Site Presented By
Sunday, Nov 8, 2009
I could come to support Senator Clinton as a candidate for President, but my biggest concern centers on the kind of people with which the Senator has chosen to surround herself in her campaign; her staff seems to be heavily populated the same old class of corporate-oriented political consultants that have served Democrats (and the country) so poorly in the past couple decades. How does she defend that? What gives her confidence in these people? I wish Mr. Shapiro had asked the Senator about that. Otherwise, this was a good (if too short) interview.
Looking over the wreckage of the W administration and the cautionary tale it spins for dynasts, I wonder why on earth the Founding Fathers, in their wisdom, failed to provide in the Constitution a ban against blood relatives or spouses serving as presidents. Didn't they foresee how inherited or married wealth and influence would eventually lead to the sad situation we have today, viz. the House of Bush and the House of Clinton?
Dear Editor,
It is interesting that the author brings up the question of a two family oligarchy running the White House for 24 years. But if you look at the last fifty five years, with the exception of 1964, the Republican ticket has featured a Nixon, Dole or Bush in every election since 1952. While I am not suggesting any bias in this particular article, I find it odd that the media never seem to worry about republican dynasties, and the generally listless administration of Bush Senior was never raised as an issue for Bush junior to contend with; in fact it was touted as a bonus that the young lad had such an experienced family to call upon on.
Sincerely,
Kevin Hill
Two problems with your analysis:
(a) Not all Americans are dazzled by the Nobel Prize. Are people dazzled by Carter, who was awarded a Nobel in 2002? No, the people who already hated Carter concluded that the Nobel Prize had become a tool of America-hating European leftist elitsts. They will have the same reaction if Gore gets it.
(b) Gore is not going to run. He is a happy and functional human being now, who can see quite clearly what political campaigning does to your soul. I'm happy for him. And if he ran, I guarantee you you wouldn't like him as much as you do now, because the process is corrupt and corrupts everything it touches. If you don't like the current crop of candidates and haven't for some time, maybe it's time to ask what is wrong with the process that produces them.
If you don't already know this, spend a few minutes on Google and read for yourself. Her rhetoric is as terrifying as Bush's.
The choice is yours.
The next time Sen. Clinton agrees to an interview, here are some questions that you might want to ask her:
The foreign policy advisors that surround you, as far as I can tell, unanimously supported the Iraq war. Do you have anyone on your foreign policy team who saw through George Bush at the beginning? If not, what does this say about the foreign policy team that you are building?
It appears that the Bush administration is intent on provoking war with Iran, and you yourself have engaged in Iran war talk ("no options are off the table" and the like). How do you propose to deal with Iran? And what would the consequences to our troops in Iraq be if a conflict breaks out?
A group that has been given sanctuary by the Kurdistan provincial government has been launching attacks into Turkey, and Turkey has been threatening to respond militarily. How would you head off a conflict between the Turks and the Kurds?
One of your chief advisors personally profits from the union-busting activities of the firm he heads, even though he has "recused himself" from this work. Even George Bush made Karl Rove sell his direct-mail firm. Why do you allow this massive conflict of interest?
Do you believe that Third World countries should be forced to use most of their resources to repay investors for past loans, and to sell off their resources for private exploitation? If not, how would you reform international institutions like the IMF and the World Bank?
You tried to reform health care in 1993, and it didn't work. Are you going to take another shot at it, and what did you learn from previous failures? Also, considering the health care systems of other countries, which do you think offers the most lessons to US reformers?
Your opponent, Sen. Edwards, has been talking a lot about poverty, but we haven't heard as much from you. How would you address the problem of persistent poverty in the US? Are you satisfied with the welfare reform enacted during your husband's administration? What changes would you make?
Like she said in the interview, alot can change from now to November 2008. She's not exactly my image of the perfect candidate either, but after listening to many of her speeches and watching her in the head-to-head "debates", I already like her chances better than Gore and Kerry. Hillary at least understands from personal history that when the Republican machine starts cranking out myths and lies like "Swift Boat" or "Gore Lies About Creating Internet", that her campaign will hit back and hit back hard. Nothing against those who like Gore here on Salon, but face the fact that his 2000 campaign wimped out against the biggest wimp of all time and Kerry's was even more pathetic at damage control.
It has been said that Republicans know how to win elections but are incompetent at running government, and the opposite often applies to the Dems. So why on earth would anybody not want her to be calculating and prepared? She's not applying for the night janitor job at the local high school. She's going against the most wilfully dishonest coalition of self-serving zealots our country has ever had the dishonor of calling "Fellow Americans". She knows that once the mud starts being thrown(and anybody that thinks the Rebublicans aren't going to resort to lies and dishonest scare tactics and mache faux-tough guy posturing in 2008 is kidding themself) that a Presidential candidate better have a plan to attack them. I'd love to see her standing up in a debate in October of 2008 asking those who have lost thier health-care since 1993 if they think it helped them that Republicans banded together to kill her attempts at universal coverage. It wouldn't surprise me if she did just that.
Anybody out there dreaming of some perfect candidate is doing just that. Nobody is perfect. If she can get 51% of the votes, that's close enough for me because there is absolutely no acceptable Republican candidate for any office.
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
