Site Presented By
Sunday, Nov 8, 2009
I see one very important lesson from the first Clinton that I hope the second has learned. When democrats take over from republicans, they have to clean out the apparatchiks that the rs leave behind. All of them. And, you have to do it in a way that brands them as liars, thieves, cowards and incompetents, so they won't ever return to public life without a chorus of jeers. The first Clinton didn't do that, and look: they're baaack!
To make sure they don't come back, the second Clinton, or any democratic president, has to start ruthlessly going through documents and releasing them to the public. The material should be shoveled out in front of Congress and used to tar these baby Rumsfelds, Wolfowitzs and Scalias with the clear intent of ruining their reputations.
It may not work: Eliot Abrams was resuscitated like some zombie, and Gingrich has blown his burst bubble into the public limelight, but it gives us a fighting chance further down the road.
Given the relatively liberal readership and slant of Salon (I count this as a good thing), the responses to the interview with Hillary are indicative of the real reason she cannot win in 2008---and the corollary reason why concerned Democrats should be doing all they can to ensure a candidate other than Hillary for our next Presidential election. It is clear and obvious that Hillary is hated by 100% of the Republican faithful. This alone could be overcome, were it not for the fact that Hillary is also hated by a substantial portion of the Democratic faithful. Consequently, if Hillary is the Democratic candidate for President in 2008, she will ensure a significant number of Democratic "crossover" votes cast for Republican or third party candidates, and the process will ensure a Democratic loss. I have yet to hear any pundit or interviewer who is sufficiently bold to ask Hillary whether she cares enough about Democratic victory in 2008 to stand aside, given the fact that this is the only way to ensure victory. We need a President who cares more about the future of Democratic values in our republic than his/her own emotional and personal needs to become President---As smart and clever and articulate as Hillary is, I have never felt that she cares about ensuring Democratic victory in 2008 nearly as much as she cares about becoming President. I sincerely hope that I am wrong, but I feel certain that a Hillary candidacy in 2008 will ensure one of the worst defeats in the history of our Democratic party.
Hillary Clinton should be aware that there are a great many democratic and independent voters who do not buy into the myth that her campaign is trying to spin in regard to the inevitability of her presidency. The nomination may be, but many of us learned bitter lessons voting for John Kerry and other unpalatable candidates that were put forward as the best of the bunch and, because of our social values, our votes were assumed only to watch those sub-standard candidates fail. I for one will not cast another such vote and will happy cross lines if the candidate is a centrist with the right social values. I am a 41-year-old woman, socially liberal and have never cast a republican vote in my life but I am turned off by the careful, smug, rehearsed politicking that the Clinton camp offers. Even with history on the line, I will vote my conscience this time. So Hillary, if I may call you Hillary, please try a bit harder and speak a bit more clearly. I want to know who you are and what you believe and understand why, after all these years, I don't know that already.
"I am proud to have been part of the Clinton administration where I think we got a lot of things right during those eight years."
The First Lady is NOT part of any "administration"--not a cabinet officer, not secretary of anything, not a legal entity of any kind. I certainly did vote for Bill Clinton so Hillary Clinton could be part of his administration. I voted for BILL CLINTON. This is just so typical of her sense of entitlement, hubris, and--yes--at the root of my dislike of her, and why she fares so poorly against all the current Republican challengers.
I liked HRC as First Lady and feel that the only reason her health care initiative didn't get off the ground was because she/they were not prepared for (who could be?) the kind of right-wing media onslaught they'd face in that instance or later. (Why she/they never answered in simple terms ... i.e., "No, it doesn't." the line the right-wing scare tactics trumpeted over and over about how the government would be telling you which doctor you'd be going to (and they're at it again with contemporary universal health care discussions), is beyond me, but I digress.
Anyway, I like Hillary less now than I did then in part because I really don't sense that she's sincere. Ambition, even with smarts, and no heart, just doesn't cut it. Essentially, she and Condi seem to me to be cut from the same cloth. Being well-prepared, although a nice quality, is something I think we should frankly expect in our candidates. If anything, I think Hillary is over-prepared ... or rather, I always get the sense from her of being lectured to rather than listened to. To be fair, I imagine much of what I have heard of her has been edited by our right-wing media in the most unflattering light. Nonetheless, there are a handful of truly progressive female politicians I would choose to support over Hillary if they were to get into the race. I do think having a woman as President would be a good thing, I just don't think Hillary (or Condi!) is the answer. Frankly, both Hillary and Condi seem just like the posturing guys we're all sick of.
Anyway, my fear is that it will all be a moot point. I hate to be pessimistic, but remember how the 2000 Election (and 2004 too) played out in the press, both before, during and after the election? The Democrats could run Jesus himself against the Republicans' Lucifer and who do you think the media slant (not to mention the electronic voting machines) would favor? I'm not saying it's impossible for the Democrats to take the White House in '08, I'm just saying the liberal activist community must expect that what the media presents (and does not present) will bear no relationship to the truth. Whoever the Democratic candidate ends up being will need all of the online spin-correcting help they can get.
And P.S.: Is the Democrat-controlled Congress doing anything about election reform? Not financing, but the mechanics/standardization/security of our actual voting process? At this point it should be a HIGH PRIORITY.
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
