Me thinks she doth protest too much.

Let’s review the credentials.

A former Goldwater girl.

Married to a charismatic governor of Arkansas.

“First” lady to the charismatic POTUS that further compromised what was left of Reagan compromises that neutered the fourth estate. (That would be the corporate media.) Reagan also attacked unions. (B. Clinton did him better by endorsing trade agreements that sent US jobs offshore.)

Bill Clinton campaigned on a promise to reform the military policy of gays. Once elected, that transformed into the ill conceived DADT that did nothing, but continue the rejection of great candidates that could serve Our country.

She stood by her slime ball, cheating husband (as if were not news to her) when his affair with an intern was exposed. There’s both good and bad for her there. Good for her and their family. Bad for the presidential judgment needed in a post Bush, Clinton, * era.

Then she ran on her masochistic subservience to become the junior NY Senator. Once again her flawed or influenced judgment supported the unlawful invasion of Iraq. Of course, she’s not alone there among Democrats. However, she is still in denial and steadfastly refuses to come clean on her motives.

And then she ran again for a second term promising us that she would remain a loyal servant of NY in the Senate and not seek the presidency. Yeah, right. We can see how that turned out.

Come on Ladies and Gentlemen. Think about this. Hilary Clinton is the Democratic equivalent of the Mitt Romney in this race. She will tell you whatever you want to hear and even less depending on the audience. Either way or either Clinton it doesn’t pan out for the USA. It only pans out for them.

Why can’t she be satisfied with being the junior Senator from NY? Is the job that demeaning to her? I’m not saying that she shouldn’t aspire to higher goals. I ultimately question her motives in either office.

How dare I question this? You just have to look at her funding. She told us herself that she accepts lobbyist contributions. (That’s another way of not saying their “influence.”) There’s a Clinton record here that can be followed. (I don’t mean the RW conspiracy fake record of murder.) I mean actual policy that failed us and sold us out for corporate greed.

And yes, B. Clinton did do us some good on national security. I won’t deny that. She might do the same, but that’s a bi-product to their personal ambition. WTF do they need to do it again? Trust me. It’s not about a need to serve the small ambitions of you and me. It’s ALL about them.

That’s scary and should sound familiar without spelling it out. (*)

Guess I was wrong!!!

Just wondering...

I'm overwhelmed here. Sleep well. I won't.

In public she is a champion of her "descamisados," in private she is an agent of the ruling class.

some one else believes she`s become our "evita"...."and the money keeps rolling .rolling on in..."

but in fact Peron and Evita did change things for the working class.)

I don't think her sticking by Bill after that fiasco makes her any less of a woman! The OP is just all around nasty. Come on, we can do better than this guys!

I never said or implied that she was less a woman for sticking with her family. I support her for that. I believe that she fails to support her constituents in favor of corporate donors. Was that too much truth for you?

but I see the correlation.

You know she was the loudest voice touting Bill's innocence. She stuck by Bush and gave him a blank check too and then claimed he lied to her. She's not the best judge of character out there. And definitely not a roll model for me or my daughter. I'll fight tooth and nail against this warmonger in the primaries.

opinion.This is the only post that I have read that reminds me of he broken promise NOT to see the Presidency and serve out her second term.I had forgotten that.She is, of course not the first, or only politician to make and break that promise but I do not have to like it.This smacks of the politics as usual act that I would like to see ended.It is too reminiscent of Bushco.

I had to read your post several times to gather a message. (That's not entirely your fault.) Wait, I think you agree with me. Am I right or do I need to sober up?

Being financially beholden to corporate interests is quite another matter, though.

I''m just saying what i think. Obviously, it's not what DU wants us to think, but I thank them for hosting the descent within the open tent of the Democratic party. (tick. tick. tick.)

truth will out.

Peace on ya. :)

In 2000 was a supporter of Bill, not too happy with him in 2004.

not have your vote in the primaries.

If I'm not reading too much into current polls, I'd say other Democrats across the country might not share your view.

I'm not sure how you make a case that your vote is better than their vote. We each get a chance to prefer one primary Democrat over the field but the game is played at the first ballot level in Denver roughly a year from now. You'd have to concede, wouldn't you, that a majority of registered Democrats currently support the junior senator from New York?

It is posted on LBN!

Hillary's support is proportional to what the voters know about her. The more ignorant they are of Hillary's record and position on the issues, the more supportive of Hillary they are.

they seem to like McCain's take better.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/20/us/politics/20cnd-vets.html?_r=1&oref=slogin


The best way of honoring their service is by beginning to bring them home,” Mrs. Clinton said, receiving respectful, yet tepid applause during an address to the national convention of the Veterans of Foreign Wars.

>


“There is a vigorous debate in our own nation and probably among many of you about the right way forward in Iraq,” Mrs. Clinton said. “I know we may disagree about whether there is or isn’t a military solution to this war.”

She added: “The American people and the American military cannot want freedom and stability for the Iraqis more than they want it for themselves.”






edgr

part owing to the health care and poverty issues he is addressing.

I don't agree with any politician of any stripe who claims the surge has been successful, no matter who it is.

And we can see that the Bush administration is "hiding" David Petreaus this Fall and handing him the speech it wishes him to read.

More puppeteering by the Republicans. One of their signature skills.

It remains to be seen if Edwards and other candidates can rise over their base levels of support, and also if Sen. Clinton can hold her lead under a post-Labor Day onslaught that all frontrunners have to face. If Iraq does not improve, many Iowa Democrats who respond to polling now for Sen. Clinton are going to shift to Joe Biden, IMO, who offers a much more seasoned glimpse into the Middle East. I think Edwards' support will be considerable, perhaps even enough to win in Iowa, although Richardson has also risen noticeably in the polls these last two months there, and Obama will do well.

There's a possibility that Sen. Clinton finishes fifth in Iowa after the heat of the primary campaign season begins to re-shift voters' inclinations.

And the Nobel Prize Committee will have an influential vote to make this fall as well, with implciations beyond its possible recipient.

to Americans that this two family rule is just as bogus as the two party rule. History will not look back at this as a democracy.

They are inspired by democrats, DUers, who want to see a Dem in the White House. The only folks who bury their head in the sand are the defensive posters who ignore that all of our candidates have issues in the general election. I agree with the OP. I believe you should pay attention & not by into Hillary's campaign machine. It is very similar to the Repuclican campaign machine. This is a debate that should be had & a point that should be made. To put it down as "rightwing" is a chickenshit, denial filled response. Sorry but calling someone's point "inspired by rightwing put-downs" is bs.

...the rightwing.

Right wingers are questioning her vote on IWR? her donations from big pharma?

Yep, those things from the OP sound just like RW talking points. I think you just stepped in your own bs.

that Rupert Murdoch knows what is best for us, everything would be fine.

It's those rigid lefty extremists (who are now inspired by the right wing)that don't get what it takes to elect a Democrat.

This race should not be about issues, honesty, or principles. That's ridiculous old-fashioned nonsense. This race is about winning, not about responsible government.

News to me.

Just about everyone does that.

I don't find her evil or vile, what strikes me most about Hillary the Politician is her total inability to inspire people outside of her natural fan base in the party. She implicitly acknowledges this by running on experience and her supposed ability to vanquish the VRWC. As loved as she is by her faithful, she inspires deeper passions and rabid opposition on the Right, and superficial support at best from independents. So what are we left with? Four to eight more years of political mud wrestling with the Clintons at center stage? More than anything, I see exhaustion resulting from this candidacy should it proceed to the GE and the White House.

during her second senate campaign. Anyone who was half way paying attention knows she parsed her words - never promising not to run for the Presidency. Anyone who heard her promise such a thing was simply not paying attention because she implied the opposite.

One might point out that DK also promised not to run for president, but it doesn't matter to me. I just thought it may make some here reflect on their possible hypocrisy. All that matters to me is that there is a Dem (w/true Dem values & a little bit of courage) in the White House come Jan. 09.