I'm Already Against the Next War
No one ever said that the Clintons weren't corrupt. Even they didn't say that. The only questions were 1) Were they less corrupt than the Republicans and 2) Did they combine at least a modicum of compassion and interest in the public good with their corruption? Back in the 90s, I felt that, on balance, Bill Clinton was openly compassionate, and that his corruption did not fatally taint his administration. At any rate, he did not GLORY in corruption as Reagan and Bush 1 and their advisors did. I also felt that after the Reagan Revolution (excuse me, I meant to say Reagan Devolution), triangulation was the only way to get anything done, and so they did it.
But Hillary Clinton seems to have learned the wrong lesson from her Senatorial success. The lesson she has learned is that Republicans such as McCain are more her friends than Senators with progressive principles. As a result, it now appears that Clinton and McCain stand together on one side of a divide, and Barack Obama stands on the other side of that divide. The divide is between the inside-the-beltway ruling class, who can see no reason of any kind that they should give up the power they have accumulated and the avenue to wealth that it represents, and the citizenry of the country, who in every poll insist that the country is headed in the wrong direction. In the last week, Clinton has put herself on McCain's ticket, attacking the change that Obama promises and seems poised to deliver (whether or not he can remains an open question), and promising more more more of the same of what we have had for the last thirty years. More of the same is exactly what almost everyone does not want, but Clinton tells us everyday in every way that that is what we will get -- what we have had is what she touts as her "experience". What we see in her campaign is that we will get the same old same old with an added measure of chaos.
Clinton, of course, is not Cheney. Dick Cheney is the mad master of corruption, a person who literally doesn't know what integrity is. But Hillary is too smart not to know, and she has made up her mind to shelve her integrity for the sake of ambition. And let me be clear what I mean by corruption -- I have no idea what her financial gains have been over the years, and I don't care. What I mean by corruption is any and all support of the criminal policies of the Republicans while calling herself a Democrat, in order to gain power.
Some weeks ago, I wrote a Huff post about a remark Bill Clinton made, that if Hillary became the nominee, the presidential campaign would be exceptionally "polite". We now see that he wasn't joking. Both Clintons are in favor of the status quo, and will fight tooth and nail to maintain it. They are surrounded by advisors who both literally and figuratively are married to the Republicans. They are, indeed, now part of the "vast right wing conspiracy".
One of the key questions about the Democrats since the 2006 elections is, where do their loyalties really lie? Time and again they have failed to stop the Republicans, or settled for a little populist embroidery around the edges of policies that by and large serve to increase the power of the Republicans. Their excuse, which is growing thin, is that they don't have the power to confront Bush. Hillary Clinton is now showing their real agenda -- preserving the status quo at the expense of the military, the taxpayers, the economy, world peace, and the rule of law.
Obama is not a known quantity. I have seen him one time and listened to one speech, and I was reasonably impressed by that speech. But Hillary Clinton is a known quantity. If you like the world that the Bushes and Clintons have made in the last twenty years, then you should by all means vote for her. But as of this week, I don't see her as the person I want answering the red phone.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
Hillary and Bill are quite soiled now - unfortunately - if she wins does she really think that america will be rejoicing - no - many will be as disgusted through her white house years as they are with George Bush and his administration - but I will say this with Bill in the white house again, we'll probably be very much entertained for four years with Hillary trying to keep tabs on him -
Ms. Smiley, your post is right on! It summarizes perfectly al the conclusions I have reached about Hillary over the past few months. When the campaign began, I felt reasonably comfortable with any of the 3 Democratic front-runners: Clinton, Obama and Edwards. As time has passed, Hillary has shown herself to be absolutely corrupt morally. She can lie and twist the truth as well, if not better, than her husband (who probably still won't own up to the meaning of the word "is.") She will deny today saying what she said yesterday (e.g., entertaining the possibility of having Obama as a running mate), go back on promises and commitments she made publicly (forgoing the Michigan and Florida primaries), puff up her own credentials (how is being the wife a President a qualification for being President yourself?) - and on and on and on. She is every bit as Bushian (Cheneyan? Rovian?) as anyone could be. If she is nominated, I will either vote for McCain or I won't vote at all.
"As a result, it now appears that Clinton and McCain stand together on one side of a divide, and Barack Obama stands on the other side of that divide. "
Yes, and surface appearances can be VERY deceptive. Don't believe EVERYTHING you see and/or hear. I LIKE Barack, he's far superior to McCain, who's nothing but an old warhorse (emphasis on the "old" and the "war") as far as I'm concerned, and if Barack is the Democratic nominee, he'll definitely get my vote in November. But for now, at least, I'm sticking with Hillary, who I feel is better than Barack. Besides, the men have had their turn at running this country. It's way past time to give a woman a chance at it. And also, WHEN did Hillary promote McCain, anyway? I must've missed that somehow.
At any rate, Barack TALKS a really good game. His pretty, Kum-bah-yah rhetoric is apparently warm and fuzzy listening for many. However, I guess I'm just too much of a cynic to fully buy into it myself. I guess that's why most of Barack's hardcore supporters are twenty- and thirty-somethings. Those age groups are idealists who haven't yet had enough life experience to become cynical. Although hope is good, and it springs eternal, hope can also disappoint. Those twenty- and thirty-somethings will learn that as they get older.
Yes you did miss a few things... she has promoted McCain as qualified as Commander in Chief.. for what reason, who knows, but it cannot be for better reasons than she thinks herself qualified, which is a joke, but we know quite well just how her judgment is and we know how bad her ethics are and since she and McCain refuse to release income tax records, they both have something that they surely don't want the American people to know about. Is this enough for now, or is more needed?
Sorry, but dont try to stereotype Obama supporters. I am well over 50, Independent, a woman and have supported Obama over Hillary. Hardcore, too.
Why do you think he is winning? He has more people voting for him overall, not just the young or black vote.
Obama '08
As a man, I don't understand why after 43 male presidents, more American women wouldn't want to give a woman the chance to mess things up or hopefully fix them. England is certainly much more conservative, yet women have a history of rule on and off the throne. I don’t believe India's political system favors the election of a female prime leader and yet, it has allowed it. Latin American countries are notoriously "machista" in everything including presidential politics; nevertheless, many have placed women at the top. Maybe it’s just me who thinks that courageous First Lady, Eleanor Roosevelt didn’t do such a bad job of holding down the fort during FDR’s illness. Maybe it’s just me who thinks Hillary Clinton had a little something to do with Bill’s success in reversing 12 years of trickle down policy. Also, let’s not forget they didn’t start the fire in Iraq. I totally understand why 90% of African Americans support Obama. Hey, if I were African American, I’d be right there backing Barack too, despite the fact that personally, I think he screams Peter Principle. What I can’t understand the opposition to Hillary by intelligent women like this author. Her opinion flies way over my head making me feel rather ignorant on the topic of women and politics.
Maybe it's because THIS woman is totally corrupt and without any moral center.
HernQuin2008YouTube writes:
"As a man, I don't understand why after 43 male presidents, more American women wouldn't want to give a woman the chance to mess things up or hopefully fix them."
My response:
As a woman, and as a feminist, who was raised by parents to understand that one of the prime objectives of feminism was to disqualify "gender" bias and to supplant preference for or against gender with MERIT -- the idea of wanting to "give a woman the chance" simply because she's a woman, is offensive -- to my principals, and to my intelligence.
Hillary is not the wrong "woman". She is the wrong *person*. Period.
HernQuin..
Your post is one of the most intelligent ones I've seen on these pages, and I think you're also a man who is 'smart enough' to trust his instincts. Smart women and men do it all the time.
Thank you for your post. It's a breath of fresh air.
Go Hillary
I am an intelligent American woman and because I am an intelligent woman I would no more vote for Hillary for president because she is a woman than I would for Condoleezza Rice or Ann Coulter. Hillary, the person, is the problem. She is too divisive, republican-lite corporate, militaristic and lacks the adequate judgment to be our president, in my opinion. She enabled bush to send our kids to war, voted against legislation that would have banned cluster bombs (for god's sake!), voted for the Kyl Lieberman amendment declaring Iran's army a terrorist organization and sided with the credit card companies on the issue of bankruptcy, to name just a few extremely critical non-progressive, non-compassionate stances. Indeed, Eleanor Roosevelt was courageous and compassion
And your notion that most African Americans vote for Obama because he is Black is cheap and racist, whether you understand it or not. It's falacious and racist. First off, it totally discounts that people believe in the message and the messenger who is Obama. As Obama is the winner on all fields (delegate, states popular vote), a whole BUNCH of folks of every stripe find his message appealing. I suppose that your theory would only bear itself out if you also believe that Clinton only gets the higher percentages of the white vote because Hillary is white. Right?? Only a couple of months ago, the Clintons enjoyed an overwhelming majority of the African American vote---but a funny thing happens when a campaign continually insults and alienates people: they vote for someone else. Ask Bill Clinton and Geraldine Ferraro and a host of others about how that works.
I'm also an intelligent woman and I voted for Clinton in the California primary.
Senator Clinton voted for the resolution that enabled Bush to attack Iraq. Yes, that is true. However, Bush lied when he said it was a diplomatic tool to get weapon inspectors back into Iraq. Every good lie has some truth to it. In this case, the truth was that Bush used the threat of force to get Hans Blix back into Iraq to look for WMDs. The lie, of course, was that he would then use the information gathered to make his next decision. We all know NOW that he had no intention of doing anything but attacking. But at the time, Bush enjoyed a 70% approval rating from the American people. That means that most of us believed he was being honest about his position on Iraq. IF Bush had been a decent commander-in-chief, he would have listened to Hans Blix and would not have attacked Iraq after finding out that their were no WMDs.
The fact that Bush is a lying little weasel is not the fault of Senator Clinton.
If Hillary were Eleanor Roosevelt she would get my vote. Hillary is not. She voted for the Iraq war, and voted to start the Iran war. I think Hillary screams Peter Principle because she has never shown leadership, on any issue, in her personal political career.
Obama has shown leadership on a number of issues, opposing the Iraq war, getting benefits for soliers at Walter Reed, stopping nuclear proliferation, and enhancing government transparency.
i am a over 50 woman, btw, and an Independent who registered Dem so I could vote for Obama in the primary.
Jane:
I see something far more perniscious in Clinton than championing the status quo. I see unbridled ambition that will stop at nothing to gain power. I see a Spitzerian lust for power that is all-consuming and terrifying in its intensity, because a person in the throws of that kind of lust will do anything.
The whole inside-the-beltway vs. outside the beltway narrative -- while undoubtedly true as far as it goes -- masks the more interesting and potentially dangerous issue of what motivates people to populate that space, and how driven they are; what room is left in the darkness of their psyche for shreds or aspects of humanity and morality.
As you note, Bill had some space left over for real compassion; Hillary's ambition is all consuming and leaves no room for anything but the vision of herself esconced in the White House. How she gets there and what she does once there is merely incidental.
This has all the makings of a classic Greek Tragedy.
This is simple folks. Hillary Clinton is just more of the same. A two faced, half baked, sold out self centered lying cheater. So to vote her would just be a vote for her, certainly not for you. That’s my opinion.
Thank you - thank you - thank you, Jane Smiley! You put into words exactly what I've been thinking lately. At the start of this primary season, I was very pleased with the democratic candidates and felt that I could wholeheartedly support a good number of them, including Hillary Clinton. After watching the despicable tactics employed by her campaign however, that is no longer true. (By the way Senator Clinton, when that emergency call comes in to the White House at 3am, I'd like the person who picks up the phone to have both brains and integrity; in my opinion, Sen. Obama has you and McCain beaten on both counts.) And "the party" better not expect me to "hold my nose" and vote for her if she steals the primary victory.
We will Organize the Grass Roots against Clinton.
Clinton may have almost half of the Democrats in her corner now. What she fails to understand is that her disgusting 'Rovian' campaign style has assured that she will have half of those democrats voting against her in the General Election..
Mark my words.
Very well written. Hillary's promotion of John McCain was a defining moment in her campaign. For a real Democrat, it must define the next Presidency as: Barack Obama. The repeated expressions of weakness of Democrats (e.g., the recent Senate FISA cave in on retro-active immunity) are almost Orwellian. You are providing further insight into the idea that the "Stepford" Republicans (automatons who sold their souls for money / power) are now tragically giving way to the Stepford Democrats -- enter the Monster ...
Whoever wrote this stole the basic structure as well as the thesis from an Obama speech.
Hillary, is this you writing in an unedited style that could use basic cleanup? Are you an invader in camouflage attempting to promulgate propaganda for the Clinton campaign?
Or is this some wannabe writer who like Ben Franklin as a youth--in fact, a teenager--imitated significant others so he could gather a platform of knowledge and information on basic structure-- style, and tone--from which he could spring to the next level? If so, you've achieved a basic knowledge of analogy for the sake of propaganda, but you must do something about editing for surface structure.
If the latter, keep practicing.
I must commend you, though, for choosing an Obama speech as your template.
Somehow the, my comment, posted under newportbob. Sorry Bob. It was intended for dragonfly142 who at this moment in time appears directly below.
I agree....B
Exactly what I have been puzzled by the past few years. There is a complete disconnect between the Washington crowd and the rest of the country. There is absolutely NO RESPONSE to the concerns, anger, and distress that Americans have repeatedly expressed to their representatives. At least it seems that way to me. And the polls consistently say that the public increasingly feel the country is going in the wrong direction, yet...noth
Check back to when Bill Clinton was president, he was considered the new kid on the block, he balanced the budget we even had a surplus, he created jobs, I don't know where the poster of this article is getting their info, but it must be from the republicans who hate Bill Clinton.
Obama always claims he's the new kid on the block...we
speeches are is all he's got against another candidate Hillary Clinton who has been around alot longer than even when her husband Bill Clinton was
president. After becoming a lawyer she didn't go to work at the posh places , but places that helped women, children, hispanics and african
americans. she fought the establishment and the status-quo, she is now a pioneer and champion of these causes, and made real differences in
peoples lives for her accomplishments. What caucasian woman do you know that would fight so hard for other races. It's wrong to try to play down
all the wonderful accomplishments for all these people , I'm sure they appreciate what she did. Obama fights for his own people (african
americans),and yet has made no real differences in anyones lives. what has he done or accomplished for any other races other than his own? Did he
even think to do that. Hillary Clinton is a humanitarian and a real civil servant, the kind we can be proud of, and if you don't believ me ..just look up
her personal record dating back to the 70's
Look, we all know the Clintons accomplished a few things. I sure miss that budget surplus. There's nothing I would like better than to tout those accomplishments, and I would probably have preferred to downplay some of the seamier side if things had just remained civil. But you can't spread nasty rumors, tell lies, and generally disrespect your opponent and the voters and think you can get off without the blowback. We're not all quite as civilized as Senator Obama. We get mad when we think we're lied to, and downright testy when we think we've not been respected. I mean, really, what in the world did you expect? So if you want to reclaim the status of those real achievements, talk to your candidate and tell her we'll make a deal. You folks give credit where credit's due and don't cast aspersions, and we'll jog our memories about the good times, and point them out. I think you're saying that it doesn't have to be this way. Well, guess what? I agree.
"We all know the Clintons accomplished some things..."
Fine, but just why is Hillary due credit for what Bill accomplished? For that matter, how can she claim a lifetime of "experience?" I mean, is Laura Bush responsible for the Iraq war? Oh hell, why not elect Chelsea? She went along on those elephant rides and teas. Doesn't that give her a lifetime of "experience?
Hillary Clinton wasn't President. She deserves credit (or blame) for her work as a Senator. Period.
Get the facts for your propaganda correct. I was born in Mexico, NAFTA has ruined that country. Big business took over, while small business went bankrupt. Too bad Hispanics in this country are so uninformed. Yes, I remember her record:She was a Goldwater girl. Judging by her campaign tactics, she still has the Republican mentality in her. No wonder she suports, and endorses McCain.
rosal:
We all know that Mexico has always been 'ruined'. It sure wasn't NAFTA that did it. Come now.
"After becoming a lawyer she didn't go to work at the posh places ,"
I'm not sure the Rose law firm would appreciate your assessment of the as not "posh."
You must be writing the fantasy version of Hilliary and Bill, the version that they would like people to believe but isn't true.
Clinton got very lucky, and this is highly unlikely to happen again anytime soon for a President.
He was there to gain the benefit of the post cold war economy, he was there when the pc's came of age, he was there for the internet gaining universal acceptance
indc:
It's you who's writing the fantasy dear one. Err.. It was Bush Senior who bombed Iraq.
And just for your info... Bill Clinton along with all his other wonderful accomplishments, was also the only leader of the free world who had the balls to step in and stop the horrific carnage in Bosnia. And he ended that war in one week! Quite unlike Bush Jr.
As for NAFTA... even though Hillary was against it at the time.... It created over 1,3000,000 new jobs in America... quite unlike Bush... who followed with his financial carnage of America. The worst thing Bill did was frankly in world opinion - was Monica... and really, big bloody deal. America made a total fool of itself with it's hysteria over his private life. And your continuing to use it against him... is really silly.
Tell the soldiers at Walter Reed that Obama has not made an impact in their lives when he crafted legislation to get benefits for them.
Tell me, an average taxpayer, that Obama had no impact when he crafted legislation to increase government transparency.
And tell the world that Obama has not made an impact when he made us all safer by crafting legislation to prevent black market nuclear proliferation in Russia and globally.
Obama recognises the problems in the system. And the only way to change the system is to have the power of the office of President. He has shown the superior judgement, in world and national affairs, that will enable him to enact positive change and to address the real issues facing this nation.
Good point. . .Time to change the guard. . .
Obama 2002 speech against the war:
http://www
Full version here:
http://www
Jus20008. Speeches are great, but when he had the chance to vote less than 2 years ago for the Kerry amendment to get us out of Iraq in 12 months, HE DIDN'T DO IT! Here's THAT speech:
http://oba
On Iraq, he's voted right down the line with Hillary for the past 3 years, and he said at the 2004 convention that he didn't know how he would have voted for the original resolution. Stop dreaming and let's take back the White House.
The way to end the war is not through the back, by pulling the funding rug out from underneath our troops. It's with a phased, organized withdrawal by a competent administration. The last thing I wanted was the dems leaving this task to the republicans.
I am undecided, but deeply intrenched in this election. I want to know the pros & cons of each candidate. I've been watching Clinton & McCain for years, so now I've been Obama watching. Since this is a pro Obama site, I read all the articles and posts. I also go to most suggested sites. I went to one called "counterpunch" awhile ago.. It pretty well tore Obama up about his record. But, nothing shook me up like the hate I've seen here from Obama supporters. I expect everyone has stuff in their past I've watched the Clinton's get blasted for years. So, I expect Obama, who did inhale, to get blasted. No problem, altho' I know coke makes you get real evil by the 4th day in a row. My guess is, he got into some tight spots. Still, I want to know what you will do, not what you did. Cinton's played on the same field as both Bushes & Cheney, has been under a microscope, & keeps going & going like the Energizer bunny. Since Obama has been in the senate, he has voted either present or almost exactly the same as Clinton. Hmmm..
What to do? Well, I supported Dennis Kucinich, & none of them sound even remotely like Dennis. I had hoped they'd all learn from Dennis what most Americans really want. What will tip the scale for me? So far the more I try to find out about Obama, the more hate I see. What is it about this man that makes people swoon & turn against each other? How can he be a uniter if he creates so much hatred? This from an outside observer. As I keep reading posts from his supporters, it seems it gets more ugly. In my humble opinion this is hiurting him from many perspectives. I'd feel alot better about him if I started reading posts about how great he is and why, instead of all these insults.He
GW tap dancing tells me he knows something we do'nt. We're already arguing about votes, but it looks like he's already got them counted again. We need every "WE THE PEOPLE" to try to stop this from happening again. Not bickering!
I agree that this election is getting ugly, and it is quite repulsive to see that Hillary Clinton is scapegoated for it. Blame the Clintons! The Rush Limbaugh mantra for 16 years. No, the ugliness of this campaign has zilch to do with Hillary and everything to do with a ferocious sexism that infects way too many men and women in this society. It's appauling to see the venomous pernicious willingness of too many people who should know better, to simply slide into the sadistic bully mob-consciousness that picks up the propaganda-spewed words and slings them like rocks with the bully glee of the crowd, as they drool in sexist cruelty to bash Hillary every day loudly vulgarly unrelentingly with the same tired ugly words about her that have NOT A DROP OF TRUTH in them.
For a little palate cleansing break from the gruesome hatefest on Hillary, if your confused: is she wonderful, is she wicked? then quickly review these few links to get a touch of where she's been and who she is now:
“Women’s rights are human rights. Among those rights are the right to speak freely—and the right to be heard.”
That was Hillary Rodham Clinton defying the U.S. State Department and the Chinese Government at the 1995 UN 4th World Conference on Women in Beijing. Look here for the full, stunning speech:
http://www
And this voice, age 21, in “Commencement Remarks of Hillary D. Rodham, President of Wellesley College Government Association, Class of 1969:”
http://www
http://www
http://www
http://gue
http://www
The rampant rabid sexism is the real issue now. It is sexism that has made this country the beastly thing we've become. One in three women in this society are assaulted. We're nuts. We are violent. We have 2 million guys in jail. They will go home to beat up, rape, and kill women in their neighborhood. Our TV shows are about sadistically brutalized, bound up, stabbed, raped, murdered women, all day and all night long, reruns, our most popular shows, murdered women everywhere--the status quo. I wonder what Lady Liberty thinks of all of this monstrous sexism across the nation she stands watching over.
The entire reporting of this campaign has been a most fascinating view into the repulsive dark heart of American sexism. There is no question that Hillary Clinton is infinitely more suitable than Barack or McNuts, and if she were a man, this thing would have been over ages ago. Mr. Rodham would have been our next president, because we need now the most truly qualified and experienced candidate who would make the best Commander in Chief for us, who also has detailed great solutions to our domestic and international problems.
Barack plays catch up. He said he'd shuffle papers from one adviser to another once he's president. Hillary rolls sleeves up and handles the work. We're making a terrible mistake right now not putting the Clinton know-how to work for us again. We really need them and their international fame and respect. But our sexism is in the way.
I truly believe this country is trying at a subconscious level to find out what the hell went wrong with us all. Have we lost our national mind? We're trying to find our "good" American selves. Well, we've got evidence here of a supremely wicked deeply ignorant component of the American psyche that has reared its hideous head and its name is SEXISM. I think since Hillary is absolutely the most qualified (to anyone who actually knows all about her life's efforts knows without question) then we need to get very clear, get out of denial, get out of being swayed into the Rock Star craziness that makes mobs swoon over NLP hypnogogic speechifying from an empty suit who may well fill out the Dream of Hope, and fulfill a great political destiny when he's had more experience and actually done more for others than say "present."
GO HILLARY!!!!!
I spent some time today at Smirking Chimp and got into a thread that developed into a focus on sexism. Anyone who wants to maybe think about and discuss the issue of sexism in an effort to comprehend the causes and solutions of the obvious craziness that it is, can read my blog entry on SC here:
American (Sexist Pig) Men
http://www
BravoStar2
I totally agree with you when you say Obama supporters concentrate on threatening and insulting Hillary supporters and Hillary. That seems to be what their real "platform" is. Certainly not the peace and unity I keep hearing him spout.
Isn't it curious that not only is he not being vetted, but the media has turned on Hillary for daring to do so? One headline and announcer after another - seem to be surprised and upset that the Hillary camp is asking pertinent and important questions about Obama.
They claim she is crossing the line?? What is wrong with US media in this election?
Aren't questions about Obama supposed to be asked and answered?
And yet the US media is trying to spin that into something else against Hillary - and continue their negative biased coverage on her.... and detracting the public from vetting Obama?
Something stinks big time here. The people are getting scammed by their own media.
Unbelievable that this is allowed to happen in the US.
Yeah, I love Kucinich's stands on most every issue, too. Obama's and Hillary's records BOTH leave a lot to be desired. Who to vote for? The one you like better. And I don't mean the one you wanna have a drink with. I mean the one that has the best chance of motivating and inspiring a recommitment to the ideals and values of liberal democracy. For me, that candidate is Obama, but we all have to make that decision for our ownselves.
You say that Hillary is not as bad as Dick yet your comment is contradictory.
"Clinton, of course, is not Cheney. Dick Cheney is the mad master of corruption, a person who literally doesn't know what integrity is. But Hillary is too smart not to know, and she has made up her mind to shelve her integrity for the sake of ambition..
It is clear that if a person does not know what integrity is they can not be held to with integrity. Yet, you state that Hillary is " too smart not to know," therefore, one is to surmise that Hillary knows how to act with integrity is but purposely fails to do such. To purposely fail to act with integriety is far worse that to not know what integrity is. Dick's ignorance allows him a pass on his failing Hillary is not entitled to such behavior.
This is an appalling column, and you, Jane Smiley, and all the rabid Obama supporters commenting as well, should be ashamed of yourselves. You all claim Hillary "would do anything to win" but you yourselves have sunk to that level. Lying, misrepresenting, distorting. Anything to ensure your untested, inexperienced and disingenuous neophyte candidate can win. And the vitriolic hatred you're spewing on Hillary is beyond anything you claim she may have said or done. You're treating this election like it's some sort of social experiment instead of the referendum on the most trying geopolitical times we've ever faced as a nation. "Gee--We're so turned off by 'politics as usual'--What if we elected a young guy who has almost nothing on his resume to show us one way or the other what kind of job he'd do, and let him run the biggest, most complicated, most powerful beaurocratic governmental entity in all of human history?" "Yeah! That'll show 'em!" That's exactly what the voters (and Supreme Court) did in 2000. Is this some sort of stupid backlash to that? Didn't you learn anything?
And by the way--Saying that McCain brings more to the table than St. Obama is just a fact--It doesn't mean Hillary was endorsing McCain over Obama should Obama secure the nomination. Since you all seem to be dumb as posts, I'll explain it for you: What she was saying is that since she has more experience than Barack, she has a better chance of beating McCain than Barack does. That argument is perfectly legitimate and fair game. Are you really so dense as to believe that the Republicans hadn't already thought of the "experience vs. no-experience" strategy? Do you really think they weren't already planning to use that should Obama be nominated?
You don't like what Jane Smiley wrote, therefore you go into attack mode and start lashing out at the world. What is this "you should be ashamed " language? Hill
and Bill are always telling people to be ashamed. I don't get it. It's a big turn off, if
you're trying to get people to listen to you.
Thank you! Clear to the point and accurate. Keep it up! Maybe it will help get people to do a little research and then decide on a candidate.
You can tell when individuals are really stating a case based on knowledge vs the media speel.
Nice try. She endorsed McCain period. Talking about being dense! She knows the math is against her, so she rather brings the party and the country down, than bowing out gracefuly. Maybe she wants to be in the same ticket with McCain, that is why she is praising a Republican who supports Bush policies. Since you are saying the same thing, praising McCain, I suspect the Republicans planted you on this web.
And let me explain to you something: Is not the same thing if a hateful Republican throws the "experience strategy", than when another Democrat does the Republican's a favor, praising one of them.
timinhi:
Obama has as much practical foreign policy experience as Hillary and McCain combined. Which is ZERO. It's ALL on-the-job training for ANY new president. I do not trust McCain OR Clinton to make sound foreign policy decisions, based on their respective voting records and public statements. Too hawkish for my taste. Experience is only an asset if it leads to sound judgement and wisdom. If we keep doing the same damn things over and over, nothing substantive will ever change.
timinhi:
wow. Hillary is a traitor to the Democratic Party and the American Middle Class when she says McCain, or any other Republican would be more qualified than Obama.
It is not a FACT. The fact is most polls show Obama beating McCain more easily than Hillary.
The kind of experience is important. Right now we have a huge banking crisis. McCain was involved in a huge banking crisis here in Az. Is someone who was part of a bank scandal, and had to return hundreds of thousands of dollars, really the person we need to lead this country at this point in history?
Someone who has said, no matter what, he is going to continue the war in Iraq while cutting taxes? A disaster for this country, btw, and most Americans know it. The first time since the Revolutionary war that we have borrowed from abroad to fund a war.
Hillary will eventually accept her defeat, but after the way she has run her campaign, I would not be surprised if she runs on as an Independent, giving the election to McCain on a silver platter. She has shown, by her own actions, she is untrustworthy. Maybe she will, in the end, endorse Obama. That would be the ethical thing for her to do.
As a former and now closeted Republican, Hillary should know Reagan's eleventh commandment. Even worse than her speaking ill of a Democrat, she has jumped into bed with McCain, thus throwing his way ammuniton he can use against Obama should he become the nominee.
I adored the Clintons during the Nineties. Sometime after the turn of the new century, especially with the effects of GATT and NAFTA becoming more and more apparent, I came to view them with a more objective eye. My having heard from Bill Clinton's own mouth that he had met with Rove several times discussing and exchanging political strategies and then having invited him to speak at the Clinton center in Arkansas gave me pause to reconsider him even more. Time passed. Then the primaries came to be. And then came South Carolina. And then the kitchen sink.
I used to think of Bill, and thus in my mind Hillary, too, as a centrist for having brought Republicans and Democrats together with the new welfare law. I thought that, too, because he had said in the future after he signed Bush Sr.'s NAFTA legislation into law, that Democrats would work on including environmental protections and workers' rights into it. I sort of flinched back then, but I trusted him. I understood how difficult it was to work with Republicans.
No more.
As you say in so many words, Ms. Smiley, we see Hillary with her clothes off, and naked she is ugly. Strategically, she behaves like a neocon who would be Empress: unaccountable, autocrat, disdainer, dismissive of ethics and morality, abuser of power. The latter is the big one. We need someone who will overturn bush rather than perpetuate him.
We have been disenfranchized enough. I want no more discourse from that woman, Hillary Rodham Clinton.
I've said for months that we are far more likely to get into another war under Hillary than Obama.
I have also been unhappy with Hillary for quite some time. I think from the very first Democratic debate. I know that I'm beating a dead horse saying I wished it were Hillary who had had to drop out of the race instead of John Edwards. In a perfect world, an Edwards/Obama ticket would have done wonders for this country.
But getting back to Hillary, I can't tell you how disappointed I am in Bill's and her performance in general and in particular lately. I defended him for years and would still do it today. An affair, as we've learned all too well, is commonplace in Washington. Power corrupts everything, including it seems marriages. Recently, however, both he and Hillary grate my nerves. Whatever happened to the soft sell like what Bill gave us during his campaigning? Her bluster is beyond annoying. In my opinion, it doesn't prove that a woman can go nose to nose and toe to toe with a man in the race. It proves that a woman can be equally full of hot air and lies. It proves that a woman can stoop to Rove type deception to win the prize. And it proves that a woman, this woman is willing to get down into the mud and roll around. Now maybe that is fine for some, but I can't recall Margaret Thatcher or Indiera Ghandi behaving that way.
Many people have been stalwart Clinton supporters up until now, including you and I. I voted for him twice, not overly enthusiastically, but always felt like I HAD to, not because I wanted to.
After the heinous NAFTA, GATT, Defense of Marriage Act, the possible destruction of Social Security (Clinton was ready to do what Bush tried to do with Social Security, but fortunately, the Monica Lewinsky scandal broke), the bombing of Iraq, the Kosovo war, the ignoring of the genocides in Sudan and Rwanda, welfare "reform", executing a mentally retarded black man in Arkansas as governor to prove to Republicans how "tough" he was on crime, throwing Lani Guinier under the bus when Jesse Helms criticised her.....
Geez, I can go on forever. Clinton (both of them) are simply Republicans in Democratic clothing, and that's not good enough anymore.
We were all had by the Clintons. Now it's time to rebuild.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
