Site Presented By
Sunday, Nov 8, 2009
I haven't decided which candidate to give my paltry financial support to, but I do think that I will refer to "Senator Clinton" in the future. She is a member of the Senate, after all.
That, dear sir or madam (as the case may be), is the reason why you could never be elected president of this (or any)country. Unfortunately, however, you do sound like many of our citizens these days, except for your points 4 and 5, which clearly propel you across the line into crackpot territory.
The editors of Salon must be thrilled at the diversity of its readers.
I don't know what to make of that interview, Mr. Shapiro. Has Salon already sided with Clinton? I kind of feel like it has.
Several words are repeated in that interview, like mantras, campaign hitching posts -- experience, understanding, inherit -- and I don't know when she says...
my experience gives me an edge -- that I understand the challenges we're going to face and that I will be able to marshal the resources in order to begin addressing them from Day One.
...if that's really true. Her experience sure didn't help her understand the challenges the Bush League imposed on the Democrats and the country at large. She was as outflanked as the rest of the DLC.
I didn't get a sense of much information being conveyed in that interview, unfortunately. The Clinton lovers will cheer, and the Hillary haters will hiss, but the candidate herself doesn't appear to be saying much. That's too bad.
As for the "Hillary" versus "Clinton" line, I'm well aware of that; hell, I noticed when Saddam Hussein was invariably called "Saddam" in the press, like a pat on the head -- Hitler was Hitler, Stalin was Stalin, but Saddam, well, he was Saddam (and I don't think they were worried about confusing him with the King of Jordan). Maybe we should just start calling Cheney "Dick" -- people will know who we're talking about, now that Nixon's long dead.
Hillary is SMART! That is important. More important than her being likable. So many people voted for Bush because they "liked" him. Look where that has gotten us. In the end, all that matters is what kind of president she will make. For those who have read her book you know that she is very knowledgable about foreign policy, she has travelled everywhere and her experience in the Senate is invaluable too. And people have to admit - even if you don' t like him - having Bill there to clean up the mess that Bush has created with foreign countries - would be a HUGE asset. They still love BILL! I can't say that I love Hillary but this time around, after the disaster that is Bush, it is time for Americans to make an intelligent decision. There is too much riding on this election to elect someone they "like." We must elect the best person for the job.
I don't know what to make of that interview, Mr. Shapiro. Has Salon already sided with Clinton? I kind of feel like it has.
Oh, goodness gracious breakdancing Christ. The interviewer was just fine. I wasn't too thrilled by the interviewee's answers, but it sounds like if Shapiro had done anything short of chopping her head off and sticking it on a pike, you'd still be accusing him and Salon of favoring Clinton.
at least a little informative. i consider her a pretty compromised candidate who lost whatever true progressivism she might once have had....but at least she is smart, which is refreshing.
unfortunately it is all moot.
by all indications america is getting ready to vote for another republican president, most likely rudy, over ANY of the democratic candidates....especially h. clinton. republicans thrive on having people to hate/fear.....and boy oh boy do they LOVE to hate hillary clinton. that swiftboat stuff is small potatoes compared to what will happen in "hillary vs rudy.'08"
sad but true.
the only thing that is lower in the polls than "w" is the democratic congress.
I was impressed by this article. A reminder of how smart she is and how prepared she is to be President. I know she has the skills and knowledge.
There is a question that I wish Shapiro had asked:
You and Bill were idealists in your youth. Our country is at a time where it seems we *must* get back to the ideals that made our Country great. I think the public understands that under Bill's watch the political climate required treading lightly in many cases, in order to get things done. Please describe what you think the differences are between 1993 and 2008?
First, we all know that Salon has some historical ties to the Clinton campaign- but I have become convinced that they are at least trying to stay neutral in their coverage. This article, however, should not have been given to Walt. He literally told her that he can't wait to stare into her eyes across a crowded room. That tells you all you need to know about his position. There were some good questions but not much substantive follow-up.
I for one would like to hear some questions about trade and the world economy because I think that Sen. Clinton is in grave danger of being stuck in the old mindset of the Clinton Cadre. More telling than some short-form interview responses would be who she plans on bringing into her administration.
LW's have been commenting on both sides about experience and the utility of Clinton's insider position within the mainstream. That issue is where Obama draws voters from Clinton- the differences are clear to voters. The real danger when you are talking about experience, the establishment, political savvy, etc. comes down to Shapiro's question about staffing. A President, no matter how smart or strong willed, is made of the people they surround themselves with. That being the case, the question put to the voter then becomes: 'Do you trust Hillary's historical alliances and positions to serve the Nation best in the coming years?' That is what worries people about Hillary- not that she lacks experience, but that too much of that obsolete history will bleed into her future administration. It is where my concerns about her financial and trade policies come from. Her stance on Iraq has more to do with her stance on Israel and our energy-strategy than it does on the procedural issues of how she would get out of Iraq (she'll listen to her commanders on the ground like Bush should have done in the first place with troop levels). Her views of trade and development strategies are more important to our future world credibility than her ideas for the best way to withdraw troops. It is enough that she wants to get them out- a true executive's job is to make the hard decisions and then delegate the implimentation the the most qualified person they can find.
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
