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:
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- The Clintons are fundamentally and irredeemably corrupt. And we don’t need to have a Clinton dynstasty to rival the Bush dynasty.
- No other candidate can rally the Republican base and right-leaning independents as effectively as Hillary Clinton.
- Hillary Clinton use language exactly as George Orwell lamented in “Politics and the English Language” – to hide her true intent and demonize her opponents.
- 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.
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.
-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.
643 replies on “Why Hillary Clinton Should Withdraw From the Race Today”
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!!!
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.
No one is hiding their name. This is my blog. My name is Joe Campbell. You can reach me at email@example.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.
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.
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.”
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.
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.
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…
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
Sexist rant? Did we read the same post? Guess you see what you want to see…..
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!
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!
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.
P.S.: Joe… a brilliant, on-point summation/argument. You can be sure I’ll link to it on my own weblog. 🙂
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?
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.
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!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
and it’s such a pity, because Bill could be as good as Jimmy Carter as a former President!
I agree 100% with this article. For the good of all mankind, please drop out Hillary!
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?
” … 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
“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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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)
In short: I agree.
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.
For some reason, I trust Obama. Clinton, not so much.
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.
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…