than the GOP (by a tiny bit). A Hllary nomination is most likely to get us another four years of GOP rule.
Hillary is DOA in a general election. Considering that she is less electable and more conservative than Edwards or Obama (or Gore) and that she espouses worse policies, why would we want her as the nominee?
-
Happy Friend...
Clearly you are a Republican, so you have many other Republican fish to fry than to focus on how Democrats view Hillary. She's not your candidate, so don't worry about her until you see her on your ballot. Considering how jacked up your house is, aren't you too busy to cast stones? LOL
And just because you say "unellectable" 5 billion times doesn't mean its true.
-
Meet the real Hillary
People wake up!! This should be required reading for every primary voter -
Hillary's chief strategist is a free trading union buster - who schedules her speeches on workers' rights to union members!
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20070604/berman
Meet Hillary's Karl Rove
http://www.thenation.com/blogs/notion?pid=202377
And why is Fox News giving Hillary huge fundraisers??
News Corp owner last year -
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/07/18/politics/main1816866.shtml
News Corp president last month -
http://www.nypost.com/seven/05012007/news/nationalnews/hill_ywood_cash_bash_in_works_nationalnews_ian_bishop.htm
Murdoch wouldn't be promoting her unless he was certain her policies would comply with the agenda of corporate sponsors of corporate media. And yet - people wonder why the corporate media is promoting her image as "presidential" - as Shiparo does in this article.
-
Richardson mainstream, Kucinich not?
I'm surprised that no one else has objected to Shapiro's statement that, "among the mainstream Democratic contenders, only Bill Richardson calls for immediate and total withdrawal after taking office." Richardson is at 5% and Kucinich 1% with a margin of error of 5% in the latest Quinnipiac poll. Not impressive numbers for either candidate, but it seems unfair to dismiss Kucinich while elevating Richardson in this way.
One can't help but feel that, just as media treatment of "Senator Clinton's" lead is bemoaned as a self-fulfilling prophesy of inevitable primary victory, Kucinich's dismissal by the media as unelectable is equally destructive to the democratic process.
A significant percentage of Democrats (and, I would wager, independents) prefer Kucinich's policies to the rest of the pack but don't "support him" because they are afraid of wasting their votes on someone who isn't "mainstream." I say getting us out of Iraq (totally) and creating a single payer national health insurance system ARE mainstream (even if not absolute majority) ideas, as are many other things Kucinich supports.
This is prime evidence of the desperate need for instant run-off voting in order to bring greater meaning to our political process and avoid the inevitability of electing only triangulating middle-of-the-roaders like Clinton (or, sadly, Obama).
-
Forever and ever
Quoth Clinton...
And there may well be vital national security interests that require a continuing presence, although I do not support permanent bases or a permanent occupation.
Yeah, not "permanent" as in for all time, but rather, what? "Continuing," as in the next 30 years? 50 years? Until the oil runs out? How much money do we want to throw over there, and for how long? At the rate we're going, there'll be no US in our lifetimes, the way the leadership is mortgaging America's future for imperial grandiosity.
Beware of entangling alliances, right? The stupid isolationist/interventionist dichotomy that dominates policy discussion in this country misses the larger nuances of our conduct as a country, as if our country could even hope to isolate itself from the world anymore, or should intervene where it's not wanted, or would have the right to intervene at all (based on what, exactly? What doctrine of international law?)
I hope Clinton takes some time to prepare by doing her homework on the Middle East, studying the region's politics and history, and perhaps studies how imperial powers invariably overextend themselves abroad and suffer economic and political crises at home.
-
First-name thing
While I understand and sympathize with those who would make a feminist issue of references to Hillary Clinton by her first name, there is an obvious point to remember here, and it probably won't go away unless she wins the election and has been in the White House for close to a full term: Her husband was president for two terms! So when the average person hears the name Clinton, the average person still thinks of HIM.
-
She sure seems smart
...but I cannot bring myself to like her much. And I would have thought the Dems would have learned by now that running deeply dislikable candidates is probably not the best strategy.
I can't say I'm sure I really understand this "experience" thing. She has served as first lady and as Senator. Obama same thing, minus the first lady. As involved as she was with her husband's administration, she was not in that administration. She did no leading of anyone. She ran no organization, chaired no important group of leaders.
Why can't Dems have a likable candidiate for once? Obama is lighting up the galaxy with raw star power and natural leadership gifts. Why should Dems have to go with the supposedly "safe" candidate?
2008 should not even be close. Yet with Sen. Clinton as the Dem nominee, it'll be neck-and-neck right down to Election Day.