- BIG NEWS:
- Terrorism
- |
- Barack Obama
- |
- Blackwater
- |
- Health Care
- |
I'm Already Against the Next War
It's become clear over the last week that the more Hillary Clinton
is pressed, the more she reveals her true self. The fact that this self
is unscrupulous is bad enough, but the fact that her whole campaign
for the last year has been predicated on positioning, spin, and other
varieties of public relations is worse. In fact, it is not only worse,
it is Bushian, and that is the worst. Even though Clinton won two and
a half contests of the four staged on Tuesday, her campaign
strategists are fighting among themselves, her campaign is in a
turmoil, and, it seems, they can't decide which tack to take. Should
they try the lying (about NAFTA, about Obama's religion)? Should they
try the cheating (trying to seat delegates from the Florida and
Michigan primaries)? Should they try the fear-mongering (the red
telephone ad)? Should they try the sucking up to Republicans (spelling
out similarities between Clinton and cheerleader-for-war McCain)?
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…
Most Popular on HuffingtonPost
R1J07PUkA6jMPluN4WUJrKc9bs5cYdKGk8fWw07eBY7UgNLvXNjMuL%2BuEn4Fkp2WS64kojUsjLlzIq8OPpHH3g%3D%3D
PLQShcL08oJ9HrbkZwKLBSM0%2FRauc72RhYKcVF7t9A13qu8vD45aHYupatrrhGsapwPlypYNdtKwohovYjzH6Q%3D%3D
1 of 2
HuffingtonPost Reporters
lGalTQX%2FW%2BYo%2BVzkhe4JnT9RxkUDPOI8
rp9ykyUYbbG8tsjFRRh4M63V7elYoKoW
1 of 2
Don't Miss HuffPost Bloggers
1 of 2
Huffington Post Apps and Feeds
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
JANE SMILEY IS MY HERO!!!!!!
Just another anti-hillary diatribe of hyperbole, on right here on hyperbole central. Your predicates are biased, therefore so are your conclusions. It is the Obama cheerleaders who are making this election so divisive.
This weekend Obama ridiculed the idea of being vice president. How arrogant. Obama doesn't fool everyone. He needs more experience. He is running for rock star, obviously, and not patriot. He doesn't want to part of the solution; he doesn't want to govern. He will take top dog or nothing. All or nothing, naive, arrogant. He is beginning to scare logical people.
I believe Janelynne if you just replace Obama's name with the hillster's you will have gotten it right.
Yeah, Hillary certainly does have much more experience fouling up the world over the last 15 years. No doubt about that!
Why on earth should we try something new?
Crappy experience doesn't make up for talent and brains.
And how did Hillary screw up the world for the past 15 years. What a weak excuse for voting for inexperience.
You should look up at what Hillary has done and helped to get done on the positive side. Quit listening to what the media wants you to think and say and do some objective research before making some bad statements.
I support Hillary because I haven't heard Barack say anything with any substance to it. Maybe I missed it because all I hear is: we can! We can't unless we have a plan of action to change the system from within. That's the only way there will be long term results.
We have already had 7 years of a president who has changed the system from the outside. Are you happy with the results?
Your argument is completely emotional and not based in fact. What do you think Hillary would say to a VP offer? Do you not think it is arrogant for her to continue a campaign that can only succeed by overturning the will of the people of her own party?
Perhaps you started out as a supporter of Clinton's for good reasons. Jane Smiley, if I recall, also started out that way. (Sorry if I'm not remembering that correctly.
These are some of the reasons why my very smart, stubborn, activist, feminist mother, who has met Hillary several times and even donated to her in the past can now hardly stand the sound of her name. I'm so proud of my mom! And Jane Smiley!
HILLARY CLINTON RUMORED TO BE EYEING
GOVERNSHIP OF NEW YORK.
(God Speed, Hil)
She might have a shot. Elliott Spitzer apologized with wife in arm before microphones today for having violated the Mann Act. The NYT headline reads, "Elliott Spitzer Linked to Prostitution Ring."
http://www
Lord, if that would keep her out of the pres. race, I'll take it! (I'm in NY.)
Really? Against it without even knowing what it is? Wow! Let's hope it isn't a way against ignorance.
It's Iran obviously. The Kyl/Lieberman bill which Clinton supported without hesitation. Expect Bush to bomb Iran before he leaves office. If that happens as rumored, then Clinton will have authorized 2 wars in the Middle East.
It is a shame Obama supporters are so quick to attack Ms. Clinton for Kyl-Lieberman, a non-binding amendment which does one thing and only one thing. It correctly labels the IRG as a terrorist organization. But here is why it is a shame for Obama supporters to attack Ms. Clinton. Obama helped write SB 970, which does the very same thing. To attack Ms. Clinton and not Obama is an indication of a hypocrite.
Jane Smiley, Congratulations on this true profile of Hillary Rodham Clinton.
There is not the slightest doubt that Hillary Clinton has shown her true colours with her sleazy, smear campaign against Barack Obama. Hidden behind a fake façade of self glorification we discover the dark side of an ambitious individual who will use every dirty trick in the book to disparage her opponent. Hillary Clinton went as far in bestowing praise on McCain and demeaning Obama when she stated his qualification for the presidency was based on a speech he made in 2002!!
In spite of this, Obama has displayed the dignity and respect expected of a presidential candidate, which, in my opinion, are the qualities deserving of someone expected to be the future Commander in Chief.
Hillary has proven she can not be trusted. She has a sense of grandiosity, she is paranoid and can be extremely ruthless. If she is incapable of organizing her own campaign, how could we possibly expect her to make those important decisions? She does not belong in the White House nor the Senate for that matter.
How do you take the time Clinton was in office and lump it together with George Bush? These were two diametricly opposed administrations.
If you're gonna lump Clinton's administration in with Bush's then why not lump Roosevelt in with Hoover?
I can understand you having an opinion, but it has to be rational!
When Clinton left office we had a budget surplus, and a labor shortage. Any one remember that? Yeah we had more jobs than workers. You looked in the classifieds and employers were offfering hiring bonuses. And not for lucrative positions, I remember general and manual labor jobs that came with hiring bonuses. The budget was balanced, we weren't at war, and gas was about a buck fifty a gallon.
Clinton did all this with the Republicans throwing false accusation after false accusation at him.
If you want to support Obama that's your choice, but don't mis-represent what happened while Clinton was in office. And don't ever put the Clintons in with Bush.
You think the Republicans aren't gonna come out with all kinds of false accusations against Obama? You look at it right now and Obama looks cleaner than Hillary, but then he hasn't been down in the trenches fighting tooth and nail for us for twenty years either.
Obama is the shining new star of the Democratic party, and properly groomed, he could one day be a great President. But he's not ready yet.
Hillary is. And if the Obama supporters don't snap out of this daydream, we're gonna get our collective asses handed to us again.
Give Obama the nomination, and elect him president and we're gonna have Jimmy Carter part 2. An honest, intelligent, forthright guy who's gonna find himself in deep water with the sharks.
We disagree. It will not happen that way. Obama is no Jimmy Carter. and Jimmy Carter wasn't as bad as the politics of personal destruction team would have you believe. There were forces behind the scenes working hard to make him look like a fool so they could bring in the great communicator to end democracy in this country the way we knew it.
In the 60s and 70s people earned a decent wage thanks to Unions. They had pensions when they retired. They could buy a home and send their kids to college - all on one income. Ronald Reagan and his rich friends decided they didn't want that so they destroyed Carter and used the Iran hostage situation to do it.
I completely and totally agree with you; well-said!
I feel to some extent betrayed by Senator Clinton's turning to tactics of "the vast right-wing conspiracy," dare I say even "Rovian." I find these tactics not only offensive, but stupidly unnecessary. Senator Clinton's campaign would be much better served by engaging with the American people around issues we care about with a clear understanding of how we can all work together with the benefit of her leadership. This turning to the dark side only makes her less credible to me, and, I am sure, to may other voters. If you look at the breakdowns, it seems that Hillary's constituent base has shaken out to the less educated, more ignorant of self-identified Democrats. Such ignorance can be diminished with education, an area in which former professor Obama has plenty of experience. It is not only wrong for us, the American public, but bad for her image, I sincerely believe, to go viciously negative. After all, in the experience arena, John McCain is clearly ahead. What the Democratic candidate must offer is compassion, clear-headedness, and an ability to rise above the fray. Somebody really needs to tell Senator Clinton and her advisors this.
I am soooo tired of Hillary's claims of "experienc
Given Hillary's "experience", doesn't she perforce hold more responsibility than Obama for all of the disasters that George W. Bush has been allowed to inflict upon America and the world?
Seems only logical...
Or is that "experience" like a light switch: It only comes into play if she becomes President?
So, all of her past bad decisions were bad because she excludes her "experience" from her decision-making process pending her election to the Presidency?
Man, her campaign's logic lies somewhere between twisted and warped...
The only difference I see between Cllinton and McCain is age. In this dog and pony show we call American democracy is a sham. As popular as Obama is,I'd vote for him, I don't see him taking the Whitehouse the deck is stacked against him, the corporate powers that be won't allow it from the corporate media that was able to destroy Howard Dean's campaign by simply playing over and over again an exubriant scream. Then there is always assassination crude but effective. In Dallas on the eve of the primary The Secret Service told security working an Obama Ralley to stop screening for weapons,this is a fact that was ignored by MSM. Then there is the eminently hackable voting machines that leave no paper trail. Before it's too late, it may be already, we need international observers. Republicans ,Democrats and indepentants should back Rep. Eddie Bernice's effort to have U.N. observers moniter our elections. I do seriously believe this country is on a precipice and the abyss of tyranny will be our fate if we fail to pull back from this dangerous brink.
Glad to see some brains in America. I was disillusioned after the Ohio primary. It seemed like the same group of people were trying to elect another Bush Mc Cain and Clinton. Hoping the young and intelligent can pull this off for Obama.
Generally I agree with most every position you take in your blogs but I have to disagree with you in this instance. If elected I believe Clinton would
1. Appoint liberal judges
2. Increase taxes on the rich and reduce taxes on the poor
3. Try and establish some sort of national health care
4. Appoint individuals in various agencies such as Environment, Homeland Security, etc. who will execute their duties in a responsible manner.
5. Renegotiate NAFTA and protect American jobs.
6. Generally run the government at a minimum from a centrist point of view leaning toward a liberal bias.
7. Respect and abide by the Constitution
8. Take steps to ensure the financial soundness of Social Security and Medicare
9. Start to withdraw from Iraq.
I would like a return to that approach in the White House, not what we have had to suffer the last seven years or would suffer under a Republican administration. While I didn’t agree with Bill Clinton about everything, on balance I think he did a resonabley good job given the fact he had to live with a Republican congress. It wasn’t all that bad.
Most of the discussion over the past three months has been on her campaign tactics, i.e. how she lies, the ugly ads and comments, or to quote you, “The fact that this self is unscrupulous is bad enough, but the fact that her whole campaign for the last year has been predicated on positioning, spin, and other varieties of public relations is worse,” oh my god she isn’t telling the truth – golly gee batman.
Most people vote based on some emotion and not on some rational thought process. I know a lot of people who hate Hillary when asked why, the best they can come up with I can’t stand that $#@*. What the Clintons have learned that the Republicans have know all along, if you don’t get elected you don’t get to dance. The Repuclicans don’t care what they say or do as long as they win whereas liberals tend to want everyone to follow some sort of fairplay rules. When the Republicans violate that sense of fair play , the liberals all stand around whining and crying “its just not fair” but who wins and who is in control – those nasty Republicans. The Clintons understand that point.
Perhaps, Hillary thought she would have the nomination sewed up and a lot of her decisions were posturing for the general election, like her war vote.
You and the rest of the liberal media paint her as George Bush reincarnated and that just isn’t so. As listed above, I believe these are prgrams and policies she will follow if elected and I’d venture to say that this is very similar to what Obama will try and accomlish all of which is 180 degrees from existing
Getting to the dance unfortunately in American politics is not some polite duel between two individuals but rather a street fight with no holds barred. I would be nice if it were different, but that aint the case lady!!
jp, there are two mistakes in your arguments. The first is that the Clinton's will not be nominated for a 3rd term and the second is that they are so divisive they can not accomplish any of your goals. A dead end candidacy with nothing to redeem it.
If Senator Clinton wins the Presidency, she will still need 60 votes from the Senate to confirm any appointment to the US Supreme Court or to any other body that requires Senate confirmation. The Republicans look upon Mrs. Clinton as the anti-Christ, and they will filibuster any and all 'liberal" appointees. The fact that Mrs. Clinton is such a polarizing figure means that Republicans and thier allies ( particularly Reagan Democrats who won't vote for any woman under any cirucmstances) will come out en masse to vote for McCain. Mrs. Clinto has no "coattails", so a huge McCain turnout could result in Democrats losing enough seats in the house & Senate to return Congress to Republican control. Senator Obama has a much better chance of achieving hte objectives specified in the post becuase he is a uniter instead of a divider.
Senator Clinton has not been polarizing in the Senate. She has worked across the aisle to get things done. The people that will come out to vote against her are the same 20 percenters that still support Bush. They will come out to vote against anyone without an "R" after their name.
Right on!
This article hits the nail on the head. I am a 50+ Black female who once adored Bill Clinton. I never warmed up to Hillary Clinton. When she smiles with her lips, the smile is not in her eyes because she has been bred to be harsh and indifferent while winning at all costs. When this campaign started I could have easily voted for Hillary simply because of my affection for Bill Clinton. I was very willing to overlook the 'scandals' because I thought he truly had my interest in his heart. If most voters be honest with themselves, many are still voting for her because they have warm feelings for Bill - not her. As a result, I was cheering for John Edwards because I did not know much about Obama and I could not feel anything with Hillary. I had to separate her from Bill and I felt empty. As the campaign proceeded and John Edwards dropped out, I had a chance to listen to the message Obama was sending because I long for the day when we will become ONE Americain my life time. I love people who are different from me becaue they are human beings, too and if they are American, they are my brothers and sisters. I have a strong core for family. I even frown when movie stars run to Africa to feed the starving because we have just a many starving children here within our family. It's great to tend the needs of others in other countries, like Iraq, but why not show that much tenacity toward our own? The more Hillary 'fought' for President power, the more her Republican core emerged. I really could not see any differences in her tactics and George W. Bush's tactics. The final straw was when she REPEATEDLY got on T.V. and kept referring to her friend John McCain and trashed her fellow Democrat and George Bush complimented her. Bill Clinton met with the Philadelphis leaders last week and actually stated that Obama is qualified to be Commander in Chief - even though he thought Hillary will be better. That is what I expect from a Democrat opponents. He naturally supported his wife more, but he did not deny the attributes of Obama either. This is the behavior that makes voters say they are both good. Hillary on the other hand, has not only exaggerated her attributes to deceive the voters but she in turn tried to tear up assets of her opponent and in the same breath praises the war monger. Now she cannot understand why voters are again questioning her judgement in welcoming Obama a Vice President when she has tried to make him look like Family Dollar store.
On the other hand, Obama respected her as a Democrat colleague and tried to keep from trashing her but he had to defend himself. Many thinks he is weak -no-he has respect for a fellow colleague. He is much stronger when he targets McCain.
TylerRose, you are "right on" in everything you say about Barack Obama, and about Hillary Clinton. He is the right person for the Job, and Hillary is not. I only hope that America is smart enough to get it right this time.
I do, however, have a bone to pick with you. Unless the real Tyler Rose - that, of course, being the greatest running back in the history of University of Texas football and, very possibly, the greatest running back in all of football, has recently had a sex change operation and you are he, you are not "the" TylerRose.
Now, if your name actually is Rose, we may be able to live with you as TylerRose. If not, then if only to appease us longtime, dedicated and died-in-the-wool Earl Campbell fans, please, please consider calling yourself something else - the TylerPetunia, for example.
Thank you.
Great post tylerrose - I am a 50+ caucasian woman and I feel exactly the way you did about Bill Clinton and I always gave Hillary a pass - but they have showed their true colors now and I feel in the end they will get the short end of the stick and Mr. Obama will be our president. I am looking forward to supporting him and doing whatever I can.
"No one ever said that the Clintons weren't corrupt."
Really? In what way are they corrupt? Please cite specific examples and define what you mean by "corruptio
The best I can come up with is maybe Hillary's $100k trade.
I voted for Obama. I will continue to support him. But I'm neither mooneyed or moonie about him. He's a politician and, I hope, will be a good leader. Neither he nor Hillary have impressed me with their Senate presences to date. Russ Feingold, yes. Chris Dodd, lately. Bernie Sanders, sure.
But you Huffpo people are as almost as bad as the Hillaryites and your 1998 Ken Starr impressions are wearing very thin.
TylerRose.
It is your choice..to choose Obama.. but tell us about Obama's outlook for the future...R
Hillary is a champion leader....
And down the stretch they come......
Doesn't Bill's refusal to release info about the pardons he granted give you at least some pause.?
Not at all.
Is he running for President or any office. I think that is another dirty ploy to keep us off the issues.
Are you mad woman?
"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."
Huh? Clinton and Obama have very similar voting records. You say the Democrats have not stopped the Republicans since winning in 2006 - well Obama has a BIG responsibility in that. He's head of the committee on Afghanistan and failed to hold EVEN ONE hearing because he says he was too busy.
His so-called judgement on the war in Iraq is a farce. In 2004, Obama said "There's not much of a difference between my position and George Bush's position at this stage.” [Chicago Tribune, 07/27/04]. Then after joining the Senate he voted FOR the Patriot Act and to continue funding the war.
When Obama ran for the Senate in 2004 he took down his infamous 2002 anti-war speech from his website, claiming that was "out of date".
Sweet mary and joseph, how in the hell is this record so amazingly inspiring compared to Clinton? How does this represent change and Hillary represent status quo??
OBAMA = VOTED TO CONTINUE WAR.
OBAMA = TOO BUSY TO HOLD HEARINGS ON AFGHANISTAN.
OBAMA = WIFE WAS ON BOARD OF MAJOR WAL-MART SUPPLIER.
OBAMA = VOTED FOR PATRIOT ACT
Wow.
"There's not much of a difference between my position and George Bush's position at this stage." .
Nor mine, at that stage.
Once the criminal decision had been made, suddenly we had innocent Americans in harm's way to worry about. Given that there was no way we could impeach and dispose of Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Feith, Wolfowitz, & Rove, LLP with the existing make-up of both houses of Congress, we were between a rock and a hard place: Unable to force the withdrawal of our troops and unable to magically restore stability to Iraq.
That left us - to include Obama - having to support our troops whether we liked it or not.
Anyone who attempts to use that quote AGAINST Obama infers that nothing - not even American lives - is immune to manipulation if it is politically expedient.
Reminds me of Hillary.
Umm no. The only way Congress could have ended the war is to cut of its funding. Get real - Obama didn't vote to continue funding the war to "support the troops". Cutting off funding would have sent a real message to Bush, but just as Obama took his anti-war 2002 speech off the internet when he ran for the Senate, his actions speak far less loudly than his words.
And let's think about what "supporting the troops" means - it means giving them more guns to kill innocent Iraqis. Nice try, though.
Also, about the Afghanistan committee.
You're right! To hell with Obama. He's too much like Clinton. I'm voting for either Cynthia McKinney or Ralph Nader.
OBAMA VOTED TO FUND THE TROOPS. THERE HAS ONLY BEEN ONE VOTE ON THE WAR IN IRAQ, AND UNFORTUNATELY MRS. CLINTON VOTED FOR IT.
IT IS THE ARMED SERVICES COMMITTEES RESPONSIBILITY TO OVERSEE NATO. MRS. CLINTON HAS FAILED TO ENGAGE NATO.
WE'RE NOT GOING TO GO INTO HUSBANDS AND WIVES. IT WOULD GET TOO NASTY. BESIDES, I DO NOT WANT TO RECALL WHY JESSE JACKSON WAS SUMMONED TO THE WHITE HOUSE AFTER ONE OF THOSE 3 AM PHONE CALLS.
OBAMA VOTED FOR AN AMENDED VERSION OF THE PATRIOT ACT. HE HAS NOT SUPPORTED TORTURE. MCCAIN HAS NOT SUPPORTED TORTURE. HILARY CLINTON HAS.
IF WE'RE GOING TO REPAIR OUR IMAGE IN THE WORLD, WE MIGHT NEED TO HAVE THE COMMON SENSE AND GOOD JUDGEMENT NOT TO TORTURE PEOPLE.
BARACK OBAMA HAS SHOWN THAT HE HAS THE GOOD JUDGEMENT NOT TO TORTURE PEOPLE. JOHN MCCAIN HAS SHOWN THAT HE HAS THE GOOD JUDGEMENT NOT TO TORTURE PEOPLE. YOU'LL HAVE TO ASK MRS. CLINTON WHAT'S SHE'S SHOWN. THAT SHE'S A FIGHTER?
Just so you know, Obama is not head of the committee on Afganistan
The name of the committee is not important. What is important is Obama has not called a single meeting and this committee does have something to do with Afghanistan.
And I DO NOT want her as an example to children, young people ... young women and men ... of the First Woman President of the US. What would that say to them about our expectations, our standards, where we set the bar, about the glass ceiling for a woman's honor and integrity and authenticity and congruency if she is elected?
AC500....
iI was about to close my day with the Huffington Post....th
This ..America is what we reap.... when we play with hate , mindlessness will choose the next President of the only Superpower
Clinton's campaign has been caught redhanded in several lies, though the MSM doesn't pursue it beyond a mention. Through her vote for the Iraq war, she is responsible for the deaths of tens of thousands of people and her continued support for the use of cluster bombs adds a bit more to this. She and her husband have been involved with quite a few shady people, including the Riches and Rezko himself. Their treatment of the women Bill dallied with, despite some of them being used as political pawns, was sexist and cruel. Their politics leans toward the large corporations and they both have a hawkish, rigid stance when it comes to foreign policy. They are neither kind nor honest nor compassionate. I am very glad my daughter has grown up to be very different than Hillary Clinton.
I'm a 60+ white woman and I don't want Hillary or Bill. I voted twice for Bill and am not sorry to have done so given the time. That said, at the beginning of this I was mostly thrilled to see a woman and an African-American (or any person of color) as not only a viable candidate but very likely the next President. Many people my age never thought it would or could happen in our lifetimes.
At first I would have been happy to vote for whoever prevailed.
Not any longer. She whines too much. Complains too much. Tries too hard to appear warm. Gets too nasty too fast. And since I don't care WHO SAYS WHAT as far as her campaign personnel goes, including hubby, SHE IS RESPONSIBLE FOR WHAT THEY DO OR DON'T DO just as she would be as President. She's NOT in control, and these old white men are behind the times, and the sad thing is, they don't even know it. What USED to pass for savvy & street smarts (politically speaking) now just looks and sounds like Bush.
LOVED THE McSame commercial I saw (with Bush ~ McCain face switching) on CNN .... they could stick Hillary's face in there too and have it work just fine.
As that 60+ (white) woman I referred to earlier, you have no idea how sad this makes me.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
