For Part 2 of this two-part case, check out The Case for Barack Obama.

I realize, of course, that Hillary Clinton will not be withdrawing from the race any time soon. And I realize that, from a short-term political perspective, it makes no sense for her to do so. She just won New Hampshire, Michigan, and more overall votes in the caucus in Nevada. But all the same – if Senator Clinton truly believes in the values she claims to, if she would rather liberal values prevail than gain power herself, if she would rather America unite under the next president instead of becoming further divided – she must withdraw her candidacy. Whether she throws her support behind John Edwards or Barack Obama makes no difference. Either individual can unite the country. Hillary Clinton cannot.

Here are 11 reasons Hillary should withdraw now:

  1. Her experience argument is bogus. Even if it were true, historically, experience is a poor predictor of presidential success. Further, anyone who claims to be prepared to be president “from day one” is lying – because no experience can prepare you for the presidency.
  2. Her most successful and most-used tactic against Barack Obama in the primaries and caucuses – suppressing voter turnout – will ensure her loss in the general election as it alienates many of those who she most needs to appeal to – younger voters (under 55), black voters, and swing voters. The Clintons have also introduced identity politics into the primary – and have tried to encourage racial polarization, especially between Latinos and blacks. The Clintons are running a campaign very different from most primary campaigns – they are attacking Obama with a ferocity usually reserved for attacking Republicans in the general election. In an election that splits the country roughly 50/50, Hillary can’t afford to lose anyone. At the rate she is going now, she won’t be able to put together a winning coalition.
  3. Bill Clinton became an admired elder statesmen after retiring from the presidency. The fact that he was still chasing skirt became a quirk rather than a political liability and a possible threat to the Democratic Party. And things like this might be considered charming. Now, he’s become Karl Rove with Secret Service protection, a bigger media presence, and with the same lack of conscience. Even top neutral Democrats are telling Bill to shut up. I’d like the old Bill Clinton back.
  4. If Hillary Clinton wins, her success will become a lesson in how women should achieve power: marry well; put up with any humiliations your husband throws at you, and then, maybe, if you fight dirty, and ask your husband to run your campaign, you might be able to ride his coattails to your “own” political success.
  5. The Clintons are relying on the laziness and stupidity of the American people to attack Barack Obama unfairly: through lies, distortions (eg. regarding Reagan), and other unconscionable means. It just goes to prove the most dangerous place to be in America is between the Clintons and an elected office.
  6. Her three most significant political acts: botching health care reform and setting it back for a generation; deciding to stonewall independent investigators, Congress, and the press on Whitewater, and voting for war with Iraq.
  7. The Democratic Party has a once-in-a-generation opportunity to re-align the country and reinvigorate liberalism and America. Hillary Clinton has shown no interest in seizing this opportunity or any capacity to rally Americans to a broad consensus. She remains a highly polarizing figure. Her winning strategy does not involve winning a significant majority but eking out a 51% win by micro-targeting, niche marketing, and espousing incremental targeted policies – all working off of a broadly Republican status quo.
  8. The Clintons are fundamentally and irredeemably corrupt. And we don’t need to have a Clinton dynstasty to rival the Bush dynasty.
  9. No other candidate can rally the Republican base and right-leaning independents as effectively as Hillary Clinton.
  10. Hillary Clinton use language exactly as George Orwell lamented in “Politics and the English Language” – to hide her true intent and demonize her opponents.
  11. Her breakthrough moment came when she her eyes got misty over how much effort she had put into making the country better.

Bonus reason: George W. Bush, and some number of his supporters, see her as the best candidate to protect the Bush legacy of torture, preemptive war, and executive overreach.

Hillary -

For the good of the Democratic party; for the liberal ideas you have fought for; for the good of the country – drop out of the race today.

We know that Obama is not perfect. But he’s the best chance we have of creating an electoral shift around liberal ideas. If you can take a step back from your campaign – I’m sure you would realize that. You are running against him with a fury Democrats normally reserve for Republicans. You seem to believe that creating a Clinton dynasty is the only chance America has to “not fall backward”. But you’re wrong. Get over yourself.

Please Hillary!

Sincerely,

-a committed liberal, Democrat, and Barack Obama supporter

Edit: I am not hiding my name as one of the commenters alleges. My name is Joe Campbell, and I stand behind this post.

Another Edit: Welcome Andrew Sullivan readers!

Updated: The New York Times has endorsed Hillary Clinton. Make your feelings known.

Updated: Responding to some of the comments suggesting that Obama and Hillary are the same.

Related articles


 

For Part 2 of this two-part case, check out The Case for Barack Obama.

I realize, of course, that Hillary Clinton will not be withdrawing from the race any time soon. And I realize that, from a short-term political perspective, it makes no sense for her to do so. She just won New Hampshire, Michigan, and more overall votes in the caucus in Nevada. But all the same – if Senator Clinton truly believes in the values she claims to, if she would rather liberal values prevail than gain power herself, if she would rather America unite under the next president instead of becoming further divided – she must withdraw her candidacy. Whether she throws her support behind John Edwards or Barack Obama makes no difference. Either individual can unite the country. Hillary Clinton cannot.

Here are 11 reasons Hillary should withdraw now:

  1. Her experience argument is bogus. Even if it were true, historically, experience is a poor predictor of presidential success. Further, anyone who claims to be prepared to be president “from day one” is lying – because no experience can prepare you for the presidency.
  2. Her most successful and most-used tactic against Barack Obama in the primaries and caucuses – suppressing voter turnout – will ensure her loss in the general election as it alienates many of those who she most needs to appeal to – younger voters (under 55), black voters, and swing voters. The Clintons have also introduced identity politics into the primary – and have tried to encourage racial polarization, especially between Latinos and blacks. The Clintons are running a campaign very different from most primary campaigns – they are attacking Obama with a ferocity usually reserved for attacking Republicans in the general election. In an election that splits the country roughly 50/50, Hillary can’t afford to lose anyone. At the rate she is going now, she won’t be able to put together a winning coalition.
  3. Bill Clinton became an admired elder statesmen after retiring from the presidency. The fact that he was still chasing skirt became a quirk rather than a political liability and a possible threat to the Democratic Party. And things like this might be considered charming. Now, he’s become Karl Rove with Secret Service protection, a bigger media presence, and with the same lack of conscience. Even top neutral Democrats are telling Bill to shut up. I’d like the old Bill Clinton back.
  4. If Hillary Clinton wins, her success will become a lesson in how women should achieve power: marry well; put up with any humiliations your husband throws at you, and then, maybe, if you fight dirty, and ask your husband to run your campaign, you might be able to ride his coattails to your “own” political success.
  5. The Clintons are relying on the laziness and stupidity of the American people to attack Barack Obama unfairly: through lies, distortions (eg. regarding Reagan), and other unconscionable means. It just goes to prove the most dangerous place to be in America is between the Clintons and an elected office.
  6. Her three most significant political acts: botching health care reform and setting it back for a generation; deciding to stonewall independent investigators, Congress, and the press on Whitewater, and voting for war with Iraq.
  7. The Democratic Party has a once-in-a-generation opportunity to re-align the country and reinvigorate liberalism and America. Hillary Clinton has shown no interest in seizing this opportunity or any capacity to rally Americans to a broad consensus. She remains a highly polarizing figure. Her winning strategy does not involve winning a significant majority but eking out a 51% win by micro-targeting, niche marketing, and espousing incremental targeted policies – all working off of a broadly Republican status quo.
  8. The Clintons are fundamentally and irredeemably corrupt. And we don’t need to have a Clinton dynstasty to rival the Bush dynasty.
  9. No other candidate can rally the Republican base and right-leaning independents as effectively as Hillary Clinton.
  10. Hillary Clinton use language exactly as George Orwell lamented in “Politics and the English Language” – to hide her true intent and demonize her opponents.
  11. Her breakthrough moment came when she her eyes got misty over how much effort she had put into making the country better.

Bonus reason: George W. Bush, and some number of his supporters, see her as the best candidate to protect the Bush legacy of torture, preemptive war, and executive overreach.

Hillary -

For the good of the Democratic party; for the liberal ideas you have fought for; for the good of the country – drop out of the race today.

We know that Obama is not perfect. But he’s the best chance we have of creating an electoral shift around liberal ideas. If you can take a step back from your campaign – I’m sure you would realize that. You are running against him with a fury Democrats normally reserve for Republicans. You seem to believe that creating a Clinton dynasty is the only chance America has to “not fall backward”. But you’re wrong. Get over yourself.

Please Hillary!

Sincerely,

-a committed liberal, Democrat, and Barack Obama supporter

Edit: I am not hiding my name as one of the commenters alleges. My name is Joe Campbell, and I stand behind this post.

Another Edit: Welcome Andrew Sullivan readers!

Updated: The New York Times has endorsed Hillary Clinton. Make your feelings known.

Updated: Responding to some of the comments suggesting that Obama and Hillary are the same.

Related articles




Why Hillary Clinton Should Withdraw From the Race Today


By Joe Campbell
January 23rd, 2008


 

For Part 2 of this two-part case, check out The Case for Barack Obama.

I realize, of course, that Hillary Clinton will not be withdrawing from the race any time soon. And I realize that, from a short-term political perspective, it makes no sense for her to do so. She just won New Hampshire, Michigan, and more overall votes in the caucus in Nevada. But all the same – if Senator Clinton truly believes in the values she claims to, if she would rather liberal values prevail than gain power herself, if she would rather America unite under the next president instead of becoming further divided – she must withdraw her candidacy. Whether she throws her support behind John Edwards or Barack Obama makes no difference. Either individual can unite the country. Hillary Clinton cannot.

Here are 11 reasons Hillary should withdraw now:

  1. Her experience argument is bogus. Even if it were true, historically, experience is a poor predictor of presidential success. Further, anyone who claims to be prepared to be president “from day one” is lying – because no experience can prepare you for the presidency.
  2. Her most successful and most-used tactic against Barack Obama in the primaries and caucuses – suppressing voter turnout – will ensure her loss in the general election as it alienates many of those who she most needs to appeal to – younger voters (under 55), black voters, and swing voters. The Clintons have also introduced identity politics into the primary – and have tried to encourage racial polarization, especially between Latinos and blacks. The Clintons are running a campaign very different from most primary campaigns – they are attacking Obama with a ferocity usually reserved for attacking Republicans in the general election. In an election that splits the country roughly 50/50, Hillary can’t afford to lose anyone. At the rate she is going now, she won’t be able to put together a winning coalition.
  3. Bill Clinton became an admired elder statesmen after retiring from the presidency. The fact that he was still chasing skirt became a quirk rather than a political liability and a possible threat to the Democratic Party. And things like this might be considered charming. Now, he’s become Karl Rove with Secret Service protection, a bigger media presence, and with the same lack of conscience. Even top neutral Democrats are telling Bill to shut up. I’d like the old Bill Clinton back.
  4. If Hillary Clinton wins, her success will become a lesson in how women should achieve power: marry well; put up with any humiliations your husband throws at you, and then, maybe, if you fight dirty, and ask your husband to run your campaign, you might be able to ride his coattails to your “own” political success.
  5. The Clintons are relying on the laziness and stupidity of the American people to attack Barack Obama unfairly: through lies, distortions (eg. regarding Reagan), and other unconscionable means. It just goes to prove the most dangerous place to be in America is between the Clintons and an elected office.
  6. Her three most significant political acts: botching health care reform and setting it back for a generation; deciding to stonewall independent investigators, Congress, and the press on Whitewater, and voting for war with Iraq.
  7. The Democratic Party has a once-in-a-generation opportunity to re-align the country and reinvigorate liberalism and America. Hillary Clinton has shown no interest in seizing this opportunity or any capacity to rally Americans to a broad consensus. She remains a highly polarizing figure. Her winning strategy does not involve winning a significant majority but eking out a 51% win by micro-targeting, niche marketing, and espousing incremental targeted policies – all working off of a broadly Republican status quo.
  8. The Clintons are fundamentally and irredeemably corrupt. And we don’t need to have a Clinton dynstasty to rival the Bush dynasty.
  9. No other candidate can rally the Republican base and right-leaning independents as effectively as Hillary Clinton.
  10. Hillary Clinton use language exactly as George Orwell lamented in “Politics and the English Language” – to hide her true intent and demonize her opponents.
  11. Her breakthrough moment came when she her eyes got misty over how much effort she had put into making the country better.

Bonus reason: George W. Bush, and some number of his supporters, see her as the best candidate to protect the Bush legacy of torture, preemptive war, and executive overreach.

Hillary -

For the good of the Democratic party; for the liberal ideas you have fought for; for the good of the country – drop out of the race today.

We know that Obama is not perfect. But he’s the best chance we have of creating an electoral shift around liberal ideas. If you can take a step back from your campaign – I’m sure you would realize that. You are running against him with a fury Democrats normally reserve for Republicans. You seem to believe that creating a Clinton dynasty is the only chance America has to “not fall backward”. But you’re wrong. Get over yourself.

Please Hillary!

Sincerely,

-a committed liberal, Democrat, and Barack Obama supporter

Edit: I am not hiding my name as one of the commenters alleges. My name is Joe Campbell, and I stand behind this post.

Another Edit: Welcome Andrew Sullivan readers!

Updated: The New York Times has endorsed Hillary Clinton. Make your feelings known.

Updated: Responding to some of the comments suggesting that Obama and Hillary are the same.

Related articles

Be Sociable, Share!

111 Responses to “Why Hillary Clinton Should Withdraw From the Race Today”

  1. Kimbre Says:

    This article makes me SICK! Of course it was written by a supporter of Barack Obama. And notice they don’t have the guts to stand behind what they have said enough to have put their own name on it. Anyone that makes such comments but can’t put their name on it is not only a coward, but can clearly not be held as credible! Obviously they don’t believe in themselves enough to be believed by others!!!

  2. Todd Smyth Says:

    Excellent, good job. They are trying to pull Obama down into the mud with them and they seem to be enjoying it. God help us all.

  3. joe@2parse Says:

    Kimbre:

    No one is hiding their name. This is my blog. My name is Joe Campbell. You can reach me at joe@2parse.com. I wrote the piece.

    All of this information is clearly available – in the about page, and on the contact page if you had taken as much time to look into the matter instead of trying to smear the character of someone you disagree with politically.

    Joe

  4. RonPaulFAN Says:

    I support Ron Paul and will write in his name even if he isn’t running for president.

    I think everything in this article is dead on.

    Hilary is a war monger and a neo-con.

  5. Matt Says:

    Had he/she looked into the matter, done real research, not tried to smear anyone, and understood half of what you wrote — he/she wouldn’t be a real Clinton supporter.

    The GOP is itching for her to win. Itching. John McCain will laugh all the way to the White House when Hillary tries to attack him using her “experience.”

  6. Matt Says:

    If you have any interest in taking back the White House and reforming Washington, you’ll vote Obama or Kucinich. If you want to make a dangerous gamble and most likely take another defeat the hands of the GOP, feel free to throw Clinton your support.

  7. Katie Says:

    Hear hear! A round of applause for a logical, well-written, well-researched article. As a young, female democrat, #4 is my biggest complaint about Hillary. I would love to see a female in the White House, and I believe that in my lifetime, I will. But she should not be elected solely for the sake of putting a woman in the Oval Office, she should be elected because she is the best for the country… and Hillary is not.

  8. SoHornyBeaver Says:

    Elect Hillary if you want politics as usual. Hillary will do NOTHING to upset the fat-cat status quo in D.C. because she and Bill are PART OF IT. Think hard when you cast your votes America…

  9. Phyllis Says:

    A great well researched argument — I felt this was after Iowa. Is there a way to send this to Mrs. Clinotn and all her supporters.
    Can this be a petition that we send around the country?.
    Thanks for making the argument so clearly that our country can do better than put the Clinton duo back in the White House.

  10. Joan Says:

    Wow. Great piece. I’ve never seen everything I’ve been thinking summed up so succinctly. When are women going to realize that you’ve got to be a self-hating feminist to vote for Hillary? Her message: Stay with your man no matter how much public humiliation he brings upon you and your children and eventually you’ll be able to ride his coattails around – not through – the glass ceiling. Hillary is no Maggie Thatcher, that’s for sure.

  11. The Grand Panjandrum Says:

    Well said. I’ve actually read your five most recent posts after arriving here via a link from Sullivan. You are now on my daily read.

  12. Steve Daigneault Says:

    OH MAN i couldn’t agree with this more. i’m so sickened by her campaign. so completely sickened by how bill clinton has behaved. and most of all, so sickened by the fact that we will likely lose the general election with hillary as our nominee. god help the democrats.

  13. The Bag of Health And Politics Says:

    I completely agree. Hillary Clinton is destroying the Democratic Party by Winning at all costs. It has left us split, and there’s pretty much no way she can win in November.

  14. Kate Stone Says:

    Twisted thinking. Hillary belongs in this race as much as Obama or Edwards or Kucinich. The person who needs to drop out is Bill Clinton and I have urged him to STFU on my blog.

    I am voting for Obama but find posts like thisto be just another sexist rant.

  15. john o. Says:

    I am a yellow dog dem who has never voted repub, and I will stay home if Billary is the nominee. I’d love to see dems elect a woman president, just not this woman.

  16. joe@2parse Says:

    To Kate Stone:

    I agree that Hillary “belongs” in the race. However, I think she should withdraw – not because she is a woman – but because she polarizes the electorate, is hindering the spread of liberal ideas, and believes she needs to fight dirty to win.

    What part of this is sexist?

  17. Joe Kerr Says:

    Sexist rant? Did we read the same post? Guess you see what you want to see…..

  18. Bridgit Says:

    To John O:
    I agree that if Hillary is the nominee, I will not vote for her, but don’t stay home if she (heaven forbid) wins the nomination. Get to the polls and write-in Barack!

  19. Ryan Says:

    Joe,

    Good list. I would add #12: I just can’t stand to listen to her schoolmarmish lecturing tone for four years.

    But really #1 should be sufficient. She has little to no relevant experience. She moved to New York right before the residency requirement deadline, defeated an unknown Republican, Rick Lazio, for the senate seat, and during her senate tenure has been wrong and/or short-sighted on every single policy issue that has come up.

    Before that she was the enabler/door mat-in-chief. Before that, a mediocre corporate lawyer who wasn’t slick enough to get away with the shady investment and policy deals she worked on.

    Her career of failure and ineptitude are an open book for anyone who wants to look. But amazingly, no one has the courage to challenge her Mark Penn poll tested persona and talking points.

    Her main difference with Obama on healthcare, to mandate or not, is telling. She has no principles. She simply “knows” what’s best on every issue and will dictate that knowledge to the American people. When her ideas turn out to be foolish she will simply change positions and be “right” again, smearing all who oppose her along the way. She sold out American healthcare to the insurance, drug industry, and litigation industry long ago. Now she has a plan to undo her own doing? Give me a break.

    I recommend reading Christopher Hitchen’s “No One Left to Lie to,” or Barbara Olson’s “Hell to Pay,” for thorough unbiased critiques of the monster that is Hilary Clinton.

    ABC: Anyone But Clinton in 08!

  20. Lloyd N. Says:

    To Kate Stone:

    Your incendiary ad hominem “…just another sexist rant” is the perfect example of the kneejerk p.c. ethos that (we) liberals have been so (diastrously) inclined to. We desperately need to get past that ethos, as I’m sure you see quite clearly being an Obama supporter—since resorting to it only perpetuates a toxic, polarized electorate. Surely we’ve all had enough of that.

    Aloha,
    L.

    P.S.: Joe… a brilliant, on-point summation/argument. You can be sure I’ll link to it on my own weblog. :-)

  21. Lacey Says:

    I totally agree. And am I the only one who thinks that there is no way that Hillary would even be in this election if Bill and Monica had never been caught-and now she has to show Bill she has bigger balls than he does?

  22. section9 Says:

    I say this as a Republican.

    Hillary Clinton is the only Democrat who could make our entire base, even Hugh freaking Hewitt, fall in love with John McCain all over again.

    I’m really amazed that the Clintons have gone this route, only to risk having black voters “remember in November”. However, their calculus is that they will be able to get the national black leadership (which is in their pocket) to get the black voters to the polls. They are willing to burn their bridges now in the hopes that Obama will be a good soldier and campaign for them later.

    We’ve been telling you this about the Clintons for years, but you wouldn’t believe us because you all hated Bush so much. That’s understandable, I suppose, as there are such profound differences in narrative between the two parties. But understand this, should she win the White House, you will get four more years of scorched-earth politics. Which is what we have today.Those that understand this are already taking a look at McCain.

    Obama understands this. Obama also understands that the Clintons have stacked the deck against him, and he probably has very little chance of taking the nomination. The Clintons control the 527 money tap that feeds cash into the coffers of the congressional campaigns across the country. His campaign is about 2012, not about 2008.

    As for Hillary, she’s a victim of her own Permanent Campaign. And The Permanent Campaign has nothing to do with good governance.

  23. Massimo Moruzzi Says:

    Hillary would not be too bad – if she were a Republican. The second best Republican after Ron Paul, I’d say.

    Great article, Joe. Thank you!

  24. Kyle Says:

    Sexist? absurd. Can we call you racist if you don’t like Obama? This has nothing to do with her gender and you know it. The Clintons have shown their true colors in the past months and they’re just as power-hungry as Bush and his posse. Any liberal should see Hillary for what she is; corrupt. We have a chance to redeem ourselvs here, don’t screw it up! Do some research, you’ll see that the race should be between Edwards and Obama. Hillary is just playing a game.

  25. Frank Staheli Says:

    Interestingly enough, the ones who make the best arguments for who should be president are those who support Obama and those who support Ron Paul (which proves that we’re not imbeciles like some people claim ;-) .

    My dream match-up would be Obama vs. Paul in November. They are the best candidates their respective parties have to offer.

  26. Kate Stone Says:

    Read through these posts and I see sexism and misinformation. Let’s take Bill Clinton out of the equation. Someone should. I call the writer’s #4 classically sexist. According to the writer her success would be based on who she married and what she put up with and how conniving she is. In other words, she is a viper. And it has everything to do with her gender when the writer flatly states that if she wins IT IS A LESSON IN HOW WOMEN GAIN POWER.

    Look, as Obama would say, go after her on her voting record. Don’t attack her personally as many here are doing. (By the way, to the guy who said she beat an unknown in New York. Rick Lazio was hardly unknown. He was a Congressman from LI, very well known for trying to dismantle HUD, and backed by the powerful Al D’Amato. Get your facts straight.)

    Hillary is a moderate to conservative DLC Democrat who will vote with troglodytes half the time. For that alone I can’t vote for her.

    For those who came over from Andrew Sullivan’s page I now understand the personal attacks and vitriol. He is obsessed and steeped in hatred for the Clintons. Every other post is a personal attack on them. His hate is tiresome. Now you people are picking up the theme.

  27. joe@2parse Says:

    Kate,

    I said it “will become a lesson in how women achieve power”. Very different than what you said.

    You are implying that I am saying this is how women do achieve power, while the whole point of #4 was that Hillary’s path to power – using her husband and his influence – isn’t the way anyone should achieve power. And if she were elected president, it would in fact send an anti-feminist message – aka, #4.

    The problem is this: you read #4 – and you wanted to consider it sexist. So you ignored the plain meaning of what I was saying: that for Hillary achieve power in this way would send an anti-feminist message.

    Regarding Lazio:
    He was an unknown. He was my home district congressman, and even as a politically active and interested person, I barely knew the guy. He wasn’t well known.

    Regarding the acceptable bounds of political conversation:
    For me, there are 5 factors affecting my view of a candidate:
    1. what they believe is reality, esp. as related to specific policy positions;
    2. how they want to achieve the change they believe is necessary;
    3. what role they see for government;
    4. what they want to change;
    5. their character.

    Character is important. If you had approached the 2000 election as a moderate conservative and evaluated the candidates on their policies and their histories – votes, etc. – you probably would have chosen George W. Bush. But if you had decided to investigate each candidate and voted based on character – not the caricatures portrayed in the media – you probably would have chosen Al Gore.

    And although you are right that I only mentioned one of her votes here – my entire piece is not an attack on Hillary’s character, but an attack on her campaign, her public record, and her chances of achieving a significant shift in the electorate. All of these things indicate something about Hillary’s character – she lies, betrays her liberal values, and is corrupt. But every thing I have written is about her public actions.

    To comment on a candidate’s public actions is well within the bounds.

  28. Matt Says:

    Regarding Lazio:

    More important than the fact that he was relatively unknown, was that she was in real danger of losing the senatorial election to him. In fact, he was much stronger than her and debated better than she did, however, he came off as viciously attacking a woman candidate. (And as much as I hate Hillary, when I saw them debate live, this criticism was warranted.)

    Whatever the result at the end of the race, America will be much better off when the Clintons’ fade away into obscurity.

  29. Massimo Moruzzi Says:

    and it’s such a pity, because Bill could be as good as Jimmy Carter as a former President!

  30. Mike Says:

    I agree 100% with this article. For the good of all mankind, please drop out Hillary!

  31. Kate Stone Says:

    Indeed, Joe, you did write it “will become a lesson in how women achieve power.” Had you said it “will be a lesson in how Hillary Clinton achieved power” that would have been different. But to say — broadly — that what Hillary does is a lesson in how women achieve power is to say we are all conniving vipers who will do anything to achieve power. That is the way it reads to me. Your comment assumes that Hillary Clinton is a standard bearer for women and for feminisn. She is a standard bearer because she is the first serious woman candidate for President. How she uses that privilege is a matter of great debate.

    I am an Obama/Edwards can’t decide supporter. But I fear that the deep opposition to Hillary Clinton only serves to romanticize Obama. He wants to achieve power, too. How is he doing it? A lot smarter than she is for sure. But I am well aware that his surrogates are making racist and sexist comments about her. I am well aware that Obama has close ties to homophobic black preachers and that concerns me deeply. He is by no means perfect and for those of us who desperately want a Democrat in the WH I would say Kucinich — who just dropped out — has more character than any of them. Is Obama going to restore liberalism? Should have gone with Kucinich if that is the case. Even Edwards.

    As far as Lazio goes. I, too, am a New Yorker. I sure knew about him. He may have been an unknown out on the Island but he sure wasn’t unknown nationally. He was a rising star in the GOP. D’Amato had great plans for him but they were blown when Lazio crossed the stage to wave papers in Hillary’s face and women voted for her in droves.

    I agree that Hillary’s campaign strategy stinks. She is overhandled and the Big Dog needs to be muzzled. I wouldn’t vote for her based on her record. But as the first serious female presidential candidate I will defend her against gratuitous attacks. Andrew Sullivan and his incessant Clinton bile, for instance is so over the top that I have stopped reading him. Might as well read Red State. Why do Obama supporters have to go at her in the way he does and some of your posters did here? Why does Obama need that level of backup?

  32. Kate Stone Says:

    ” … and it’s such a pity, because Bill could be as good as Jimmy Carter as a former President!” I don’t agree with that assessment. Carter was a lousy president but is a man of honesty, principle and character. It is a fact that this is not the case with Bill Clinton. He is making efforts to redeem himself and that is good for the people who benefit from his good works. No, Bill Clinton is no Jimmy Carter. He isn’t even Al Gore.

    And there is something brewing about Mr. Clinton’s activities in the 21st Century. It may come out in the NYTimes or LA Times or WaPo after the SC primary. Rumor has it they are all sitting on it. Watch for it. It won’t be pretty.

  33. joe@2parse Says:

    Kate Stone,

    I agree that many reactions to the Clintons have been overheated – especially since shortly before New Hampshire. I am sure I have sometimes fallen into this habit as well – but I do try to restrain myself.

    And to be clear: I am not saying that Hillary should be seen as the standard bearer for feminism, etc. – but that she will be seen as such, especially if she becomes the first woman president. (I probably should have been a bit more clear on what I meant there. But I think we both agree on the message I was trying to convey.)

    I have actually said many times that Obama is not perfect. But I think he is the best candidate – even over Kucinich.

  34. Matt Says:

    Kate,

    Would you be able to source the rumor? I’ve heard whispers of the same thing, but nothing credible enough for me to get excited about. If you have anything for us to take a look at, feel free to drop a line.

    For the record, fooling around with Monica in office does not change the fact that he was a capable president. What WILL change my opinion of him, however, is the combination of slandering Obama and an affair that has a ripple effect on the Democratic party while trying to win back the White House.

  35. Kate Stone Says:

    Matt, my journalist sources are being very close to the chest. The NY Times has something — it is not clear what it is but it sounds damaging and it is about Bill. Duh. They are holding it until after SC but since WaPo and the LA Times now have it as well it might become a contest on which paper gets it out there first. Sorry to be so vague. Something is brewing and I have to believe the Clinton’s know this by now. If he has done something that damages the Dems going forward I think a public hanging in Chappaqua is in order.

  36. Kate Stone Says:

    Matt, one more thing — and I saw this based on a deep dislike of Bill Clinton — I think that Robert Rubin was capable, that Robert Reich was capable, that Donna Shalala was capable, and that there were many highly capable people throughout the Clinton administration who deserve a lot more credit for doing the right thing than he did. He hired well.

  37. AN Says:

    Kate Stone, are you kidding? The only “sexist” thing you could point to is # 4… which is quite the opposite. He is clearly and accurately making the point that if Hillary wins the election, she will become the most powerful woman in the history of the US. This sets her up as a role model for other women with similar goals, perhaps not the best thing considering her position of prominence is based on the past success of her husband. How on earth is that a sexist view? I don’t know how you could possibly argue that without Bill, Hillary would be a viable candidate in any manner.

    There are no personal attacks in the article. Ironically, you have brought them in now with your attack on Andrew Sullivan. Whoops.

  38. Andy Schweig Says:

    I find what the Clintons are doing is reprehensible as well. If they (god forbid) make the general election, I, as a staunch Democrat, am staying completely away from this election.

  39. H. Says:

    “This article makes me SICK! Of course it was written by a supporter of Barack Obama. And notice they don’t have the guts to stand behind what they have said enough to have put their own name on it. Anyone that makes such comments but can’t put their name on it is not only a coward, but can clearly not be held as credible! Obviously they don’t believe in themselves enough to be believed by others!!!”

    Wow, Kimbre. This was a perfect caricature of the sort of typical response I would expect from the Clinton campaign. The first thing you did to refute this article, probably without even considering your language was to attack the author, calling him a coward and a person who lacks guts and journalistic credibility.

    The fact is Hillary Clinton is divisive in her politics and she will tear apart the Democratic electorate in her efforts to be elected. Are we in this country so unimaginative that twenty years later we’re still clawing to get a Clinton into the White House again? We have adults who are old enough to vote now in the United States who have never lived to see a presidency without a Clinton or a Bush. Let’s turn the freaking page.

  40. Samantha Goodal Says:

    She called the family an “outdated modality” and wants telescreens everywhere telling you how to raise your kids (read her book).
    For all the rhetoric, she and Obama have nearly identical voting records. Edwards isn’t much better.
    Folks need to get past the phony “left vs. right” hegelian dialectic that keeps us divided and vote for someone who actually gives a darn about this country. I used to consider myself a “liberal” until I saw through the divisions and noticed that, no matter what politicians tell us, there is another agenda being advanced that is not in our best interest. Therefore I am voting for the ONLY candidate who talks about bringing back the constitution- Ron Paul. Democrat, Republican, I don’t care. I just want our freedom back before its too late.

  41. Paul Says:

    I don’t typically post, but it’s people like Kate Stone that are undermining with the Democratic party. You have no sniff what the facts are and simply make everything about race or sex. Get over yourself and your “sources”. Hillary is simply unqualified regardless of her sex, and Joe’s well-researched article has no hint of a sexual bias. Shes unqualified. Period. At least you don’t support Hillary, you got one thing right. Congrats. The state of New York still disappoints me with their senatorial selection. Pathetic. The city that dominates the state elected Rudy. I love New York.

  42. popdmb Says:

    40% of America would rather vote for their dirty gym socks than Hillary Clinton in an election. She isn’t electable. Period. If she gets the Democratic nomination, this party is equally to blame for the fall of America as the GOP. John McCain will laugh all the way to the White House. Neither one of those candidates are fit to serve.
    http://www.spymac.com/details/?2333115

  43. Jeff W. Says:

    Why I Won’t Vote For Hillary

    Let me begin by saying that I have been an unabashed Barack Obama supporter since he announced his candidacy last year. In spite of what I consider to be deep political cynicism, he is the first political figure in as long as I can remember that has made me genuinely excited.

    I know that this enthusiasm is widespread. I have seen it and heard it from all corners, and unlike any other major candidate, Obama’s supporters seem to have an unbridled passion for the man that simply does not exist for anyone else. Not only do we support him, but we care deeply for what he represents, in terms of an end to the division and entrenchment that exists in Washington DC. It is our solid belief that there is no one else who has the ability to reach across party lines and generate consensus, if not reconciliation, like Senator Obama

    Up until now, I have been prepared to cast a vote for Hillary Clinton, in the event that she won the nomination. While I certainly have never had any enthusiasm for her as a candidate, I was at least prepared to put a Democrat back in the office, and end what I consider to be a disastrous run by The Republicans over the past seven years.

    Unfortunately, the past few weeks have permanently changed my mind. Hillary will not have my support, regardless of the circumstance.

    The reason for this is that recent events have demonstrated that Hillary Clinton does not have the capacity to provide leadership on her own. She cannot operate as chief executive without the constant aid of President Bill Clinton. Recent events have demonstrated this point remarkably.

    After Obama’s resounding win in Iowa, it was obvious that Hillary Clinton’s campaign was stunned beyond belief. Through their actions and words, they have made it obvious that they had treated the Democratic nomination as an entitlement. They never expected Obama to acheive such a high degree of popularity, let alone overtake her position as front-runner. It had become increasingly obvious that a large segment of the voters felt Obama is much better suited to lead the country.

    In her desperation, Hillary Clinton played the only card she had remaining, and that was her husband. I would have had no problem with Bill Clinton going out and stumping for his wife, as it is perfectly appropriate in the course of a campaign. Unfortunately, Bill Clinton, at the expense of his own reputation, has accepted the position of the hatchet man. He seems to relish every opportunity he can to take a veiled jab at Obama whenever there’s a microphone turned on him. It appears he is quite willing to spread whatever conjecture is available in order to discredit his wife’s opponent, and deflect attention away from his wife’s deficiencies.

    His dubious contribution to the campaign has allowed Hillary Clinton to enjoy marginal “victories” in New Hampshire and Nevada. While Obama appears poised to take South Carolina overwhelmingly, there are still great question marks as we move towards Super Tuesday; question marks not only about where each candidate stands, but also about just how involved Bill Clinton will become in the overall campaign.

    All of this bodes a very serious issue that Hillary Clinton needs to address as soon as possible, and that question is, “Does Hillary Clinton need her husband to fight her battles for her?”

    At this point, all signs point to yes. It has become increasingly clear that Hillary Clinton will not win the nomination, let alone the general election, without heavy involvement by her husband. This raises serious questions about how a Clinton administration will operate. If there is a general perception within political circles that Hillary is powerless without her husband, than she will be unable to retain any credibility whatsoever. Her fellow lawmakers, on both sides of the aisle, will disregard her if Bill Clinton is not signed on. Internationally, she will be regarded as some kind of figurehead.

    I have often heard people joke about how George W. Bush is merely a puppet of Dick Cheney, Karl Rove, and the rest of the Neo-Cons. This has been going on for virtually the length of the current administration. Do we really need another 4-8 years of a chief executive whose ability to lead the country is largely discredited by a perception that they are not really in control?

    Personally, I am not confident that Hillary Clinton can demonstrate that she is capable of standing on her own two feet, and insure that, in the words of Harry S. Truman, “the buck stops here”. These are serious times and we need a serious leader who does not require another person, be it a vice president or spouse, to solve their problems. It is for that reason that Hillary Clinton will never get my vote.

    If you feel the same as I do, then I would encourage you to express your concerns across the blogs, message boards, and commentary pages. I think that that the voters, as well as the media, need to know that there is widespread doubt that Hillary Clinton can lead by herself, and this needs to become an issue of high visibility as we approach Super Tuesday.

  44. Julie Says:

    Wow – everything you said here is dead on right.

    I’m a longtime Edwards supporter but will vote for Barack if it looks like the his numbers won’t make my vote worth it. I cannot see myself voting for any Clinton ever again with their abhorrent behavior this election season. Very Rovian. We’re supposed to be moving beyond that crap, as Edwards and/or Obama will do. Should she get the nom, I will likely hold my nose and vote for the best choice between the Repub and 3rd party.

    Special kudos to you for Point #4 about the lesson to women. You’re pretty for smart…for a dude! (Ha! Just kidding)

    Seriously though – I’m so DIGGing this

  45. Dan Says:

    Though it’s slightly off the thread of comments, I’m going to post this anyway…
    When looking at Hilliary, I do indeed concur with the article, and I also noted something else; were Mrs. Clinton elected, there will be 34 years of presidency commanded between two family dynasties. That in itself is spooky enough to distance me from Hillary, not to mention the way she has run her campaign, and her actions prior, as First Lady, make for an uncertain future in American politics should Clinton win. (Note: the 2008 elections will be the first time I will be able to vote)

  46. Ben Says:

    In short: I agree.

  47. Brian Says:

    Excelent article. And it is followed refreshingly insightful comments.

    I am not sure where Dan got 34 years (24 perhaps?), but Dan I do agree with the gist of your comments. Bush Sr., Clinton, Clinton, Bush Jr., Bush Jr. and then… Clinton? The nation’s forefathers warned of this sort of thing.

    Vote Obama. Vote McCain. Vote Ron Paul. Vote Edwards. Vote Romney. Vote for anyone other than Hillary.

  48. business Says:

    For some reason, I trust Obama. Clinton, not so much.

  49. Sean Says:

    I heavily supported Kucinich and Gravel at the beginning of their campaigns. I would like health care for all and higher education for those who are qualified for it (gpa wise). However, I realized quickly that our country cannot afford these programs. Our country can’t even afford our current programs. 53 Trillion dollars will be the deficit in 20 years with Medicare and Social Security. Inflation is destroying our dollar, and its crushing markets all over the world because our money is in the hands of so many. We need to elect someone who knows economics, who won’t expand government, but instead, reign it in. We need to immediately end the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

    We can institute more social programs later, but if we plunge into a depression now, how many people do you think will die? How long will it take us to get back on track? Hillary makes me fear for America, Obama seems like a good guy, but the country needs to get off the road to bankruptcy. Ron Paul 2008.

  50. Dan Says:

    whops…good catch Brian, I meant 24 years, not 34, with a possible 28 years, should Hilliary be RE-elected after her first 4 years…

  51. Chris May Says:

    I agree with you 100%!!!

  52. Eli Says:

    As much as I respect Hillary CLinton, i do agree with your 8th arguement. If she takes office, we will be looked at as a monarchy. Plus, she really does need to start making some moves against the Republicans, instead of Obama. I heard an interview with her about a question regarding Darfur ( right?), she went on about how that was a HUGE priority on her list, but with all of her promises for America, im starting to think thats bullshit.

  53. Gareth Says:

    oh boo hoo, want a tissue? maybe you need someone to wipe your ass because you’re full of shit. Welcome to politics obama fans, this is jelly beans compared to what the republicans will do.

    ps to ron paul fans, your candidate sucks and is going no where

  54. Jay Says:

    Nice read….. except for the “liberal ideals” part we need for the country…………. I am a right center minded guy who can live with a centrist like McCain as we AMERICANS do not need the polarization that would come with the Clintons. I beg of you, all of you… ANYONE BUT HILLARY!

  55. William Schweitzer Says:

    Excellent article. Very well written and informative piece about perhaps the single most manipulative and dangerous politician this nation has ever been faced with. Hillary Clinton is little more than the Democratic version of George W. Bush.

    I have never voted Republican in my life, but I would vote for each and every Republican in the race today (with the exception of Rudy) before I would give Hillary my vote. Let’s hope it doesn’t come to that. Support Barack Obama.

  56. Kevin Says:

    Very well said, well-researched and I must say – refreshingly on point. I must say that I take exception with #8 – not because I deify Bill Clinton (or the Clintons as a pair, to whom your assertion is aimed in this claim) but more due to the poetic license you afford yourself in your interpretation of Joe Klein’s ‘fictional’ text and Stephanopoulos’ bio. I think perhaps that concluding that the Clintons are ‘fundamentally and irredeemably corrupt’ is a bit hyperbolic (though, I must admit, quite poetically stated) and an example of some level of overreaching – especially given your supporting argument.

    That largely academic disagreement aside? Print up the petition, and I’ll sign.

    Thanks for caring enough to write eloquently about this subject – I enjoyed reading your perspective.

  57. Sierra M. Says:

    Well that was pointless.

    Hillary has just as much of a right to run as Edwards and Obama. In fact, Hillary has a responsibility to run. This is the closest America’s come to having a female president, and I’m glad she hasn’t backed down yet. While I don’t agree with some of her campaign tactics or her husband’s recent behavior, Obama is no angel himself. I am planning to vote for Obama, but it’s certainly not because you or Andrew Sullivan told me to.

    If Hillary takes the nomination, I do hope you vote for her. Because if the left doesn’t stick together on this one, America’s gonna be f***ed, and f***ed for a very, VERY long time.

  58. Rarely Posts Says:

    “If Hillary Clinton wins, her success will become a lesson in how women should achieve power: marry well; put up with any humiliations your husband throws at you, and then, maybe, if you fight dirty, and ask your husband to run your campaign, you might be able to ride his coattails to your “own” political success.”

    I don’t get this attitude at all and in fact find it quite sexist on your part. If Hillary Clinton wins it will because she overcame the behavior of her husband not that she put up with it as you so charmingly state. Also, marry well? Wasn’t Clinton from a poor family? If she were a man I’m guessing you’d spin it quite differently, something along the lines of pulling herself up by her bootstraps and overcoming personal conflicts.

  59. RBB Says:

    Perhaps if Hillary does get the Dem nod and falls flat in the election, the US will be blessed with the fresh start of what the next generation has to offer . . . along with the desperate need of truth, integrety and fiscal/economic strength in a very competitive, unforgiving world.

  60. Jared Says:

    why not add these two:

    Hilary has more pork/earmarks than any other candidate so she is the least likely to change that broken system.

    Using the Karl Rove tactic of appealing to the base and associating any opponent of theirs as “one of them” Bill is repeatedly saying “The Obama campaign AND the media” and “The Republicans AND the Obama campaign” -implying that they are all aligned.

  61. MW Says:

    This is an amazing blog — Thank you. Don’t stop. And please, spread your links everywhere. I will be doing so as well.

  62. Sparkus Says:

    If Obama doesn’t win the presidency, it will be a tragedy to the future of America. Decent countdown. I little editing would make it better, since it’s a serious piece.

  63. Jared K. Says:

    Sierra M., America will be fucked if Hillary takes office anyways. I would rather retain my pride in knowing that I wasn’t one of the idiots that actually voted for her…

  64. Hillary Fan Says:

    NO! If she comes to her senses and drops out that means the creep libs have a decent shot at winning this coming election. No thank you. Keep on running Hill, you will win by a hair in the primaries and lose in spectacular fashion to any monkey the messed up republicans care to front.

  65. Hillary Fan Says:

    If Hillary takes the nomination, I do hope you vote for her. Because if the left doesn’t stick together on this one, America’s gonna be f***ed, and f***ed for a very, VERY long time.

    If any liberal takes this election this country will fall the last little bit into the abyss and it’s ‘game over’. Same with any of the republicans. Wake up people, 70% percent of this country would vote centrist if there was an actual candidate running that didn’t get buried by the media and their agenda. No one want’s a liberal or conservative in charge, your extremism or theirs…

  66. Meghan Says:

    Kate Stone,

    I’m completely on board with you on the sexism thing, but I don’t know that it’s exactly correctly characterized. What Joe said was more of a comment that reflected the views of a sexist society (and accurately reflected those views, because he’s right – people, in general, will start holding women to the Hillary standard), rather than Joe’s own sexist comment. I think pointing out that the comment was sexist is like a bird telling a fish he’s wet. The fish can’t comprehend wetness, because he’s not even aware of the water in which he lives. Does that make sense?

    Although I do not care for Hillary (if for no other reason than that she didn’t even read the intelligence before voting for war in Iraq), I am definitely bothered by the harsh sexism that’s coming along with her campaign. I especially hate the idea that women voted for Hillary because she cried. For my part, I don’t know a single woman who is actually shallow and whimsical enough to actually think, “Oh my gosh, she’s crying! Just like me! Poor thing, I should vote for her.” I think what happened there was more of a reflection of her Bush-like scare tactic, which insinuated that the Clintons were the safer choice in the event of a terrorist attack. But, of course, all of America jumped to blame women for being easily manipulated by her tears. Which is just wrong.

    Hillary is an untrustworthy person with a lot of problems. And she is a woman. Unfortunately, I don’t see a close end to people linking her womanhood to her problems and – if she gets even further along – all womanhood to her problems.

    We’ll know we’ve made it when we have a woman running for President whose gender is not discussed. That’s the summit. Maybe in my lifetime…

  67. Sierra M. Says:

    Rarely Posts: Thank you.

    Jared K.: What do you plan to do if Hillary takes the democratic nomination? Vote Romney? At this point, I’m voting Obama. But if Hillary wins the nomination, I’ll go all the way with her. She’s an intelligent, capable leader, and though I don’t agree with some of her politics, I know she’ll vastly improve our health care system and fight for women’s rights.

    Hillary Fan: LOL squared

  68. Matt Says:

    She had her chance to fix health care when a more capable president was in office, and her plan (similar to the one she has now) was a magnificent failure.

    She did of course blame that failure on the Republicans, which is all well and good. In fact, there is some truth to them torpedoing her good work. But to quote Hillary: You have to be ready for that on Day 1. She’s not.

    She failed because she couldn’t work with Republicans as the first lady. How is she going to do it as President? The target on your back is much bigger?

    If she scrapes by with the nomination and we inevitably lose to McCain, the Hillary (primary) voters are equally to blame for the fall of the country as the GOP.

  69. k Says:

    AMAZING AMAZING! i’m showing this to everyone i know.

  70. Djex Says:

    Very well written thx for the background sources. My first vote will be this year and it’s definetly Barack Obama’s!!!

  71. Duke Hammer Says:

    According to you Democrats regarding Hillary’s so called qualifications to run and win the presidency is her 8 years as a First Lady and her term as junior senator from New York-Pat Nixon had two terms as First lady- is she qualified- Laura Bush-2 terms- Nancy Reagan- 2 terms-as for her being a Senator-What the Hell has she done for New York? Also Hussien Obama is also a Junior Senator- is he not? And let’s not forget to mention Hillary’s socialistic slant and the fact that her husband is a pimp and a serial womanizer and abuser-God help this country if that woman and her pimp are elected to the presidency!
    Bill Clinton is nothing more than JFK with a bad haircut and Hillary Clinton is a Phony- Wake up America your country is at stake!!!!

  72. Lucien Beauley Says:

    Just one little clincher. If Hillary stays and through her corruption, reached presidency, you could kiss America good bye. Just go to this web page. You may not like what you read, but it will tell you the absolute truth about Hillary and Bill Clinton. Her first attempt to totally disrupt America’s healthcar system in 1996 was halted and reversed by Ron Paul (R) 2008 republican candidate. I am obviously for Ron Paul. Please visit and read the article(at least twice). “Big Brother”??

    http://www.ronpaul2008.com/discover-and-imagine-ron-paul/successfully-fought-hillarycare-lite/

  73. MC Says:

    Hillary has no chance, and the GOP only has one hope.
    Kucinich is out, and then it will be Obama for the Dems… but Ron Paul will win.

  74. floria Says:

    All I can say for now (without really reading the full post yet) is that Obama is too idealistic and inexperienced. What he has been riding on is the whole “against special interests” and that he will somehow bring about all this wonderful “change”… both of which to me is vague and not substantial. “Special interests” is just a catch-all term with a negative connotation that still doesn’t say anything. Hillary’s theme of “being ready on day one” is at least saying something concrete.

    Will finish reading this post and respond accordingly.

  75. Matt Says:

    I agree floria. Hillary’s theme of “being ready on day one” appears to be saying something concrete. Unfortunately, not only is she incapable of carrying out her promise, but she’s also incapable of the presidency.

    No president…male or female, experience or inexperienced, black or white, cheated on while being first lady or not cheated on while being first lady, is ready on Day 1.

    Realize this now, and you’ll life will be exponentially better.

  76. Cori Says:

    A bunch of those links don’t work… and look

    Here’s also a bunch of reasons not to trust Obama…with working links….

    Obama’s Creative Clippings – New Campaign Ad
    http://www.factcheck.org/obamas_creative_clippings.html

    -The ad flashes a line credited to The Washington Post that says the Illlinois senator’s health care plan would cut costs, “saving $2,500 for the typical family.” But the Post didn’t say that; the Obama campaign did, and the Post reported it as the campaign’s estimate.

    -It claims that “experts” say Obama’s plan is “the best.” “Experts” turn out to be editorial writers at the Iowa City Press-Citizen – who, for all their talents, aren’t actual experts in the field.

    Obama: Universally Wrong About Health Care Plan
    http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/obamas_creative_clippings_part_deux.html

    -The Obama campaign’s new ad uses an old trick and takes quotes from newspapers out of context.

    -The ad flashes the quote “Obama offers universal health care plan.” That was a headline on a May 29, 2007, Associated Press story. However, the story merely reported that Obama said he would sign a universal health care plan. The article goes on to cast doubt on the universality of his own plan:

    -It’s an important distinction we’ve raised a few times. Obama’s plan wouldn’t guarantee that every individual had health insurance, just that everyone would have the opportunity to obtain it.

    Obama a ‘Courageous Leader’ on Iraq war?
    http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/obamas_creative_clippings_part_deux.html (same link as above)
    http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/WireStory?id=3677868&page=1

    -New Campaign ad also shows a quote that says “Obama opposed Iraq war from the start.” The AP analysis from Oct. 2, 2007, certainly did say that, but it also included some less-than-flattering words about Obama’s stance on Iraq.

    -AP: …But nobody should accept at face value the Illinois senator’s claim that he was a “courageous leader” who opposed the war at a great political risk. … And once elected to the U.S. Senate two years later, Obama waited months to show national leadership on Iraq.

    -The article goes on to point out that Obama had been quite politically careful about how he approached the war.

    -Last week, Senator Barack Obama’s chief strategist lamented that he had only 14 seconds of video from what his presidential campaign believes to be a moment of political gold: Mr. Obama’s 2002 speech against the Iraq war just nine days before Congress, with support from several of his primary campaign opponents, authorized the invasion.

    -But, campaign officials said late Thursday, the audio excerpt was not from the actual speech, but was a recently recorded version of it.
    http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/10/11/getting-obamas-speech-right/This is very interesting..

    Obama Ad Omits Lobbyist Reference
    http://a.abcnews.com/Politics/Vote2008/story?id=4064444&page=1

    -But the campaign notably excised from the excerpt one mid-sentence clause in which Obama promised to ban lobbyists from working in his White House — a pledge the Illinois Democrat seemed to have backed off from earlier this month.

    Barack and his slumlord patron
    http://www.suntimes.com/news/metro/353829,CST-NWS-rez23.article
    http://www.suntimes.com/news/politics/obama/749138,obama20web.article
    http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/front/la-na-rezko23jan23,1,746474.story?ctrack=2&cset=true

    -Obama, who has worked as a lawyer and a legislator to improve living conditions for the poor, took campaign donations from Rezko even as Rezko’s low-income housing empire was collapsing, leaving many African-American families in buildings riddled with problems — including squalid living conditions, vacant apartments, lack of heat, squatters and drug dealers

    -Rezko was among the people Obama appointed to serve on his U.S. Senate campaign finance committee

    -… Obama bought a mansion on the South Side, in the Kenwood neighborhood, from a doctor. On the same day, Rezko’s wife, Rita Rezko, bought the vacant lot next door from the same seller. The doctor had listed the properties for sale together. He sold the house to Obama for $300,000 below the asking price. The doctor got his asking price on the lot from Rezko’s wife.

    -Rita Rezko sold a strip of that vacant lot to Obama for $104,500…

    -At the time Obama bought that strip of land, it had been reported that Rezko was under federal investigation for influence-peddling

    -For five weeks, the Sun-Times sought to interview Obama about Rezko and the housing deals. His staff wanted written questions. It responded Sunday but left many questions unanswered. Other answers didn’t directly address the question.

    As a state senator, he went to bat for now-indicted developer’s deal
    http://www.suntimes.com/news/politics/425305,CST-NWS-obama13.article

    Mr. Obama has portrayed Mr. Rezko as a one-time fund-raiser whom he had occasionally seen socially.
    http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/14/us/politics/14rezko.html

  77. joe@2parse Says:

    Cori-

    I tried to send you an email to see which links didn’t work, but apparently you submitted a fake email address.

    As for the “facts” you cite: they only go to prove that Barack Obama is not perfect. They don’t demonstrate anything like what Hillary’s record does.

    I mean, seriously, what are you trying to say is the issue?
    Obama had ads that attributed to the Associated Press the quote: “He was against the Iraq war from the start”, but while that was what the AP said, they also were somewhat critical?
    That he cited the Washington Post quoting his campaign speaking positively of his health care plan?
    That he re-recorded 20 seconds of a speech he gave because they didn’t have audio of it, and used it in an ad?
    That one of Chicago’s power brokers, who has recently been indicted, helped Obama’s career? And that after the indictment – which had absolutely nothing to do with Obama – Obama gave all the money Rezko had donated to charity…

    Seriously – if this is all you got, try again.

  78. Cori Says:

    I didn’t submit a fake e-mail. Try it again…

    I was merely proving that if one wanted to actually do the research they’d find out that Obama is just another politician. He’s not the end all be all that all the pro-Obama fanatics are making him out to be. To be quite honest I see absolutely no difference between him and Clinton, or any other politician for that matter.

    I had to stop looking, because it was rather depressing seeing he’s just like everyone else. I thought he was suppose to be the one to change the “status quo?”

    Also, he has not donated “all” of the money back. A good majority though…

    and please be honest… if the Rezko thing was happening to anyone else than Obama you’d be crying foul…

  79. joe@2parse Says:

    If you see no difference between Obama and Clinton, I do think that proves something.

    The world exists in shades of gray. And political actions and campaigns take place on that spectrum. Anyone who participates in politics necessarily allows themselves to become sullied by competition and power. But there are very different ways of approaching this, and there are real differences in character that are brought out. There is a world of difference between quoting the Washington Post quoting your campaign and not contextualizing that properly – and flat-out lying about an opponent’s record in order to sully him or her. Both are misleading – but one is a deliberate campaign tactic used to deceive people; the other seems more like an amateur mistake by whoever put together the ad.

    As for Rezko – No, if it was happening with someone else, I wouldn’t be crying foul. Politicians deal with slimy people. I acknowledge that – and to be honest, it doesn’t bother me much. They’re constituents too. And as long as they don’t have undue influence over a candidate, I’m not bothered. I don’t care much about the Clintons and Hsu for example. (Though that case bothers me a bit more because I wonder what would lead Hsu to risk personally if he didn’t think he would get anything out of it.)

    Re your email.
    My email did bounce at first, but the second one seems to have gone through. Sorry about that.

  80. Matt Says:

    It’s a good thing the Clintons always distance themselves from Rezko. Wait a second…

    http://www.drudgereport.com/rez.jpg

    Unfit for office. Period.

  81. laurie walsh Says:

    Are you sure Kate Stone isn’t Billary Lord help then all!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  82. Cori Says:

    Matt – are you kidding me? I can’t believe you just linked to the Drudge report…

    Yes, the Drudge report where you can always go to get the “truth.”

    You’re ridiculous…

    Joe- as for the shades of grey stuff… I understand that and see that; however, the shades of grey is what is making me lean towards Hillary.

    Also, her opponents don’t have to demonize her, the media is doing it for them, and people like you are just feeding into it.

  83. Matt Says:

    Cori – Are you serious? I wasn’t linking to Drudge commentary. It’s a picture of Rezko, Hillary, and Bill. Are you contending that it was Photoshopped?

    Ok….

    http://rawstory.com/news/2007/NBC_confronts_Hillary_with_slum_lord_0125.html

    Matt Lauer puts her in her place (and there’s a video in case you needed to see that). There is no way you take a photo with the President of the United States unless either your accomplishments or monetary contributions have been significant.

    Ready to fail on Day 1.

  84. joe@2parse Says:

    Cori,

    First, the picture which Drudge links seems to be authentic. I’m not sure why you are objecting to it – especially given your views on “shades of grey”.

    I’m not sure what point you saw me as making re: “shades of grey”.

    My point was compound – one, political actions exist on a spectrum, with no one person or campaign or ideology existing fully at one end or the other; and two, the Clintons and Obama are at two very different parts of this spectrum.

    It is true that all politics involve moral compromise. But the Clintons compromise too much in their campaigns and in their time in government. There’s a great quote from the film Primary Colors (I can’t remember if it was in the book as well) in which the stand-in for Bill Clinton is trying to convince his aide to stay with the campaign; the aide is disillusioned by the tactics being used and the compromises the candidate is making.

    The candidate governor pulls aside his aide to say something along these lines: This is just the campaign. This is the price we pay to lead. We compromise and claw our way to the top using anything we can; but once we’re there, we can show real leadership. Come with me and let’s get some real change done. You can’t leave me now…

    The scene is fictional, but it gets at the heart of Clintonism – a philosophy of governance and politics that Bill and Hillary Clinton together embody. The problem is that the moment to “show true leadership” never comes – because there is always another election, always another scandal. Clintonism is about postponing progress. It is about making sure the Clintons win.

    Here: I stopped writing this in the comments at some point and made it into a post:
    http://2parse.com/?p=219

  85. Floria Says:

    I have finally just read the post and comments in their entirety and now have a few more things to say…

    [First of all let me point out that I am admittedly very new to politics, probably ignorant in many respects regarding the election, but motivated to change this and learn what I can. I welcome any responses to help me broaden my perspective on the matter, but please save your arrogance, sarcasm, and rudeness from me and from others in the discussion. I hope all of us can have this kind of humble, open-minded attitude.]

    Re: Kate Stone’s comments, #4, sexism, and feminism…
    I agree that Joe is probably not intending to be sexist with #4, but rather, appropriately acknowledging the unfortunate truth that people will equate Hillary to a role model for all women. However, I still think #4 is unlikely and a weak reason not to support her. Hillary was an even bigger person to “put up with any humiliations” than to retaliate against Bill, making personal sacrifices for the state of her husband’s presidency and for her own family. And, I highly doubt any of the girls and women who already view Hillary as a role model will try to follow in her footsteps by “marrying well”, putting up with a cheating husband, “fighting dirty”, etc. Women have more sense than that (I would hope)! Realistically speaking, I think women would instead be inspired that a woman can still rise above a male-dominated field. I have several friends who are Wellesley alumni and serve as a testament to that.

    Re: #1 “No experience can prepare you for the presidency.”
    How can experience do anything BUT prepare you? What about the argument that Obama’s lack of foreign diplomatic experience will be dangerous for the U.S. as we try to get out of Iraq? I haven’t read up on all of Hillary’s past experience, but I’ve noticed her record of supporting policies and reform that always watch out for the lower/middle class, families and children, and the less fortunate. To me, that’s past action that had brought about real change, tangible to the American public – and a good cue for some things to come should she be president.

    Re: Clinton and Obama’s campaign strategies
    Clinton doesn’t have the cleanest campaign strategy – I can see that. But I am cynical and I don’t appreciate Obama’s strategy that is seemingly taking advantage of the young, liberal, less-informed, idealistic voters by alluding to “changing the status quo”, “not giving in to special interests”, and getting out of Iraq with little to no flexibility in timeline and approach. My friend said to me the other day, “You’re supporting Hillary? You totally look like an Obama supporter.” What does an “Obama supporter” look like, then? That just annoys me.

    Anyway, reading all this HAS made me have second thoughts on supporting Hillary. So, nice post. Thanks.

  86. joe@2parse Says:

    Floria,

    I responded to many of your points here:
    http://2parse.com/?p=226

  87. Jerry Brown Says:

    An excellent analysis. I supported Edwards while he was in the race, but will gladly stand up and vote for Obama at the Colorado caucuses on February 5. Hillary would be a big improvement over what we’ve had for the past eight years. But she’s not a change agent. And she’s far from the best we can do.

    Remember when we were told Kerry should be our candidate because he was more “electable” than Howard Dean, who was actually saying what we believe? We got a horrible candidate as a result. We seem to be heading down the same path this year. Hillary won’t be an effective candidate in the fall.

    I’m pulling for Obama. But I’m not optimistic.

  88. Alastair Mcdonald Says:

    A very good analysis and a good read. Even though i am not a US citizen i have been following the events closely, please do vote for Obama – for your sake and for the rest of the world. America needs change and Obama is the best chance for that now Edwards is out. Hillary will not bring that and i agree her behaviour and tactics are questionable. You shouldnt vote for her because she is a woman or not because she is, see her for what she is and thats the point this article brings home.

  89. J.C. Says:

    Hillery is inevitable – Obama is simply not ready – his ego has outstripped his abilities. Mrs. Clinton will be the nominee and next president. That said she will escalate the war effort, raise all our taxes and preside over the collapse of the economy. On the bright side her single term will end the two party hegemony and lead to real debate about our country and our best interest. Lust for power is her only attribute but she will be ready from day one – - – maybe you forgot but she is married [in a rather loose use of the term] to a former 2 term president. I wish I was the sort to gain happiness from the misery of her supporters as she does exactly as she pleases and not as she promises – look at her actions as Senator [also notice she and Obama voted alike all but 10 times in the past two years - not much real difference is there?] Oh yes and national health care – hope you like waiting in very long lines – imagine the DMV and Social Security wait times combined but you are sick – wheeeeeeeeeeeeee, I can hardly wait.
    ~cheers
    =^. .^=

  90. J.C. Says:

    Oops, I forgot – Edwards could not win historically – No former VP candidate from a failed presidential ticket [Kerry/Edwards - Carter/Mondale - Ford/Dole to name a few] has ever won the presidency. I as banned from the Edwards web site for that observation – gotta love those ‘free speech’ democrats!
    =^. .^=

    and no I am not a Republican unless somehow Ron Paul is a republican – and personally I prefer Gene Burns if only he would run again

  91. joe@2parse Says:

    to J.C.:

    maybe not recently, but historically: FDR was the VP candidate on the Cox-Roosevelt ticket; lost; got polio; and then came back to win the presidency.

  92. Lucien Beauley Says:

    to J.C.:
    Truly. the American people Now have a choice….in whom to vote for, in what type of medicine they choose to treat their ailments, just like your mom and dad in years past, but a vote for Hillary Clinton means…you can kiss it all goodbye. This will open your eyes:
    Somehow, Americans Will Never Forget About Hillary Clinton Tricks in 1996

    http://www.ronpaul2008.com/discover-and-imagine-ron-paul/successfully-fought-hillarycare-lite/

    Congressional records of Hillary bill

    http://www.eagleforum.org/psr/1998/dec98/psrdec98.html

  93. Simon Says:

    Did anyone consider that some of us support Senator Clinton because we are MODERATES and NOT liberals? For our sake, I hope she stays in the race. A moderate is what the country needs right now, not an equally extreme swing to the other side. Go, Hillary, go!

  94. joe@2parse Says:

    Simon –

    A moderate on what issues?

  95. Simon Says:

    Are you asking about her or me? I’m a moderate generally, and that self-assessment comes from the fact that I hold an eclectic set of views — some liberal, some conservative, some moderate — rather than accepting any party or individual’s platform unquestioningly. Voltaire taught us the danger of such philosophical systems centuries ago. I guess politics lags pretty far behind culture. C’est la vie.

    That said, Senator Clinton has demonstrated a willingness to accept the vast complexity of public debate — the endless grey areas and the groups that refuse to be united — and work with people on multiple sides of an issue to see where there is common ground. I’m not saying that Senator Obama has not done this, but I would suggest he has not done it to the extent Senator Clinton has managed. In the Senate, she has gone to the opposition where it lives, meeting with extreme conservatives, attending their prayer meetings, and walking away with their respect. The partisan reaction to this would be to see it as pandering or power-grabbing, but a thoughtful person sees it as building bridges — the key element in actually getting anything done in Washington.

    And that is the way in which Senator Clinton counts (to me, at least) as a moderate: she is willing to accept the realities of public life, the compromises that must be made. Because a President must be President of everyone, and not just of those who voted for him or her. Yes, it’s a life full of dangerous complexities that unthinking people on television or the internet can throw at you to hide their own partisan rancor, but it’s a lot more honest than the black and white illusions offered by so many.

    Hillary Clinton: a candidate for the real world.

  96. Jeff Says:

    Hillary Clinton hopes you have forgotten. Have you?

    She has been telling America that she is the most qualified candidate for president based on her “record,” which she says includes her eight years in the White House as first lady, or “co-president,” and her seven years in the Senate. Here is a reminder of what that record includes:

    As first lady, Clinton assumed authority over health care reform, a process that cost the taxpayers more than $13 million. She told both Bill Bradley and Pat Moynihan, key votes needed to pass her legislation, that she would “demonize” anyone who opposed it. But it was opposed; she couldn’t even get it to a vote in a Congress controlled by her own party. (And in the next election, her party lost control of both the House and Senate.)

    Clinton assumed authority over selecting a female attorney general. Her first two recommendations (Zoe Baird and Kimba Wood) were forced to withdraw their names from consideration, and then she chose Janet Reno. Reno has since been described by Bill Clinton himself as “my worst mistake.”

    Hillary recommended Lani Guanier for head of the Civil Rights Commission. When Guanier’s radical views became known, her name had to be withdrawn.

    Hillary Clinton recommended her former law partners, Web Hubbell, Vince Foster and William Kennedy for positions in the Justice Department, White House staff, and the Treasury, respectively. Hubbell was later imprisoned, Foster committed suicide, and Kennedy was forced to resign.

    Hillary Clinton also recommended a close friend of the Clintons, Craig Livingstone, for the position of director of White House security. When Livingstone was investigated for the improper access of up to 900 FBI files of Clinton enemies (Filegate) and the widespread use of drugs by White House staff, both Hillary and her husband denied knowing him. (FBI agent Dennis Sculimbrene Confirmed in a Senate Judiciary Committee in 1996 both the drug use and Hillary’s involvement in hiring Livingstone. After that, the FBI closed its White House Liaison Office, after serving seven presidents for more than 30 years.)

    In order to open “slots” in the White House for her friends the Harry Thomasons (to whom millions of dollars in travel contracts could be awarded), Hillary Clinton had the entire staff of the White House Travel Office fired; they were reported to the FBI for “gross mismanagement” and their reputations ruined. After a thirty-month investigation, only one, Billy Dale, was charged with a crime — mixing personal money with White House funds when he cashed checks. The jury acquitted him in less than two hours.

    Another of Hillary Clinton’s assumed duties was directing the “bimbo eruption squad” and scandal defense: She urged her husband not to settle the Paula Jones lawsuit; she refused to release the Whitewater documents, which led to the appointment of Ken Starr as special prosecutor After $80 million dollars of taxpayer money was spent, Starr’s investigation led to Monica Lewinsky, which led to President Clinton lying about and later admitting his affairs.

    Then they had to settle with Paula Jones after all.

    And Bill Clinton lost his law license for lying to the grand jury.

    And Bill Clinton was impeached by the House.

    And Hillary Clinton almost got herself indicted for perjury and obstruction of justice (she avoided it mostly because she repeated, “I do not recall,” “I have no recollection,” and “I don’t know” 56 times under oath).

    And don’t forget her part in Vince Foster’s suicide.

    Hillary Clinton wrote “It Takes a Village,” demonstrating her Socialist viewpoint.

    Hillary Clinton decided to seek election to the Senate in a state she had never lived in. Her husband pardoned FALN terrorists in order to get Latino support and the New Square Hassidim to get Jewish support. Hillary also had Bill pardon her brother’s clients, for a small fee, to get financial support.

    Then Hillary Clinton left the White House, but later had to return $200,000 in White House furniture, china, and artwork she had taken with her.

    In the campaign for the Senate, Hillary Clinton played the “woman card” by portraying her opponent (Lazio) as a bully picking on her.

    Bill Clinton further protected his wife by asking the National Archives to withhold from the public until 2012 many records of their time in the White House, including much of Hillary’s correspondence and her calendars. (There are ongoing lawsuits to force the release of those records.)

    As the junior senator from New York, Hillary has passed no major legislation. She has deferred to the senior senator (Chuck Schumer) to tend to the needs of New Yorkers, even on the hot issue of medical problems of workers involved in the cleanup of ground zero after 9/11.

    Hillary Clinton’s one notable vote, supporting the plan to invade Iraq, she has since disavowed.

    Quite a resume, isn’t it? Sounds more like an organized crime family

  97. Simon Says:

    J.C. said: “and no I am not a Republican unless somehow Ron Paul is a republican…”

    Ron Paul has ALWAYS been a Republican. Yes, he was the Libertarian nominee in the 1988 presidential election, but he remained a registered Republican all throughout that race. Unfortunately for all his supporters, Congressman Paul is a fraud (as are all pro-life Libertarians — read some source material, like Nozick or Hayek, for Pete’s sake). Better luck next time.

  98. Simon Says:

    Thank you, Jeff, for supporting the Republican narrative of world history. For your reward, you get to take one bag of money through the needle’s eye on your camel excursion.

    I’m not saying that none of the items in your laundry list are accurate, but you throw your entire point of view into question by making such stupid allegations as “Clinton’s socialism.” Take a political science course and tone down the rhetoric.

  99. Cathy Says:

    JS THIS JUST US OR DOES OTHER PEOPLE FEEL THE SAME WAY? Something disturbing about Senator Clinton as the Democratic nominee is her total disregards to any state that she did not win as they don’t counting. She claimed winning most of the big states made her a better Candidate than Senator Obama. As if those same “flyover” states didn’t get George Bush within striking distance of allowing the Supreme Court to make the ruling. To top this off, she said winning Ohio meant they have decided she should be the Democratic nominee. Hello? Last time I looked America is made up of 50 states, plus the US territories and Puerto Rico. We will like to know that our votes count like the big states. Yes, President Bill Clinton hasn’t been in the lime lights lately, good for her, but we would also like to know when that “3am” phone rings, which “President” will answer it? Will the White House Operator ask, “Which President will I put you through to? President Bill Clinton, or President Hillary Clinton?” Doesn’t a President retain his title even in death? Will President Bill Clinton renounce his title and become First Husband, or? I will like to know what one calls a president that his wife, the past First Lady, becomes the President? I think its time that the Clinton’s Dynasty retire from the White House.

    Cathy, Washington State

  100. beth texas Says:

    who IS bill clinton sleeping with these days? we all KNOW — even her SNL syncophants — that it ain’t hillary. so who is it? the SECOND they enter the “general” (god forbid), rest assured, we will all find out. my god, I cannot believe that people are willing to entertain the notion of another 4-8 years of clinton drama. WHY would anyone think HE has changed? and sending him out around the GLOBE to “foster better relationships”? NOT A GOOD IDEA. SO not a good idea. come on, america, we are not a wife-blinded-by-denial, … snap out of it! this crap she (and don’t act like you don’t know it, HE, too) are pulling now is NOT CUTE. they are seriously, seriously ethically challenged. if the dems allow her to win with this behavior, they deserve what they get.
    beth, houston texas

  101. beth texas Says:

    sorry, sycophants.

  102. Jane Doe Says:

    Hillary Clinton voted for The PATRIOT Act,.
    She voted to re-authorize The PATRIOT Act.
    She voted for the war in Iraq.
    She voted for the FISA Bill ( spying on innocent Americans)
    She voted for CAFTA
    She wants MANDATORY Universal Health coverage for all Americans , including mandatory annual psychological profiling of all
    citizens

    She is a “PROGRESSIVE”- a thinly veiled made up term that actually means Fascist Statist politician who does not believe in acknowledge
    or support The Constitution, Bill of Rights, Declaration of Independence and our unAlienable Rights.

    Check out her voting record at The Congressional Record.

    I support RON PAUL for president and will do a write in vote. If you want to be a sovereign citizen with Constitutional protections-
    do the same!

  103. Why Hillary Clinton Should Withdraw From the Race Today | Dan’s Stuff Says:

    [...] read more | digg story [...]

  104. mr. white Says:

    Nice information on increasing your niche video website vision.

  105. Raymond Colbert Says:

    Reading this seems like a long time ago now! It’s great to see Hilary doing a great job as a Secretary of State.

  106. Krystina Skyberg Says:

    This show was not for “somebody”. This show was for EVERYBODY! If you have made it out of the first grade then you have wronged someone else. If you survived that initial school experience someone has “wronged” you. Choosing to forgive (and you may have to “practice” forgiveness do it over and over until you find you have no more emotion about the original wrong) is the ONLY way to have a peaceful and successful life. Thanks, TC! I needed this!! Desperately. You CAN forgive and forget. But first you have to forgive BEFORE you can forget. As always my prayer for you is Peace and Blessings!!

  107. DailyPUMA Says:

    You sure look like the dumbarse now. Obama has been a disaster, allowing millions of people to unfairly lose their homes.

  108. Joe Campbell Says:

    @DailyPUMA

    Right. I’m not sure what in Hillary’s relentlessly centrist record makes you believe she would have got something done on this issue.

    But I’m not really sure how many presidents would have the past 4 years so well as Obama has.

    Preventing an economic collapse;
    Bin Laden;
    Health care (which Hillary failed at in 1993);
    The progress on gay rights.

    Bill – Hillary set back gay rights about 5 – 10 years by first pushing to allow gays in the military and then trying to cushion themselves from the backlash by catering to homophobes with DADT and DOMA.

    On health care, they tried and failed. Obama succeeded.

    On economics, it was the Clintons who helped lay the foundations for the Wall Street excesses that were to come — though their legacy on the federal budget was better than anyone in recent memory.

    Overall, it’s hard to see how someone with liberal values can fault Obama too much — unless the person is a purist on executive power, etc. — in which case, you can see a strong argument that Obama wasn’t enough of a reversal of Bush — but Hillary almost certainly would have been just as bad on this count.

  109. DailyPUMA Says:

    Joe Campbell, It’s this type of delusional reasoning that I find frustrating.

    But the bigger picture is this, the progressive democrats demonize the republicans, the neo con republicans demonize the democrats. The result is the vast moderate middle, where real solutions occur, have been muted by the progressive media led by MSNBC.

    The vast moderate middle continues to be shut out and that is why virtually no present day issue receives real introspection and discussion. The issue of gay marriage is very complicated. I recently wrote an article about gay marriage in a way that the progressive democrats nor the neo con republicans would ever discuss, and that is why both sides continue to battle, polarizing the larger moderate center with their angry and insane back and forth barbs.

    http://dailypuma.blogspot.com/2012/05/obama-advocates-for-gay-marriages-just.html

    The same goes with the issue of a state pension fund that is going out of control. No real centrist discussion in which actual math and also sacrifice by those who work state jobs is used to properly gauge and discuss the issue of out pension funds and the state budget.

    I can go on, the issue of consumer debt. Neo Con’s say, “get a job”, progressive democrats clamor for “debt forgiveness”. Both positions are incredibly stupid, and devoid of true problem discussions that once again, the moderate middle would pursue.

  110. overstock coupon 10% Says:

    great stuff and i do agree with the overall sentiment

  111. Haywood Gieselman Says:

    SEOPledge, a Canrock Ventures company, is seeking for online entrepreneurs interested in increasing their traffic. We specialize in traffic generation with the use of SEO, SEM, and social media. Please contact us at our contact page on our website.

Leave a Reply