MyDD :: Quinton Asked: Why Do You Support Hillary?

Quinton Asked: Why Do You Support Hillary?

by samueldem, Fri Jun 22, 2007 at 12:26:12 PM EST

Quinton's question:
"Why you would say she ought be our nominee. You and every other hillary supporter on here wouldn't be able to play the "she's in the lead! she's so strong in the primary!" You'd actually have to talk about why she should be the democratic nominee. And you know what? I'm honestly not at all sure that you'd really have all that much to say."

My first response begins with the letter "K":
This is my first diary on mydd.com, although I have made many comments in the diaries of others. Quinton, a regular on mydd.com, asked the above question. As a Hillary supporter, I have many reasons for supporting her. To keep the diary narrative from being too long, I would like to point to just one of those reasons, ie: the horrendous hurricane that swept through the Gulf Coast in the fall of 2005 and caused unfathomable damage. To this day, the victims who survived that hurricane are still not receiving the assistance they were promised by President Bush. Hillary spoke out against this
immediately following the hurricane and has been the most outspoken about it. She has proven to me and my family that taking care of the Gulf Coast and all the victims of Hurricane Katrina will be one of her top priorities. Read more.

The United States of America has had a long history of being the first to come to the aid of victims of natural disasters all over the world. And yet, a natural disaster in our own country has been mishandled to the point of abject neglect, because of President Bush and his inept administration.

We need Hillary to fix this problem, once and for all, and to ensure it never happens again. Why do I believe that Hillary is ready to do this? I invite you to read the commentary below and follow the links:

Senator Clinton's Stance on Katrina and Homeland Security.
http://www.mydd.com/story/2005/9/9/13142 6/2221
GOP Response to Katrina? Blame Hillary
by Scott Shields
MyDD

"Hillary Rodham Clinton has emerged as one of the leading voices in the Senate for restructuring FEMA and pulling it out of the Department of Homeland Security. Predictably, the GOP has unleashed a barrage of attacks against her for this, with Ken Mehlman calling her criticism "shameless" and Brian Jones of the RNC accusing her of engaging in (what else?) "the blame game." I've never been a huge fan of Hillary 2008, but I definitely agree with her on this point. The FEMA reform that Clinton is calling for make complete sense. The fact that the GOP is making such a point of going out of their way to single out one Senator for criticism speaks volumes about how nervous she makes them."

and here:

Hillary on Katrina
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/con tent/article/2005/09/07/AR2005090701986. html
Senator Clinton was on all three network morning shows yesterday to promote her call for returning the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to independent status, and for creating an independent commission to investigate what went wrong when the storm hit and the levees gave way in New Orleans.

more here:

http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/HurricaneKatri na/story?id=1103737
Senator Hillary Clinton Calls For Independent FEMA Probe

Deliberate' Neglect Laid to Bush by Senator Clinton
http://sweetness-light.com/archive/hilla ry-claims-bush-delayed-katrina-aid

SAN FRANCISCO - Senator Clinton told a largely friendly audience here Saturday night that the slow pace of government-sponsored reconstruction following Hurricane Katrina was the result of a deliberate decision by the Bush administration and may have been motivated by a desire to discourage Democratic voters from returning to the devastated region. "I think that basically we are now watching a deliberate policy of neglect take root," Mrs. Clinton said during an appearance at a fund-raiser for legal services charities. "It is deeply troubling for any American to believe that your government would abandon such a huge part of our country and such an important part of our history.

"Mrs. Clinton said she suspected that the assignment of President Bush's top political adviser, Karl Rove, to oversee the relief effort indicated that political mischief was afoot. "Cynical minds might suggest that the destruction of the Democratic vote in Louisiana was a mixed blessing. If you rebuild New Orleans, all those Democrats might come home," she said during a 90-minute public interview conducted on an auditorium stage by a former television host, Jane Pauley.

and here:

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/101005 A.shtml
truthout.org: Senator Clinton on Republicans "Loan Program"

After Sept. 11, Congress didn't require New York City to say first how it would pay back money for operations, said U. S. Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-New York. "I am bewildered why we are turning the people of the Gulf Coast into second-class citizens," Hillary Clinton said. "It's not going to be available to many communities because they are not going to be able to pay it back."

In my view, Hillary has been the strongest when it comes to confronting the Bush administration and being it's most fearless critic. She has never been afraid to hold the mirror up to President Bush - in fact, she does it at every opportunity. Just look at her comments (which are in bold text) above. A major geographic sector of our country sits waiting for the next President to come to it's rescue, and I know President Hillary Clinton will do that and make it a top priority. It is time to fix the Gulf Coast and restore a comforable life to the victims of Hurricane Katrina and the Bush Administration.

Many proposals are being presented by our Democratic candidates and that is excellent news. As a Democrat, I have read almost everything presented by Senator Clinton, Senator Obama, John Edwards, Gov. Richardson and all the others. Included in all the proposals are new ideas and new ways to approach old ideas. This diary is about cleaning up one of the biggest failures of the Bush administration.

As time goes by, I hope to post (or hope others will get involved and post) additional diaries to discuss:

Hillary's nine step proposal for "Economic Fairness and Shared Prosperity"
http://www.hillaryclinton.com/feature/in equality

and

Hillary's ten step proposal for "Government Reform"
http://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/ref orm/

.... two no-nonsense, multi-pronged proposals that prove, more than anything else, that Hillary Clinton "gets it" and knows what has to be done. The more I follow Hillary and her campaign, the more I realize she is "the fixer" we need. I don't believe anyone is better prepared to clean up the messes that President Bush has created in our country.

Tags: Hillary Clinton, Katrina, Confronting Bush, New Orleans (all tags)

Permalink :: 87 Comments :: Post a Comment

Quinton (none / 0)

I would welcome your comments, as well as the comments of others. I was going to use a poll in this diary to determine how you all feel about Katrina's relevance in the campaign for President. We can count on the Republicans not wanting this mentioned, but I see it as a major issue to use against the Republican nominee and Hillary's early and strong positioning gives her a definite advantage.

by samueldem on Fri Jun 22, 2007 at 12:40:35 PM EST

Re: Quinton (none / 0)

Hi,

I like your diary, but you'll probably find it's a waste of time for Hillary haters. They keep on asking us to post such diaries. Unfortunately, that's not something they're interested in. What they're interested in is to see is there's no Hillary supporter, if there is, there must be something wrong with these guys. Too bad, your diary did not provide them with the answer they need. LOL.

by maoasada on Fri Jun 22, 2007 at 12:44:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Quinton (3.00 / 1)

You wrote a good diary advocating for Hillary based on issues and I give you credit for that as others have been asked to try doing that many times and instead have stuck with diaries and comments on how she's ahead in the polls and... well there was no and really. That she was ahead in the polls seemed to be all they wanted to talk about.

Yes, she's been good on Katrina. I don't seem to see that poll in the diary yet, but I would vote that it is a very important issue. So, yes, Hillary has been good on that, but so has Edwards and Obama and Richardson. Any democrat would be good on rebuilding if elected. Edwards has spoken very strongly about it, he launched his campaign from there to highlight the issue and took a nearly a thousand kids there over their summer break to help rebuild. Edwards has said it's a moral travisity that so little has been done to rebuild the area and especially in NOLA that a city has been razed and the people scattered to the winds and so little has been done. He's said that the story of what happened there and the pictures to paint the vivid picture has been on the front page of news media accross the world and it's America's shame and our inaction has lowered our moral standing in the world.

In short, yeah, she's good on it, but so are the others. You made a good start. In a future diary it'd be nice to see if you could make a case for why Hillary instead of any of the others. What's she great on that others aren't? What's she better on? Don't tell me 'experience' as that's bs honestly. If you want experience then go look at Richardson or Biden or Dodd.

by Quinton on Fri Jun 22, 2007 at 02:49:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Quinton (none / 0)

As the diarist demonstrates - Hillary can talk and Hillary can write.
But where is Hillary's SMACKDOWN of Lieberman?? During his campaign he PROMISED that if he were elected - he would initiate an investigation into Katrina. One of his very first decisions as Chairman of the Homeland Security Cmte was to state there would be NO Senate investigation of Katrina.
There's a big difference in merely talking and actually doing the walking - and that's why I support John Edwards.

Hillary/Obama08

by annefrank on Fri Jun 22, 2007 at 06:26:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Quinton Asked: Why Do You Support Hillary? (none / 0)

maoasada:
I think the important thing here is to show, with facts and links, what Hillary has done. There are those who don't want any good news about Hillary. I don't intend to let them stop me from using this blog to express my support. And remember, there are many people who read mydd.com but don't post and some of them are undecided.

It's all about balance.

If an Obama supporter wants to compare what Obama has done re Katrina with all that Hillary has done, that's fine - and the same with Edwards, Richardson or any of the other candidates.

I want this to be a dialgue about Katrina and who would be the best candidate to take care of that disaster.

by samueldem on Fri Jun 22, 2007 at 12:49:58 PM EST

Re: Quinton Asked: Why Do You Support Hillary? (none / 0)

Okay, I applaud your hard. I'll do my part in my own way.

I'll write diaries more on the campaign strategy, disclose the shortcomings, scandals, and weaknesses of Hillary's opponents.

We can always compliment each other's work.

by maoasada on Fri Jun 22, 2007 at 12:54:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Quinton Asked: Why Do You Support Hillary? (none / 0)

I think you'd be hard pressed to make a case one candidate is more concerned about Katrina than another. I'm a little surprised if your intention is more about Katrina as an issue you didn't highlight the good work a number of candidates have done. Yes Hillary has talked about FEMA. Obama passed legislation to get things done. Both should be praised for their efforts. Here's just one of the things Obama has accomplished:

After Hurricane Katrina, the Federal Emergency Management Agency used emergency authority to enter into open-ended, no-bid contracts. What was meant to be a temporary stop-gap ballooned into wasteful contracts that lasted many months and wasted more than $2 billion in taxpayer dollars, according to the Government Accountability Office. Obama teamed up with Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK) to pass legislation to fight this practice by restricting the use of emergency contracting only to urgent needs in the immediate response to emergencies. The two senators have introduced legislation to establish better oversight of Katrina reconstruction funds and have placed consistent pressure on FEMA to reduce wasteful contracting practices.

by Doug Dilg on Fri Jun 22, 2007 at 01:28:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Doug Dilg (none / 0)

Yes bravo to Senators Obama and Coburn.

However, Hillary has not just "talked" about Katrina and FEMA. She unveiled legislation as early on as September 6, 2005.

http://www.senate.gov/~clinton/news/stat ements/details.cfm?id=245265

The legislation Senator Clinton announced will restore FEMA to Cabinet-level rank and establish it once again as an independent agency. The FEMA Director would report directly to the President and would have full authority to coordinate with all agencies and take whatever executive action is necessary to ensure needed resources and recovery personnel are deployed to impacted areas in an efficient and timely manner. As part of the Homeland Security Act of 2002, President Bush moved FEMA from an independent, Cabinet-level rank to a sub-agency of the Department of Homeland Security under the authority of the Secretary of Homeland Security.

The FEMA legislation also will clarify the mission of the agency to ensure that its primary focus is on preparedness, response, recovery and mitigation issues. It will also ensure that FEMA will budget for and champion key mitigation programs such as Project IMPACT that establish successful partnerships between federal, state and local government agencies. Finally, the legislation will require that FEMA retains independent control of the assets needed to prepare for and respond to significant natural disasters.

The independent Katrina Commission would be modeled after the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States convened in the wake of September 11. The Katrina Commission would be charged with providing a comprehensive and unbiased evaluation of what could and should have been done to avoid the extraordinary damage, the loss of life, the evacuation problems and the inadequate relief efforts that have exacerbated the dislocation and suffering of thousands of Americans affected by Hurricane Katrina. The Commission would bring together officials with knowledge, expertise, training and experience with natural disasters to determine how to fix our broken system of federal response to natural disasters of a cataclysmic nature.

by samueldem on Fri Jun 22, 2007 at 01:42:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Doug Dilg (none / 0)

Did the legislation pass during the Republican Congress? Has it passed yet?

Hillary/Obama08

by annefrank on Fri Jun 22, 2007 at 06:29:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Quinton Asked: Why Do You Support Hillary? (3.00 / 1)

Well, having been personally tagged a 'hater' earlier today I find it ironic to note I have voted for Hillary twice.

I would gladly vote for her again, when she runs for the Senate in 2012. In fact I think she would make a good leader in the Senate; it suits her organisational and partisan style and would be a benefit to the party, the nation and NY.

Thanks for posting your diary, it is much nicer this way, and I am sure Hillary has championed the Katrina/FEMA and 9/11 victims issues with intelligence and skill.

I think you will find that the reason Hillary supporters and so-called Hillary-haters are often at odds is because of differing views on the war in Iraq. For those who think that the war is the single defining issue of the campaign, at least at this stage, Hillary is probably not the preferred candidate. I can at least speak for myself on this point.

My assumption is that the Hillary supporters are perhaps less activated by this one, compelling issue and see Hillary as an electable package that will bring the White House to Democrats, a noble cause.

For me, Hillary's AUMF vote has been compounded by her refusal to recant it, her sometimes startlingly hawkish positions in international affairs and her tacit acceptance of the GWOT frame.

Oh... and the DLC.

I think she makes a terrific senator but I am not confident she has sufficient clarity of purpose on the war in Iraq to provide the remedy we desperately need.

by Shaun Appleby on Fri Jun 22, 2007 at 01:15:14 PM EST

Re: Quinton Asked: Why Do You Support Hillary? (none / 0)

As horrible as the Iraq war is, and it is, one issue Democratic candidates have not fared well in national elections. When was the last time you remember reading about President McGovern or President Humphrey?

I agree with everyone that we need to get out of Iraq as soon as is reasonably possible. Other than pandering, there is very little difference between the candidates. Yeah, Edwards wants to immediately withdraw 40,000 troops now but he ain't President and no one in Congress is following his lead. And yeah, Obama was against the war from the beginning. Good for him. So was I. But what has he done in the Senate until he started running for President to stop the war? The answer is of course NOTHING. Bill Richardson won't leave ANY residual troops behind. Gosh, he said none at all. Yippie! And Hillary definitely did vote for the Authorization to use force. Can't deny that. And yep, she hasn't apologized to make everyone feel all fuzzy about her. So what? Do you really expect that her apology would mean anything other than to make some left wingers feel powerful and give the right wingers flip flop ammunition in the general? I have heard so much bullshit about Hillary Clinton. About her being anti-gay and a closet neocon and all kinds of other absolute nonsense. It's like the bullshit machine the right wingers started in the 90s has been given a tune-up in 2007 by the left wingers. And none of them sense the least amount of hypocrisy. What a croc!

by DoIT on Fri Jun 22, 2007 at 02:00:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

DoIT (none / 0)

It's almost a full-time occupation to defend the bullshit directed at Hillary. Some people have valid reasoning and they present it without sexism. But sexism is part of the anti-Hillary mantra - there is no doubt in my mind about that
and, in my view, those who don't believe an "uppity woman" belongs in the Oval Office, would never vote for a woman - any woman - ever.
This level of sexism won't even begun to go away until a woman actually breaks through that glass ceiling.

I'm glad Hillary's working on that.

by samueldem on Fri Jun 22, 2007 at 02:13:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: DoIT (none / 0)

I think sexism is a big part of it as well. It is disappointing to see so many far left people in the netroots who say she is only successful because she married Bill Clinton even though her resume is just as strong as her husband.

It is also disappointing to see how many in the far left have become tools of the far right repeating endless right wing smears and talking points.

BlueSunbelt.Com Netroots for the Sunbelt states robwire.com My personal blog

by robliberal on Fri Jun 22, 2007 at 02:38:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: DoIT (none / 0)

Do you really believe there's fundamental difference between far left and far right?

I don't believe so.

by maoasada on Fri Jun 22, 2007 at 02:42:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: DoIT (none / 0)

agreed- if i actually had the time, i would post more to expose BS and smearing. But i really dont have that much time.

The most hypocritical comments are the Billary ones. On one hand, if its something Good Bill did, everyone says "She's not Bill." But if it is something Bad (or not progressive, because thats whats 'bad') then it gets attached to Hillary. TALK ABOUT TRIANGULATION!!!!

Anyway - back to work

vote blue in 2008

by sepulvedaj3 on Fri Jun 22, 2007 at 02:54:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: DoIT (none / 0)

I agree that some of the attacks against Hillary are sexist. Though you won't hear anyone admit that. I can't tell you the number of people I have heard say that they liked Hillary Clinton and agreed with her but we aren't ready to elect a woman as President. It is complete bullshit.

Now Michael Moore (who I normally like) is implying that Hillary somehow sold out to the health care industry. This is just going too far in my opinion. I mean the guy has to sell tickets but his premise is absurd. Why doesn't Hillary have a "comprehensive" health care proposal? Mainly because she has been there and done that and knows from experience what can and cannot be accomplished. She wasn't just attacked from the right on health care, the Democrats in Congress abandoned her. And then tried to blame her for not accomplishing what she started out doing. Yes, she took the initiative and made bold proposals. This scared the shit out of the health care industry. Does anyone even remember how health care costs suddenly went down?

We need more posts like this one. Eventually a bit of sanity has to be injected into the fray. I am not saying that everyone should support Hillary. But I am saying that you should use reason, logic, common sense and decent manners if you want to criticize someone. Hillary Clinton has been a real leader against the vast right wing conspiracy for a very long time. In fact, she led the charge!

by DoIT on Fri Jun 22, 2007 at 03:19:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

sepulvedaj3 (none / 0)

I couldn't have said that better myself.

There is something incredibly immature and malevolent about people who actually use Bill Clinton's negatives and positives (whichever suits the occasion), to bolster their arguments against Hillary.

The bottom line is Hillary is Hillary, with her own record, her own experiences, her own priorities. And Hillary was helping people in this country and around the world when Obama was just a kid and long before any of us even knew who John Edwards was.

by samueldem on Fri Jun 22, 2007 at 03:40:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: sepulvedaj3 (none / 0)

When Obama was just a kid? Nice, let's fight sexism with agism. And by the way, when Obama was a kid he put off law school to do community organizing. And then after graduating law school as the Editor of the Harvard Law Review, he put his career on hold again to do some more community organizing. Praise your candidate if you want, when you can find a justifiable reason to, but don't try demean the service and work Obama has done.

by Doug Dilg on Fri Jun 22, 2007 at 03:55:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Obama (none / 0)

I like Obama. He isn't ready to be President.

It's really that simple. He needs more mileage, more years of being a Senator (or maybe Vice-President).

His record cannot even come close to Hillary's, although it is impressive.

That's his weakness - limited experience.

by samueldem on Fri Jun 22, 2007 at 04:05:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama (none / 0)

It really comes down to what you value as experience. I don't personally think being First Lady of a state or the nation carries huge weight. I think Obama's experience as a State senator probably prepared him better for the US Senate than being First Lady of Little Rock prepared Hillary for the big job she was given of getting Health Care reform passed in Bill's first term. I like the breadth of Obama's experience going back to the community organizing part.

And there's also the element of what we can learn about them from their experience. Obama has shown throughout his resume that he has an uncanny ability to unite people, to be able to work constructively with people no matter their ideology. You can see that with his pairings on many of his bills pushed through on ethic reform. His partners run the gamut from ultra conservative Tom Coburn to ultra progressive Russ Feingold. On the other hand, the unfortunate impression we get from Hillary's experience is that she is much more of a divisive presence. No doubt a lot of this is unfair and attributable to Newt more than her, but she does bear some responsibility.

At this present time I lean more to what we can learn about them from their experience, than who has racked up the most years.

by Doug Dilg on Fri Jun 22, 2007 at 04:40:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama (none / 0)

Obama was sworn into office in 2005 and started running for president in 2006. Neither political party in our nation's history has ever nominated someone with so little experience on the national scene. Hillary Clinton first came on the national scene in the 1970's.

BlueSunbelt.Com Netroots for the Sunbelt states robwire.com My personal blog

by robliberal on Fri Jun 22, 2007 at 05:05:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama (none / 0)

Yeah, as president of the College Republicans at Wellesley. Her first elected office.

by Shaun Appleby on Fri Jun 22, 2007 at 10:40:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

If Hillary is Bill and Bill is Hillary (none / 0)

then I have a lot more reasons to vote for Hillary.

Bill Clinton is the best president in the last 30 yrs (approx). I've posted extensively on the major accomplishments Bill Clinton accomplished during his adminstration.

Most Clinton haters just suffer from Tunnel vision. They're on their ivory tower and attempt to vilify anyone who isn't 100% progressive. Give credit where credit is due. I like Hillary but I can admit that Edwards has a pretty good health care plan ( not perfect put pretty good.) If you honestly think that Bill Clinton didn't make significant strides from democratic value then you're out of your mind.

Hillary/Bill haters like to say that no Hillary/Bill supporters have made a case for her. They like to critisize Bill Clinton all the time. You have the right to your opinion but thats BS. I defend Hillary and Bill with facts and arguments all the time. So lets not say that Hillary defenders are being quiet.

by world dictator on Fri Jun 22, 2007 at 03:51:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: If Hillary is Bill and Bill is Hillary (none / 0)

You are right. We get Bill Clinton as a bonus with this. Some may not like it, but most people have a lot of good feelings about Bill Clinton. I can't think of a better package than Bill and Hillary Clinton to roll back the excessive policies and boneheaded mistakes of the Bush years to the level of the last presidency, which was Bill Clinton's to boot.

I agree with you on "Billary." It is Rush Limbauesque, but I am used to the haters quoting Limbaugh and other assorted right-wingers in their attacks all the time. I have also seen Clinton Inc. from several around here, which is another Limbaugh creation. Disgusting, but just par for the course.

by georgep on Fri Jun 22, 2007 at 04:48:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: If Hillary is Bill and Bill is Hillary (1.00 / 1)

I am surprised at you buying into the 'hater' meme, George. That is an ugly little pejorative epithet which seems typical of the sophistication of many of the pro-Hillary posters here, but you?

Perhaps Hillary's campaign could run a web-based competition to select a cute little cloth patch you could make us all wear after she's elected so the general public knows how horrible we were/are.

You people scare me sometimes.

by Shaun Appleby on Fri Jun 22, 2007 at 09:34:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: DoIT (none / 0)

I will gladly take a competent power couple who have proven electoral success for more than two decades over any ambitious man and his Stepford Wife behind him.

Name-calling gets all of us nowhere fast. "Billary" straight from Rush Limbaugh's mouth. Disgusting.

by domma on Fri Jun 22, 2007 at 03:51:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: DoIT (none / 0)

Hillary's resume is by no means "just as strong as her husband." For one he was elected governor multiple times and then he was elected president twice. Hillary got married to Bill and that's why she is where she is today. That's how she got the senate seat in NY and that's the only reason she's considered a contender for president now. She probably had a great legal career ahead of her if she'd not married Bill or if he'd not wanted to be in politics. She may have made a ton of money in law, she may even be a federal judge by now. If she'd gotten into politics and done all the political stuff she's credited for being involved with in regards to Bill, but not been married to him then there's ever chance that she'd be a sought after political operative. She may have even been able to parlay that into elected office in a state (state rep., state senator) or even the US house. She could have even made it from there to the US senate. No reason why not it's perfectly possible. But she wouldn't be considered a serious contender for president. She didn't do that on her own. She's where she is because she happens to be married to a fairly popular former president and she was attacked a lot so a core group of democrats do kinda like her. That combined with the country having been through bad times because of the very next president that followed her husband makes people yearn for happier times so she gets a lot of soft support that won't last once people work out she's not Bill. Don't try and say her resume is as strong as her husbands. She wasn't elected governor multiple times, she wasn't elected and re-elected to the presidency and she's where she is today to a very, very large degree by virtue of who her husband is and what his last job was and to not admit that is to be intellectually dishonest.

by Quinton on Fri Jun 22, 2007 at 03:02:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

bravo (none / 0)

That's exactly why there is very very little difference between extreme leftists and right wingers.

Extremists are bad, left or right, no matter how you want to spin it.

by maoasada on Fri Jun 22, 2007 at 02:13:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: bravo (none / 0)

I think the tone of the sexism and extremism are part of a backlash that is helping Clinton increase in the polls. Most people do not want to be a part of the hate and when they see supporters of candidates who speak nothing but hate and smears that turns them off to those candidates.

BlueSunbelt.Com Netroots for the Sunbelt states robwire.com My personal blog

by robliberal on Fri Jun 22, 2007 at 02:52:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Quinton Asked: Why Do You Support Hillary? (none / 0)

You know - there's not a damn thing stopping Hillary right now from submitting a healthcare bill. If only she had a plan - not a promise.

Hillary/Obama08

by annefrank on Fri Jun 22, 2007 at 06:32:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Quinton Asked: Why Do You Support Hillary? (none / 0)

Why do it now? It is a lot more effective in the fall to come out with it.

by georgep on Fri Jun 22, 2007 at 06:40:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Quinton Asked: Why Do You Support Hillary? (none / 0)

Exactly! I wrote that over a month ago.
Hillary is amassing HUGE favo...er donations from the Insurance and Pharmaceutical industries - while the corporate media is in her pocket smearing Edwards character - not his universal healthcare plan. Then - when he's out of the picture - Hillary will unveil THE long awaited "universal" healthcare plan accompanied by drum rolls and much media attention. The corporatistS will cheer her great plan and Hillary will move the Overton window by explaining covering children up until 6 years old is the very "best" we can do right now. And the public will have never heard about Edwards REAL universal healthcare plan.

Hillary/Obama08

by annefrank on Fri Jun 22, 2007 at 07:24:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Quinton Asked: Why Do You Support Hillary? (none / 0)

Well, not exactly quite that sinister and conspirational, but, yeah, best to come out with it in the fall when everybody is paying attention. Why so early?

by georgep on Fri Jun 22, 2007 at 09:15:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Quinton Asked: Why Do You Support Hillary? (none / 0)

According to Hillary it will be sometime after she's elected, remember?

by Shaun Appleby on Fri Jun 22, 2007 at 10:38:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Quinton Asked: Why Do You Support Hillary? (none / 0)

CBS just had a piece on SICKO and prez candidates. The result: countries where universal healthcare exists are just different than Americans - cause UHC just isn't a part of American culture. LOL - and then they aired pics of Obama, Richardson, Guiliani, etc making snippet pitches for UHC in the debates. They didn't show Edwards because he's been doing more than talking about it - persisting in calling out Pharmas on their patents and the millions of Americans who can't afford healthcare premiums provided by their employers.
btw - if corporations wanted all their employees to have affordable healthcare - the media would probably be airing the viability of various plans.

Hillary/Obama08

by annefrank on Fri Jun 22, 2007 at 07:32:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: what plan george? (none / 0)

the last plan she had failed . will she come up with something new or will she steal it from obama?

by edward on Fri Jun 22, 2007 at 08:23:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: what plan george? (none / 0)

Obama's plan isn't really "universal," you know.

And, back then the country wasn't quite ready for UHC. Now they are. Who better to usher it in than the pioneer of it. :-)

by georgep on Fri Jun 22, 2007 at 09:10:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: what plan george? (none / 0)

but george the plan she have now, does not explain what she would do? who she would cover ?or will her plan really lower drug prices? and help those with chronic medical conditions obama has said he will help all people get insurance i know you really think she is a good person in heart but she is as fake as that video she did base on the sopranos.

by edward on Sat Jun 23, 2007 at 12:22:59 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Quinton Asked: Why Do You Support Hillary? (none / 0)

Well, in spite of your rambling response the war is still the issue and, yes, there is a difference in the position of the candidates.

Get over your sense of injury about the Clinton administration and support the candidate that will do the most to remedy the biggest problem we face. It isn't as complicated as you make it seem.

This isn't about Democrats versus Republicans it is about the people regaining a voice in government which is in the hands of spin doctors and corporate interests. Sure the Republicans won't do it, that's why we must.

Where does your candidate stand in that context?

by Shaun Appleby on Fri Jun 22, 2007 at 09:41:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Quinton Asked: Why Do You Support Hillary? (none / 0)

Why, because she is a woman and she is for abortion on demand and when the Supreme Crt is at the center right it is imperitive to elect someone that will not outlaw abortion. That's why. And she supports unrestristic rights on big labor. She may be center right on Armed services, but not on abortion and big labor.

by olawakandi on Fri Jun 22, 2007 at 01:24:37 PM EST

Re: Quinton Asked: Why Do You Support Hillary? (none / 0)

Hillary TALKS about Labor - but read these articles about union presidentS recent letter to her. Her chief strategist is a union buster!! Holy Moly!

http://www.thenation.com/blogs/notion?pi d=202377

http://www.thenation.com/blogs/notion?bi d=15&pid=203527

Hillary/Obama08

by annefrank on Fri Jun 22, 2007 at 07:37:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Being First (none / 0)

As with all disasters and emergencies, it is the speed with which our leaders respond that matters the most. The crux of this diary was to show that Hillary led -- that she was the first to introduce legislation and absolutely the first to point the finger, publicly, at Bush/Rove.

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20060522/fa rrell

Some members of Congress have picked up on what the experts are saying. Hillary Clinton was the first, introducing legislation eight days after Hurricane Katrina hit New Orleans that would re-establish FEMA as an independent agency.

by samueldem on Fri Jun 22, 2007 at 01:50:40 PM EST

Essence Festival (none / 0)

By the way, Essence Magazine is sponsoring a music Festival over the July 4th Weekend. As per their press release: "After being displaced to Houston in 2006 due to the devastation of Hurricane Katrina, the 13th Annual Essence Music Festival will celebrate its homecoming to New Orleans this July 5, 6, and 7 with the biggest names in entertainment and the country's most dynamic speakers, authors and leaders. In addition, the renowned "Party with a Purpose" has partnered with the Children's Defense Fund (CDF) to support education. A portion of all concert ticket proceeds will benefit the CDF Freedom Schools in New Orleans."

Barack Obama will be keynote speaker on opening night:

I look forward to joining Essence next month at a festival that's especially meaningful because this year, you're 'Coming Home'," commented Senator Obama. "And I also want to commend Essence for using its festival not just to host some of the nation's most talented musicians, and not just to celebrate the breadth of achievements by African-Americans, but to help rebuild and renew the greater New Orleans community.

Mainstage performances for the Essence Music Festival include: Beyonce, Mary J. Blige, Chris Brown, Ciara, Steve Harvey, Isley Brothers, Ludacris, Maze featuring Frankie Beverly, Ne-Yo, The O'Jays with Keith Sweat and Johnny Gill, Lionel Richie, Kelly Rowland, and Robin Thicke. A number of other Presidential candidates have been invited but as of today no one else is confirmed.

by Doug Dilg on Fri Jun 22, 2007 at 02:29:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Clintons know how to make government work (none / 0)

Even with the rightwing constantly lining them up in their cross-hairs the Clinton's took this country to new heights of prosperity in the '90s and improved our standing in the world with sound diplomacy.

Hillary Clinton today is the smartest, most experienced, hardest working candidate in the race, with the best chance to win. She (and her husband) chew Republicans up and spit them out and they seem to enjoy it in the process.

by dpANDREWS on Fri Jun 22, 2007 at 02:45:21 PM EST

Re: Why I donot support her (none / 0)

The most important issue for me is the Iraq war. According to poll's it is the most important issue for the American people.

I donot believe based upon her record that she will end this war and remove all combat troops in Iraq.

Her missions for a residual force would require(NEW PENTAGON ESTIMATES) 40,000 troops. This would not remove the American presence in Iraq.
General Petraus has indicated that going after Al Queda would require any residual force to be entangled in the secterian violence.

Her initial judgement ON THE AUF bill was plain wrong and she still supported no time line up untill the fall of 2006. Therefore her experience and judgement was lacking.

I think all candidates need to explain how they would end the war, if residual forces will be required then the amount of troops finally if they think it is good policy to g (BEST ESTIMATE) andhave an occupying American Military force in an Arab country.

I think these candidates owe this explanation to the American people.

by BDM on Fri Jun 22, 2007 at 03:09:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I just don't buy it (none / 0)

Any Democrat who voted for the war is lacking in judgement? That is sort of a sweeping generilization. A lot of very good lawmakers voted to authorize he use of force. None of them chose when and how to go to war.

by dpANDREWS on Fri Jun 22, 2007 at 03:34:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I just don't buy it (none / 0)

Absolutely if they did not do their homework and read the NIE report. 23 Senatord did vote against the AUM.

But looking at it historically, one should have seen that this was going to be a failure for the 1500 years of violence in this region.

But my question, is based upon her past jusgement and current residual force policy, why do you think she will end the war in Iraq? i SIT BECAUSE YOU SO BELIEVE IN HER THAT WHAT SHE SAYS WILL OCURR. i DONOT GIVE ANY POLITICIAN SUCH A BLANK CHECK. dEMOCRACY IS TO IMPORTANT TO BELIEVE SO BLINDLY. tHAT IS THE PROBLEM WITH bUSH'S FOLLOWERS.

by BDM on Fri Jun 22, 2007 at 04:32:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I just don't buy it (none / 0)

The Senators did not vote for the war. What they voted for was an authorization to use military force if it became necessary to make Saddam Hussein comply with the U.N. Resolutions. Bush abused this authority.

At the time of the vote the official policy of the United States was to force a regime change in Iraq. It was in fact a law, the Iraq Liberation Act.

by DoIT on Fri Jun 22, 2007 at 06:01:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I just don't buy it (none / 0)

The AUMF was the enabling legislation for the war, period. Why do you want to smokescreen and prevaricate about it.

I call bullshit on this. Twenty-seven Senators voted against it. Screw the rest, they have lost any legitimacy they may have ever had on the subject, especially those who didn't even read the NIE.

Why do you try to make such a simple concept so complicated? Oh, 'cuz you support the candidate with the weakest position on this, I see.

If Hillary is such a fire-breather why didn't she run back in 2004 when she could have done some good? Because she is In it to win it and precious little else matters to her. Or you, apparently.

by Shaun Appleby on Fri Jun 22, 2007 at 09:48:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Quinton wrote: (none / 0)

"Hillary got married to Bill and that's why she is where she is today. That's how she got the senate seat in NY and that's the only reason she's considered a contender for president now."

Quinton:
What you wrote above is "sexism". It speaks to your belief that if a woman marries a powerful man, she can't ever be considered a serious contender for the same job he held.

Quinton: You are a sexist.

by samueldem on Fri Jun 22, 2007 at 03:29:18 PM EST

Re: Quinton wrote: (none / 0)

It is not. That's just the way things happened and he is pointing it out, as if we had forgotten, which some of us apparently have.

If he had said she was unqualified to be president because she was a woman or that some aspect of her gender made her inferior to another male candidate on mere prima facie evidence that would be sexism.

There is a lot of labelling and name-calling going on here by people who should know better. Get real and quit spinning crap into personal attacks.

by Shaun Appleby on Fri Jun 22, 2007 at 10:03:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

The only thing more disgusting .. (none / 0)

...than Quinton's sexism, is that he/she wastes our time by asking us to explain why we support Hillary. This entire diary was written to explain one of my reasons for supporting Hillary. It had nothing to do with Bill Clinton. In fact, I do not mention Bill Clinton.

Quinton only stopped by to reveal his/her abiding sexism about Hillary. Quinton has zero interest in our reasons for supporting Hillary. Zero.

Goodbye Quinton. You are a sexist. There is no place for you in the 21st century.

Vote for a man. Be happy. And stop baiting people.

by samueldem on Fri Jun 22, 2007 at 03:35:08 PM EST

You're completely wrong and unfair (none / 0)

They weren't calling Quinton sexist because he/she does not support Hillary they were calling he/she sexist because he/she is basically arguing that a powerful woman who marries a powerful man only has her power because of marriage and not because of her own merit.

I don't know if I would go as far and call the comments sexist but I do think they are factually incorrect.

Remember that during Bill's presidential race he marketed his wife's intelligence and capabilities as another reason to vote for him.

Also being a first lady only gets you so far. Say what you will but Hillary Clinton is a lot more powerful,influential,etc than any other first lady in the history of the United States. Is being married to the president of the United States helpful? No doubt but that only takes you so far.

AND AT THE VERY LEAST, taking advantage of the positive benefits of your marriage is no different than taking advantage of being born into a wealthy/influential family. Everyone here likes Ted Kennedy right? And lets be honest, you would have to be a dumbass to not take advantage of a certain situation.

by world dictator on Fri Jun 22, 2007 at 04:01:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You're completely wrong and unfair (none / 0)

I'm saying the marriage helps and that doesn't make someone sexist and it strikes me as rediculously stupid that pointing it out gets you labeled that way. And we agree that someone would have to be a dumbass not to take advantage of everything you've got going for you including Bill (and in his case including Hillary who certainly was an asset to him).

by Quinton on Fri Jun 22, 2007 at 04:25:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You're completely wrong and unfair (none / 0)

Quinton, I am not going to call you a sexist because I don't think that what you said is necessarily sexist. But you are certainly narrow-minded. Hillary Clinton has EARNED her Senate seat and her bid to be the next leader of the Democratic party. Bill is definitely an asset but she is and has always been her own person. If you don't believe me, ask Bill.

by DoIT on Fri Jun 22, 2007 at 06:08:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You're completely wrong and unfair (none / 0)

Hillary got elected to the Senate, same as everybody else. There is nothing in the Constitution about earning public office. What are you talking about?

by Shaun Appleby on Fri Jun 22, 2007 at 10:05:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You're completely wrong and unfair (none / 0)

From Newsweek (Oct. 2006) on Hillary's campaign for the Senate in 2000 and her re-election campaign in 2006. This is only one example of how Hillary turned things around for herself. Those who say her path to the Senate in NY was cleared by Bill Clinton are just wrong.

http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/ nation/ny-ushill254947211oct25,0,6625022 .story

During the 2000 campaign, the Suffolk County Police Benevolent Association subjected Hillary Rodham Clinton to a grilling she might have expected at Bill O'Reilly's family picnic. Seventeen hostile union officials badgered her for hours about her husband's morality and rumors about her ties to '60s radicals. Then they whisked her out the door and backed Republican Rick Lazio.

Yesterday afternoon, Clinton breezed through the PBA's Bohemia office, collecting playful pecks on the cheek, a boxful of fresh cannoli and, almost as an afterthought, the union's 2006 endorsement.

"She won over the entire board," said PBA president Jeff Frayler, who says she has responded to every request he's made since their 2000 meeting. "Cops are very conservative in nature. There were things that the Clintons were associated with that we didn't like back then. ... But she's worked with us."

Clinton is paying particular attention to Long Island these days, in part to erase the memories of her 134,000-vote loss to Lazio in Nassau and Suffolk counties six years ago. ("It was hard out here," Clinton told the PBA members yesterday.) Her team is also keenly aware the Island's political profile isn't much different from the Midwestern swing states that will be vital in 2008.

"My brother writes for the Cleveland Plain Dealer and we often say how similar Ohio is to Long Island politically. It's sort of uncanny," says Bohemia-based political consultant Michael Dawidziak. "Both are places with white-collar people who have blue-collar attitudes. ...Both have independent-minded voters. The Island is very similar to the swing states."

I could link so many stories similar to the one above that would pretty well prove my point that Hillary fought her way to the Senate and had to change a lot of minds to do so. Bill Clinton was not a help to her. More the opposite actually.

by samueldem on Fri Jun 22, 2007 at 06:37:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You're completely wrong and unfair (none / 0)

She's a Senator and she got elected, great, I don't have a problem with that. I voted for her too. How does that make her the most suitable candidate for the Democratic nomination for president?

by Shaun Appleby on Fri Jun 22, 2007 at 10:31:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The only thing more disgusting .. (none / 0)

No, it's not in the least sexist to point out that Hillary is where she is because she was married to a fairly popular former president and all the wishing it were and stomping of feet doesn't make it so. Frankly, people playing the sex card or the race card when it's not warrented but either suits their purposes or keeps them from having to admit unwelcome truths just makes it all the more difficult out in the world when people really do face sexism and racism.

If Hillary wasn't married to a former president why would she be a serious contender for president right now? Would she even be a senator right now? That you play the sex card in response to completely rational questions like these when my comment upthread was well fleshed out in it's reasoning is sad. Re-read my comment, it wasn't directed to you or your diary it was directed to rob as he was talking about Hillary's resume and etc. I'm dealing with you in good faith here, I merely ask for the same.

As for my being sexist if I have to address that, well, Sen. Boxer is tied for my fave senator with Feingold. I very much enjoy Rep. Wasserman-Shultz in the US House and I couldn't have been prouder than when we swore in Nancy Pelosi as Speaker of the House. I want to see more women in congress. I want to see a woman president, I just don't think it should be this one. There are a number of democratic governors that I like a lot who I hope will run for president in future. I'd be proud to work for them. Women aren't just the majority of democratic voters, they ARE the majority of voters period and the make up of congress ought reflect that and some other rather important demographics, which it sadly currently doesn't but we're working on that. Oh, I also happen to have a mother and two sisters who I think are pretty dang nifty and not that my younger sister even needs my encouragement I've always told her to reach for the stars. And she is.

The shorter version is don't take the cop out and play the sex card just because it's easier than addressing real questions. There's a word for that too. There's a few words actually.

by Quinton on Fri Jun 22, 2007 at 04:07:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The only thing more disgusting .. (none / 0)

You have NO idea, so why make these assumptions? Hillary Clinton has been in public service and politics for a very long time. She was involved in Watergate, for crying out loud. She had political ambitions even then. What is the big leap to assume that she would have never run for office in her native Illinois, would have never run for the Senate or Governor? How do you know? I think by now, after all those years, she could have easily been a member of the US Senate, perhaps for even longer than she had been because of her marriage to Bill Clinton.

And, running for president? Why the hell would that not be feasible for her? It is for Obama after just a few short years in the Senate. He essentially just started in the Senate, yet he is already a candidate. Why would she not be regarded in the same way? She knows the issues, better than any of the candidates (better than Obama or Edwards,) has shown that she can take over a debate room (unlike the other two) and seems like a brilliant mind. Would she not be where she is today because she is a woman? As a man she would have that shot, even after a short Senate career, just like Obama, right?

by georgep on Fri Jun 22, 2007 at 04:38:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Don't misrepresent (none / 0)

Obama has more years as a legislator than Hillary does. If Hillary is so wonderful, you should be able to state your case without silly personal opinions like she knows the issues better and is a better debater, and you shouldn't have to misrepresent other candidate's resumes.

by Doug Dilg on Fri Jun 22, 2007 at 04:45:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Don't misrepresent (none / 0)

I have never, ever stated that "Hillary is so wonderful." That is your creation and your own "silly personal opinion."

Clinton has many more years on the national scene, even as an elected legislator. And, even die-hard Hillary haters had to grudgingly admit that she did better in the debates, had better command of the issues. It is fact that Clinton always comes prepared to any setting. Obama has reportedly not been so good in that department. That is not an opinion, just the facts, ma'am. :-)

by georgep on Fri Jun 22, 2007 at 04:54:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Obama (none / 0)

Barack Obama is a newbie. A rookie. He is learning as he goes along. This cannot be denied and it is exactly what David Axelrod said. He said "The obama campaign is like a plane being built in mid-air after takeoff. We are all learning as we go along."

Experience is Hillary's trump card. And Obama and his team know this.

by samueldem on Fri Jun 22, 2007 at 06:03:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama is the "man" (none / 0)

hillary is like the twin towers comming down in new york city she is done

by edward on Fri Jun 22, 2007 at 08:33:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama (none / 0)

If she's so great and experienced why didn't she run against Bush in 2004? Answer me that. The war could have been over by now, eh?

by Shaun Appleby on Fri Jun 22, 2007 at 10:09:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama (none / 0)

You know, most Senators don't RUN for president when they have only 2 years in the Senate under their belt.

by georgep on Fri Jun 22, 2007 at 10:49:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama (none / 0)

Some do.

by Shaun Appleby on Fri Jun 22, 2007 at 11:22:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Hillary (none / 0)

Hillary didn't run in 2004 because she wanted to complete her first term as Senator. Moreover, she promised her constitutents she would do just that. She "could" have run. She was leading in all the polls when her name was included in the choices.

Obama would have been wise to follow her example, in my opinion.

by samueldem on Sat Jun 23, 2007 at 05:35:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: george they have a opening in her camp (none / 0)

george can you please stop it life is more than just hillary and any way obama is the winner

by edward on Fri Jun 22, 2007 at 08:29:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

B.S. (none / 0)

The vicious attack against women is from women. There's lots of sex-hatred among them. It's sort of like Uncle Tom syndrome.

by maoasada on Fri Jun 22, 2007 at 04:18:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Uncle Tom or Aunt Betty? (none / 0)

So now the women are sexist, too? Get real. Go find another ism and stick your head in it.

by Shaun Appleby on Fri Jun 22, 2007 at 10:07:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

utterly pathetic (none / 0)

you Hillarybots' complete inability to actually respond to arguments against your candidate speaks louder than anything about how little "substance" there is to Hillary's campaign, beyond one ego trip too many for that family.

by jforshaw on Fri Jun 22, 2007 at 04:52:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: utterly pathetic (none / 0)

....so spoken by the Obamabot extraordinaire. Laughable.

by georgep on Fri Jun 22, 2007 at 04:55:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: utterly pathetic (none / 0)

Bot this and bot that. Terrific. This is getting tedious and boring.

by Shaun Appleby on Fri Jun 22, 2007 at 10:10:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: utterly pathetic (none / 0)

You are telling ME? I usually don't pay these people back the same way, but as you say, these constant "Hillarybot" attacks are getting tedious and ridiculous. Excuse me for responding in kind, but this would have been better addressed to those who use the term constantly.

by georgep on Fri Jun 22, 2007 at 10:47:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: utterly pathetic (none / 0)

That's true but I despair of getting a sensible answer from some of the others, or be understood. You seem a more reasonable interlocutor though equally partisan.

by Shaun Appleby on Fri Jun 22, 2007 at 11:25:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]

rssrai (none / 0)

I am too old, too wise and too jaded NOT to know a sexist when I see one (or read comments by one)

Quentin is the classic quintessential sexist who measures or analyzes a woman's worth by the man she married; by the successes or failures of the man she married. In Quentin's view, Hillary married Bill so her resume must not be considered. It simply does not count. It has no value. It must all be attributed to the power of her husband.

We don't need people like Quentin in our society because more than half of the people in our society are female. It isn't just men who are sexist against women either. I see it all the time in both genders.

Quentin should be ashamed.

by samueldem on Fri Jun 22, 2007 at 03:55:00 PM EST

Re: rssrai (none / 0)

My my you really are judgemental aren't we. Ever so quick to pass out the shame baskets. Read my long respond already in this thread, but also, yeah, of course her resume gets considered, just don't try and sit there and say that being married to a fairly popular former president hasn't got a whole lot to do with why she had the field cleared for her senate seat in NY when she first ran and why she's considered a contender for president now. It's not sexist to mention these very real factors, it does take a special sort of blindness and inmaturity to not be able to talk about it like adults though.

by Quinton on Fri Jun 22, 2007 at 04:11:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Please (none / 0)

If you believe the field was cleared for Hillary to come to NY and run for Senator, you are mistaken. New Yorkers were throwing tomatoes at Hillary. She was "not welcome". Hillary had to prove herself to New Yorkers. And she did just that.

I don't intend to change your mind. But you threw out a question and that is what prompted this diary. If you don't want answers, don't ask questions. It takes time to compose a diary with text and associated links.

Yeah, you're a sexist. And it is people like you who make it all the more important for Hillary to win.

by samueldem on Fri Jun 22, 2007 at 05:58:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Please (none / 0)

The primary field was cleared for her. Do you really think that no NY members of congress, state senators, state-wide electeds wanted to run for the open senate seat and that they were happy to have out of state carpet bagger Hillary foisted on them? No, the primary field was cleared for her. Your continued name calling is very sweet ;)

by Quinton on Fri Jun 22, 2007 at 10:07:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: rssrai (none / 0)

How dare you set yourself up as a self-proclaimed moral authority for the sole purpose of attacking someone else. You folks need a history lesson.

You should be bloody ashamed; you have made an unproven accusation against Quinton, but you have indited yourself.

by Shaun Appleby on Fri Jun 22, 2007 at 10:14:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Sorry, I misspelled Quinton's name (none / 0)

by samueldem on Fri Jun 22, 2007 at 03:56:30 PM EST

Re: Sorry, I misspelled Quinton's name (none / 0)

Would that be Quentin Tarantino?

At least you did not call Quinton "Clinton." :-)

by georgep on Fri Jun 22, 2007 at 04:27:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Quinton Asked: Why Do You Support Hillary? (none / 0)

I am happy she is ahead in the polls but that's not been why I support her. I do honestly, like she has said, believe she is the best suited to take on the republican hit machine- she's been through it before.

There's really not that much difference, again like she has said, between the democratic candidates. She did vote yes in the Iraq vote but it's not like she is for the war now like the republicans. I will vote democratic no matter who takes the nomination and I will support them. I don't really understand those who support Edwards or Obama who say they won't vote for Hillary if she gets it, no matter what, especially considering their positioins are all so much alike. This isn't "American Idol"- where people say "I'm not voting for yours since mine got voted off." I mean, this country is at stake here- we all hold positions that are very much alike- to leave our country at risk to follow the same disastrous direction we have ben taking because of a personal "grudge" seems to me the height of selfishness.

by reasonwarrior on Fri Jun 22, 2007 at 06:43:53 PM EST

Bread and Circuses (none / 0)

Has it ever occurred to you that the battle of Democrat versus Republican is a fiction perpetrated on the US public by the very interest groups who don't want to relinquish power to the electorate? Do you think the media, corporations or lobbyists give a farthing whether the candidate is Democrat or Republican so long as the status quo is maintained?

We are never going to change things if we buy into this fiction, it is a sham. It is like motorists with lifelong loyalties to a brand of car or a baseball team. Kick the tires, yeah.

by Shaun Appleby on Fri Jun 22, 2007 at 10:28:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Bread and Circuses (none / 0)

You know, there seems to be a big divide between Obama fans and pretty much the supporters of any other Democratic candidate. I saw Jerome Armstrong comment to an Obama supporter "You lean Republican, so it figures that you are an Obama supporter." If you don't see the major difference between Democrats and Republicans and how essential it is to vote Democratic (no matter who the candidate,) then you are very different than me. I see the major implications for the Supreme Court falling entirely to the right, Roe v. Wade repealed, tax cuts for the wealthy made permanent, less social services, privatization of social security, school vouchers for Christian schools, the list is endless.

No difference? Fiction perpetrated on the US public? I beg to differ.

by georgep on Fri Jun 22, 2007 at 10:43:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Bread and Circuses (none / 0)

I would gladly welcome further discussion on this point. I will qualify my remark by saying that I feel that on a state or even congressional level there is still a valid ideological distinction. Local issues seems to be more easily addressed in the traditional political context.

But I am seeking fundamental change in the executive office, not the compromised idealogical posturing and drift to centrist positions which have left the essential structures of power and privilege (I am talking about corporations here, not classes) intact.

I could see myself supporting Bloomberg, for instance, if Obama fails to gain the Democratic nomination. I think it is time to shake up the power structures inside the Beltway which have left the electorate less well represented than other powerful institutions in determining US policy.

I agree this is probably where you and I diverge in our political objectives, and that's OK too. I think I am considerably more radical in my aspirations for the US, and see a more disturbing situation, than most voters; maybe almost as radical as the original bunch that founded the country, and that is saying a lot.

by Shaun Appleby on Fri Jun 22, 2007 at 11:46:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.