What's all this about Bill Clinton no longer asking people to vote for his wife????

I'd say Clinton is a divisive, win at any cost poltician, but not tough. You don't have to act tough to be tough. In fact many times people who act tough are really cowards. I think she lacks the leaderhip stregnth needed to be president. Being tough, down and dirty, in poltician does not mean you will be a good leader. Bill Clinton for instance back down on many issues in his presidency.

Now I see: he's saying that he's asking for people to pray for Hillary because we have to get this country back to the right purpose.

It's just Bill being Bill. He spoke at a small church and said "I'm not here to ask you to vote for my wife. I'm here to ask you to pray for my wife."

But in the next breath he was back on message. "So, you know you can pray for her or you can vote for her..." "Our nation is in dire straits" was the next thought.

Some connection between God, manifest destiny, historic inevitability and voting for Hillary. Hillaryness is next to Godliness. A dire nation awaits.

Thanks,

I think there is a group in southern Cal who has proven that IF there is a God it is fairly simply to show that IT would be voting for Hillary. I here they even are using this gas tax issue to support their theory. They are not happy about Andrew's latest Salon article because they said it leaves out everything having to do with Hillary's electibility, her courage, her readiness for day one and her tough stance towards the evil axis...

http://www.salon.com/tech/htww/2008/05/05/hillary_clinton_oil_manipulation/

I think you must have meant to say if there were a God She would vote for Hillary. It's a feminist thing. So the gas tax is a test of faith?

touche! Yes, it only appears that Hillary is throwing a solid convergence of a diverse economic agreement to the wind. Actually she is testing us. Are we going to go with the secular point-of-view, or are we courageous enough to have faith in her statements that she is doing this because she cares the most about the working-class?

You'll notice that most Barack supporters will get into the details of what the economists are saying, whereas Hillary supporters are willing to go on her experience. Barack needs others to make his decisions. Hillary only needs her knowledge that she understands the working-class. This is another perfect example of Joan's concern that Barack is out of touch. Why else (other than being in better touch)would Hillary understand this issue more deeply than Barack?

If you recall, Hillary Clinton told people on a campaign stop last week that they should back the ‘filly’ in the race -- a three-year-old named Eight Belles. This, of course, was a not-so-subtle hint for people to back her majesty herself in the Democratic Primary. Unfortunately, poor Eight Belles finished in 2nd place, broke both front ankles, and had to be put down right there on the track. For Eight Belles, it was a tragedy. For Hillary, it was a harbinger. Because just like Eight Belles, even if Hillary runs as hard as she can, she's going to finish second. And once it's over, people will "put her down" for the way she ran her race. However, all is not lost -- because there ain't nothing in the world gonna break those triple-thick cankles of hers.

I would like to read the best of the 400+ letters posted in response to your column. But there are none designated "editor's choice." Why not?

Joan doesn't read the letters. We're pretty sure of this because if she did she would be too depressed to write her next installment of Hillary and Me: No Greater Love.

I don't think anybody could have connected Clinton to racism as convincingly as she has connected herself. Until very recently the idea that Clinton was racist would have been instantly rejected by her by enemies as well as by her friends. But she is willing to use the instrument that lies closest at hand, which you admire in the quality you call toughness, and the instrument that lies closest at the moment is race.

This is nonsense. You are basically accusing Clinton of racism because ?????

You don't actually give a reason. By your logic if she benefits at all be the fact that others don't like Obama's connection with Wright or Wright's connection Farrakhan she is somehow complicit in racism. This is an extraordinarily strained thesis.

When asked about Wright, she does not need to answer "He wouldn't be my pastor." She could say "Wright isn't running for office. Let's talk about Obama and me." The difference between those answers is that one exploits white fears and suspicions, and the other seeks higher ground.

Good heavens! I would have said exactly the same thing. It is direct. It is not especially judgmental. It is merely saying that that would not have been her choice. I actually think it is a tactful answer. I would not have sat 5 seconds through Wright's "God Damn America!" I would have been on my feet and out of that church instantly. I think she gave an honest answer. I think most people would agree with her.

When she mentions Farrakhan, when she smiles her way through these questions and says "we'll have to let the voters decide" she is unmistakably soliciting the racist vote. She herself is not a racist in her private values and opinions, but her willingness to use the racism of others is putting racism to work on her behalf. If she is willing to employ racist tactics, it hardly matters at all that she isn't racist.

What racism? This is the same sort of convoluted gibberish that was used against Clinton over her MLK/LBJ/JFK comments. To me, you are playing the race card here. You would have everyone believe that because some people somewhere might just be racist that if Clinton does not defend Farrakan she is a racist. Crap. The Southern Poverty Law Center has listed The Nation of Islam as a hate group. To defend Farrakan would be to ally oneself with racism. That would be the true racism.

Letting the voters decide is not a racist tactic. It is democracy.

Let me cite an example that might frame this better for you. Clinton is heterosexual. She says she is and I believe her. Well, as far as I know. Her husband, however, is caught cheating once too often, and this time it could cost him everything. Scorched earth defense, and Dick Morris is suddenly much in demand on TV. "Well," he says [I am paraphrasing from memory, not quoting the transcript of the broadcast] "we've all heard that Hillary might, you know, not be a wife in the traditional way. And I'm not saying it's true, but if she really wasn't a wife in the way most people think of wives, maybe it's sort of understandable. I mean, if it were true."

Morris is using unsubstantiated rumor. I fail to see how this equates with letting the voters decided and indicating a personal preference not to belong to a particular church.

Weren't you outraged when Morris did that? Didn't you loathe the little smirk that accompanied this implication?

Actually, I don't watch television.

Do you know and do you care that in private Morris has nothing against the gay and lesbian community? Of course you don't. You think he grabbed the closest weapon at hand to deliver a really cheap shot at a person only indirectly associated with the scandalous behavior of someone else.

This might make some sense if your example were in any way parallel to Clinton's behavior or words. It is not.

So when you see a person who is himself very good on the issues (of course I support gay rights) unhesitatingly tap into gay slurs and innuendo in service of some larger goal, you don't draw a precise distinction between what he thinks and what he does. You think he'll stop at nothing to get what he wants.

No. This is not equivalent. You are ignoring the patriotism question, which is legitimate with many people. You are ignoring Obama's judgment in remaining a member of a church that could hurt him politically. People who think Wright's rhetoric is tasteless, unpatriotic, or stupid (doesn't care about a dead girl in Aruba, thinks we deserved 9/11, believes the government caused AIDS) are not racists because they think this.