HIllary is not what she seems. I know many of you have fallen for her, but why? The why nots are just massive, but no one seems to know them. I'm a Dem leaning Independent, that is seriously concerned that the gains we made in 2006, may be deeply eroded in 2008. I know some of you know my reasons, but not all of them, so I will try to explain it. She has been very carefully handled, by some real expert campaign people, to mask that classic Hillary coldness, but she still is cold, and calculating, even down to using her husband's popularity to control damaging media stories about her. Sorry, but that smacks of a trend toward secrecy and media manipulation I have seen way too much of in the past six years, to me, and to many others. Then some say she tries to say whatever she thinks anyone wants to hear.
From Tom Darby, at Suite 101, we get this:
"The truth of the matter is that Sen. Clinton was a board member to Wal-mart for six years and that the Walton family played a huge role in her husband’s political career. For this help Arkansas Gov. (and later President) Bill Clinton assisted Wal-mart when it came to the free trade agreement known as NAFTA. In addition, Sen. Clinton’s Rose Law Firm even handled much of Wal-marts legal defense.
However the majority of liberals are unaware of Sen. Clinton's corporate past, including having been a corporate lawyer. These facts are often overlooked because it is inconvenient for liberals to realize that she has been part of ‘the system."
Sort of lays low all those ideals about championing the American worker, and her support of the new NAFTA is further proof of her preference for Big Business, over the middle and lower classes, as well, it would seem.
No repudiation of lobbyist money, as Obama, Edwards, and others have pledged. Unprecedented contributions to her campaign by Major Military Industrial Complex movers and shakers.
On Iraq, well, she sees a need for combat troops, not embassy guards, or personal protection, but combat troops, at some level, indefinitely. Then there is her position on Iran. Through her efforts to move right, she has polarized the left faction in the party, as well as many independents. Then there is this.
All in all, though, I see these reasons as secondary, and the real thrust of my opposition to her candidacy is that she commands great popularity with hard middle Democrats, although she has polarized the left wing of the party pretty badly, but the real concern is that she has enormous negative poll numbers, ranging from 42 to 46 percent of the voting public at large, that say they would never consider voting for her at all.
That's a formidible hurdle to get over, and the Republican slime machine hasn't even begun to operate on her yet. More so than any other candidate, she faces an insurmountable well ofnegative, already decideds, that are very vocal in their stance, and highly unlikely to change their minds. She would need independent and moderate Republican votes to win in the generals, as any candidate would, and they just do not exist.
She has such a polarizing effect on the right in America, that I and many others, think it quite likely she will foment a massive voter turnout, with the express intention of defeating her. These are people that have hated her for years, and their opinion is only going to be bolstered between now and 08. We all know that the skeletons in Hillary's closet are many, and whether true or not, you will see them in attack ads from one end of this country to the other. I feel these will negatively impact any gains she may make with these people, reminding voters why they didn't like her in the first place.
For the voters that do not pay attention, politically otherwise, she isn't going to shine too bright a beacon, either. The other Democratic concern, besides just snatching defeat out of the jaws of victory, one more time, in the presidential race, should be that she is their enormous albatross, hanging around every Democratic candidates neck, and while she foments that huge right wing turnout, that I guarantee she will, all of our gains in the senate, the house, and of the many state officials out there, will be swallowed up in that massive right wing turn out, and be voted out as well.
This would seem a gigantic strategy error, giving a severely fragmented right wing, something worth truly rallying against, and reuniting a mess it took us six years to break apart. The negative effects could last for decades. I see no one, on the political scene, at this point, that could reunite Right wing voters except Hillary. They are alienated, and truly infighting, right now, but nominate Hillary, and stop the presses, it's a horse race, one she cannot win. Some of this is pretty well summed up here. I see the new polls put her even farthur ahead, and the negatives for Obama and Edwards are rising, but they are not the hard earned fixated negatives of Hillary, and can be counteracted, in fact, according to some, it's an effect of Gore's winning the peace prize, and renewed interest in him. Those that would draft Gore detract from the male candidates while hurting Clinton almost not at all. When it is thoroughly clear Gore will not run, I expect those numbers to rebound. All I can do today, though, is shake my head in wonder. She is a formula for losing, yet again. Congratulations Democrats, no one right now has the power to defeat you, but you.
recommend this
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 41
That's a turn off right there - you have to be more sophisticated in your name calling.
Yes she a politician and she's had her fingers in lots of pies. Anybody can drag up stuff like that and make it seem like dirt, anybody. Just because the right hates her a lot and is nasty and loud about it doesn't make me afraid of her.
I really respect Hillary and Obama for getting so far past such obvious sexism and racism I've come across in the last year.
There are far better choices available among the Democrats.
Follow the money, stay away from candidates who are trying to pander to some religious groups agenda, if a candidate running for president of a FREE nation, and he/she is pandering to a religious right association talking about denyins anyone rights such as homosexuals, and talking about god this and god that and schools with god or whatnot, well then that candidate, common sensly, is not to be president of a FREE nation. Plus they are also usually ALWAYS backed by big business, they just want the religious vote to try and give them a little nudge to the white house, but they will still try and fullfill the 'favors' they promised such a hateful group of bigots.
The ONLY candidates I trust is Republican Ron Paul (THANK GOODNESS FOR HIM, he has cured my apathy, as many say), I like Democratic Dennis Kucinich as well. This comment is out to target REAL Americans like myself who understand what the role og government really is and is capable of understanding that the Constitution is what runs this nation and anyone who goes agaisnt it is out for ulterior motives as we have seen over many years looking back.
Folks, follow the damn money, LISTEN to what the candidate is saying and who they are trying to sweet talk, they arent for YOU, they will be agaisnt you. And btw, even if Ron Paul did get elected, the work wont be done because we will have a lotta trash to take out from congress because once Ron starts trying to be the President of US, the CITIZENS, the crooks and liars will stick out like a sore thumb and we will see exactly where their loyalities lie.
Sad as it is it takes MILLIONS of dollars to be President now days.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7007109937779036019
Obama has found some innovative ways to give the appearance of being more clean than he is. He says he doesn't take money from lobbyists (although he always has prior to this election), but takes money through the back door from families of lobbyists. He also counts t-shirt sales and bumper sticker sales as donations, to make it look like he has more small donors than he actually does.
I like Edwards but he isnt perfect.
You can find campaign funding info for all candidates at: http://www.opensecrets.org/
I go to his web site every day, because I keep close tabs on what my candidate is doing. I haven't seen the thing about sending a card to his wife on there for months and believe it was only up very briefly around the time she announced her cancer was back, when a lot of people, understandably, wanted to send her letters. The campaign is extremely important to her. For both of them, helping everyone have the kind of opportunities they've had is their life's work, so I'm quite sure she was happy to share the list of her supporters with her husband.
That's assuming, of course, that Der Bushfuehrer is going to ALLOW any elections... and, in my mind at least, that's a GREAT, BIG "IF"...
You stated an opinion, and I stated mine. If you go to a campaign web page you should expect it's about the campaign, JMHO. Elizabeth, being very dedicated to the campaign, naturally wants to get as many donations as possible, because John has sworn not to take lobbyist money, etc., unlike some in the race. I believe in discussion, and I didn't cut you off from stating your opinion, I merely stated mine, but if you expect everyone to agree with every comment you make, there won't be any discussion, either.
Ron that is what YOU said....so I didnt agree with You so you told me to give it a rest. Why because I wasnt agreeing with you and BTW I wasnt talking about Edwards political site but his wifes CANCER site.
My point is they are all shady in one way or another and it is a sad state that it has to be that way.
I like Edwards but he isnt perfect."
So now it's his wife's cancer site, not his site, and you still insist it's shady, which I don't see it, his wife has dedicated her last days to getting him elected. Her choice, and says a lot about her faith in him. Still having trouble seeing anything shady about it. There is an opt out option available, as well, you know. As for me, I didn't jump through the screen and throttle you, you could have kept right on saying whatever you wanted, I just expressed my opinion, which I guess you didn't like, that what you elected to say was without merit, which IMO it was, and is. You are right, John isn't perfect, but he isn't mercenary either, and has done nothing wrong there, I think.
Then there is Astro Girl's charge "She is quite corrupt...." and Norman Chamber's "Hillary is as dishonest as the day is long" neither of which were backed of by evidence of either charge and you own "We all know that the skeletons in Hillary's closet are many ..." and then go on to suggest that even if they aren't true the fact that the have been made is enough reason not to vote for her! I doubt you would say the same if lies were being spread about a candidate you liked.
You tried to do a little bit better with you suggestion that there is something wrong with being a corporate lawyer, but I hate to have to inform you that even Walmart is entitled to hire the best corporate law firm their money can buy, and you did not offer any evidence that that was anything illegal or unethical about the way Walmart was represented.
Then there is Shari's "If you are an honest person, scandals and shady people aren't a constant problem like they were during the Clinton years..." I guess that means it okay for the government engage in wiretaps and other violations of the Constitution because good, law-abiding citizens don't have anything to worry about. The facts are that the Republicans were still looking for payback for the impeachment of Nixon that forced him to resign, and despite spending millions of taxpayer dollars Ken Starr was not able to find any charges worthy of impeachment or worthy pursuing in criminal court.
As for perceptions of shady characters and guilt by association, I suppose I could try to make something of Obama being supported by the Daley's political machine, but I won't. He is a Chicago politician, he has had to deal with the machine, but that does not mean he bears the stains of all the shenanigans for which that machine has been responsible.
Why some Democrats are doing there best to give credence to the Hillary Hate charges and innuendos is beyond me. All it will do is encourage the far-right an unethical politicians to continue to engage to in dirty tactics in the future, and that could result in ending up with a Republican who is more intelligent and as a result more devious and clever than Bush as a future President.
Hillary being plagued by scandals has nothing to do with the Bush wire tapping, he has NO right to listen to innocent people's communication. Not sure why you are connecting these things.
If Hillary's law partners were criminals but she didn't have a clue, and her husband was unfaithful but she didn't have a clue, and her friends in the Whitewater deal were criminals but she didn't have a clue and signing the declaration against Iraq in 2003 meant Bush WAS going to war, but she thought he was just going to be diplomatic and use the UN.....I"m a little worried about her. Either she is clueless or a big liar and neither one makes me trust her to run our country!
I really don't like the republican choices as well. I WILL NOT VOTE FOR GUILIANI! He's a pig. I'm not impressed with Romney. Although he's in 4th in polls, I would consider McCain.
But since the republican party and platform just isn't what it used to be, I say, BRING ON THE INDEPENDENTS! Let's check them out and vote for the best to lead our country!