Does Hillary bust her own balls?

Thank you, that was concise and illuminating.

HILLARY is not as good-looking - not as articulate - not as smart - as 'IL DUCE - BENITO MUSSOLINI!!! HILLARY our wannabe FIRST FEMALE FASCIST FUHRER wears horrendous what she describes as "....asbestos-pants-suits" to hide her 'UGLINESS/CORRUPTION'!!! HILLARY is a liar/prevaricator in true D^CKHEAD CLINTON INC. style!!! HILLARY has never NEVER explained how those ROSE LAW FIRM RECORDS were 'mysteriously' found in the WHITE HOUSE residence only after AFTER the 'statute of limitations' had expired!!! HILLARY has never explained how JIM McDOUGAL mysteriously 'died' in an ARKANSAS prison!!! HILLARY has never NEVER admitted that she was aware the tawdriness/illegality of accepting 'illegal monies' from untreaceable 'CHINESE DISHWASHERS + TWO YEAR-OLDS in NYC'!!! HILLARY has NEVER acknowledged her role in TRAVELGATE!!! HILLARY was surprised that JOHN HSU was arrested/imprisoned only after raising 5 million dollars for her. HILLARY was surprised that FATTY - MONICA was doing D^CKHEAD. HILLARY is probably surprised that BELINDA STRONACH is now doing her pretend-husband D^CKHEAD. HILLARY 'THE MOST SURPRISED FEMALE' ON THE PLANET!!![Where 'we' really surprised that BARAK OBAMA received 0 none nada nunca voted in the DEMBHOLE PRIMARY in HARLEM, N.Y.???] HILLARY brass - do not certain re-agents 'wear-awy'/destroy brass??? HILLARY needs to have a stronger acid applied.

In today's NY Times the lead editorial is titled "Missing Records". For Senator McCain there are questions of incomplete health records and financial records. For the Clintons, the editor states, "The public is still owed a more complete accounting of the sources and amounts of Mr. Clinton's speaking fees and business income. Still missing, too, is a complete list of the major donors who have been supporting the Clinton presidential library and foundation." The Clintons and McCain are compared to Senator Obama, who has been the most forthcoming with his financial records.

Why are we interested? Just before Bill Clinton left office he pardoned Mark Rich, a man who never should have gotten a pardon. We came to find out that Rich was a big contributor to the Clinton Campaign. The Republicans mentioned this perverse pardon over and over in their press releases. The pardon showed that justice takes a backseat to lobbyist influence with one Clinton.

The Bosnia story told by Hillary Clinton on three separate occasions in 2008 is an example of lying to the public. Why did she speak of non-existent sniper fire? She wanted us to believe that she has fortitude.

The Iraq vote on War Authorization was another instance of her great concern for her fortitude image. She could have read that 2002 National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) as other senators did. But she didn't have to read it because she knew how she was going to vote.

In 2002 Barack Obama campaigned for the state senate in Illinois. He courageously spoke out against the looming war. His voice was joined by a brave few who foresaw death, destruction and a long occupation. Our own Senator Jim Webb of Virginia, a civilian in 2002, wrote an OP-ED for the NY Times titled, "Heading for Trouble, Do we really want to occupy Iraq for the next 30 years? "

Why did Barack Obama, living in Illinois, know what the posturing Senator Clinton did not?

I wrote from the point of view of a woman. I am white, and unsure if it is entirely appropriate for me to tell you how a black person weighs or ought to weigh race in this election. But you raise a very worthwhile point which I overlooked, so I will do my best to try to consider how black voters might view this contest.

Black voters do overwhelmingly support Obama and some share of that support must be based solely on race. For this segment of black voters I agree with the argument I think you inadvertently make: they are as wrong as you would be if you voted for Clinton simply because she is a woman.

Where your argument does not quite succeed, I think, is in the assumption that virtually all of the black vote is race-based.

Let's neutralize race by assuming both Clinton and Obama are black, or both white. Let's also assume both candidates run on their real platforms, real careers, and real lives. Who is more likely to appeal to the greater number of black voters?

With respect to his early opposition to the war, I think Obama has an enormous advantage. The military is a traditional path out of poverty with few barriers to entrance. Blacks are disproportionately poor, and therefore disproportionately at risk when the country is at war. If I were black, and if I believed Obama was less likely than Clinton to support another "dumb war", I would vote for him. I suspect this would resonate more loudly with you, too, if you were black.

Concerning his early decision to reject corporate law and work as a community organizer, Obama must have a second and rather considerable advantage with the black voter. Think of what it must say to black voters that a man (or woman) with this education and those prospects would choose to work on behalf of the poor.

Clinton's early career might appeal less. Her work with the Yale Child Study Center is under-publicized, and while it would appeal to this population (and to many others) this is just not an aspect of Clinton that has gained traction. In the case of the black voter that might be something Clinton wishes she had emphasized more.

Clinton's other early career choices might be somewhat more problematic for the black voter. Her interest in defense work for the radical left, even when the defendants are Black Panthers, strikes me as somehow not quite as immediate or as real for this group as Obama's community organizing. I have to say that I am uncomfortable in speaking for blacks about their views of 60's radical activists, but I am under the impression the black community has a more pragmatic view of the issues. (All black Salon readers are invited to tell me I'm an idiot. You're welcome.)

Clinton's legal work in Arkansas, her years as First Lady there and in Washington, her WalMart board seat all, I think, communicate nothing much to the black voter (black Salon readers, see above...). Her health care proposal as First Lady is one of the things I do not admire, so I am not going to make a case for why it should impress anyone else.

Their marriages are part of their identities as candidates, and while as a Clinton supporter you may feel the subject is off-limits I suspect these voters are apt to consider it anyway. Who do you think is more likely to prevail here?

So, to your question: if the black vote is based on race alone, it is not an especially well-considered vote. But I don't think the outcome would be very much different if race were not a factor.

Concerning race in general, Obama is such an exotic mixture of genes and influences that I wonder if we are both guilty of assuming the black voter sees him as belonging exclusively to them in the first place. Perhaps the black voter sees him, as I do, as a sui generis.

Concerning your hypothetical to me: what is wrong with voting for someone simply because she is a woman? Well, apart from the reciprocal obligation we each have a citizens of a democracy to vote for the candidate we believe to be best, I must answer I am opposed to bias. If it is wrong to vote against someone (only) because she is a woman, it must also be wrong to vote for someone (only) because she is a woman.

But I think you might really mean to ask why it isn't worthwhile to want a woman. Why don't I respond to the emotional appeal of a woman president? I don't know why this doesn't register with me as it does with you. I don't consider gender when I choose a doctor or a lawyer, and I have never noticed much of a difference in performance, so the best answer I can give you is that if it doesn't matter to me in any other profession, I can't imagine why it would matter to me in a president. When I hear that it is important to others, I afraid I am simply uncomprehending.