I would like to know specifically why so many people hate her please.
I hear stupid things that don't make sense to me, so figured it was best to let some of you vent here.
Here is an interesting, but very long article on that topic...
http://men.style.com/gq/features/full?id=content_6249
The Hillary Haters
On a screen in a back room of an upscale Dallas restaurant, a cartoon version of Hillary Clinton veers between bored and apoplectic. In the cartoon, in which she hosts a late-night program called The Hillary Show, her teeth are pointed, resembling fangs. She mocks everyone she comes across (including her "sidekick," Howard Dean) and exhibits her violent streak by leaping out of a chair to bash Al Gore over the head with a wooden mallet, the "Hillary Hammer."
"Another loser," she says.
A knowing chuckle spreads through the audience of about fifteen local Republican activists and donors, including an associate of Karl Rove. Many of the attendees, mostly middle-aged and mild-mannered, wear nametags and anti-Hillary buttons on their suit lapels and silk blouses. The lights come on, and a tall, youthful 60-year-old man steps in front of the screen. Across his gray suit and broad yellow tie the projector beams Hillary's scowling face and a White House seeped in bloody red.
"Wanted to reach out and involve you in our effort—in our Web site," Dick Collins, a veteran Republican fund-raiser, says in his languid Texas drawl. He favorably compares his Stop Her Now Web site—a clearinghouse of anti-Hillary news, blogs, and cartoons, all with the mission of "Rescuing America from the radical ideas of Hillary Clinton"—to "the Swifties," the nonprofit advocacy group the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, which mortally wounded the campaign of John Kerry in 2004. He then proudly refers to the Stop Her Now banner, which his group has flown over a number of Clinton's campaign appearances, as a way to attract potential supporters and irritate Hillary. "I'm sure she said to her aide, 'We need to get a bazooka and take that thing down.' That's the real Hillary that nobody gets to see." This wouldn't be recognizable as a punch line in any other room, but supporters laugh approvingly and put down their white wine and orange cheese cubes to clap.
Collins thinks his use of "humor" will allow his anti-Hillary venture to succeed where others have failed, and that his cartoons and sight gags will ultimately play a major role in preventing Hillary Clinton from becoming president. "You do it with satire," he explains to his guests. "Because it is a much more effective way to define somebody."
Formidable is not exactly the word that leaps to mind while watching Collins pitch his potential donors. He and his associates don't appear savvy or particularly well organized. And a movement based around cartoons that trot out stale liberal stereotypes hardly seems like the kind of grassroots juggernaut that could upend a front-running presidential candidate. Then again, few people would have guessed in January 2004 that a group of deeply partisan veterans telling a dubious tale about John Kerry's military service would ultimately shape that year's election and enter the American political lexicon. And to Collins and his ilk, the tactics of the Swifties represent not a new low for American politics but a grand strategy that can be employed with even more venom, and to greater effect, with Hillary.
Already there are dozens of Web sites—Stop Hillary PAC, Gotta Stop Hillary, and The Hillary Project to name just a few—devoted to Hillary's demise. No other candidate in history has ever inspired a similar cottage industry of anger—Web sites, books, and movies, not to mention the Hillary Clinton Voodoo Kit ("Stick It to Her, Before She Sticks It to You!") or the articles explaining her occult connection ("Proof Positive That Hillary Clinton is an Illuminist Witch: Exposé of Hillary's Christmas Tree"). At a March conference of conservatives in Washington, D.C., Hillary barf bags were distributed to convention-goers along with 1,000 free copies of The Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy's Dossier on Hillary Clinton, written by Amanda B. Carpenter, a 25-year-old woman who told me Hillary was "the student council president that you can't stand."
Here at the Dallas fund-raiser, all the attendees are in agreement with young Amanda.
"She's way too scary," Patty McKinley, a bubbly Texan, tells me between sips of wine.
A few feet away, Bill Solemene, an advertising executive active in Republican politics, expresses a similar fear. "I think everybody is frightened to death of her," he says. "She has a mean streak in her."
Scary? Frightened to death? By now, Clinton's flaws as a candidate are well-known—the problems giving a straight answer, the warmth and authenticity issues—but they're also fairly typical for a politician. Here in Dallas, though, and in the rest of anti-Hillary land, the hostility toward Clinton tends to be expressed in bafflingly vague and emotional terms. Discussions with self-declared enemies of Hillary Clinton, prominent and not, across the country yield a head-spinning barrage of motivations for their ill will, but one thing is immediately clear: Few if any have anything to do with the mandated insurance coverage of Clinton's health care plan (or HillaryCare, in hater parlance), her carefully triangulated position on Iran, or her incremental shift against the war in Iraq.
Instead, they say she is an extremist left-wing flower child masquerading as a moderate, or a warmongering hawk disguised as a liberal. She's a liar and a lesbian (short hair! pantsuits!), a cold fish and an adulteress. She has no maternal instincts and is hobbled by a debilitating case of insecurity, for which she compensates by acting like a thug. She is the spineless wife of a habitual cheat, and the willful enabler of her husband's affairs. She's in politics to keep Bill around, and she ran for the Senate, and then the presidency, to exact revenge for his philandering. She has no God, or her devoutness is frighteningly fundamentalist. She's a condescending elitist who sees people—even her friends—as steps on a stairway to the presidency. She is a partisan, a panderer, the personification of everything that is wrong with America.
She is, to them, an empty vessel into which they can pour everything they detest about politicians, ambitious women, and an American culture they fear is being wrested from their control.
"Some of it is related to the truth that, as Hillary says, she and Bill Clinton have defeated what she calls the right-wing machine," says Carl Bernstein, author of A Woman in Charge: The Life of Hillary Rodham Clinton. Bernstein, an astute Hillary observer, says that the Clintons rudely stirred Republicans from their dream of perpetually occupying the White House, which seemed plausible after the Reagan revolution. Many hold her responsible, first, for beating them with her role in Bill Clinton's War Room, and then for supporting her wounded husband during the Monica Lewinsky scandal.
Sally Bedell Smith, the author of For Love of Politics: Bill and Hillary Clinton: The White House Years, suggests much of the seemingly inexplicable rage against the Clintons can be traced back to what she says is "the nature of Bill's womanizing over the years."
"Tolerating his weakness has always been part of their marriage," says Bedell Smith. "In their case, it is an unconventional marriage, and they portray it as a traditional marriage. And that is hypocrisy."
The notion that Hillary has traded personal, and sexual, humiliation for political gain, all the while claiming a strong feminist streak, is too offensive for many of her most virulent detractors to stomach.
R. Emmett Tyrrell Jr. is a veteran hater who plumbed the sordid sexual details of the Clinton scandals in The American Spectator. His archconservative magazine spearheaded the investigation into "Troopergate," -eventually leading to the Paula Jones case, the Lewinsky scandal, and Bill Clinton's impeachment hearings. As Tyrrell sees it, the Clintons are "a generational phenomenon" in that Hillary's candidacy serves as a referendum on the social upheaval of the 1960s. Those who agreed with the era's changes, many of which she embodies, would vote for her. Those who thought the changes were disastrous see her as an agent of social ruin.
Dick Morris, the political strategist and former confidant of the Clintons, has a different explanation. First off, he wants me to understand he doesn't like the term "haters" to describe the people who hate Hillary, saying that it delegitimizes their complaints. A critic with the rare distinction of having formed his animosity up close—"I know her. Everybody else is just working off the record," he told me—Morris says that the hostility toward Hillary has its roots in her personality. He says Republicans and Democrats alike pick up on her "dishonesty" and "religiously based certitude" that she is ultimately correct in everything she does. "There is this sort of theological belief in one's own rectitude and everybody's lack of it that animates Hillary," he says.
Dan Kuenster, the cartoonist of Stop Her Now, agrees. "She's got this *****y quality," he tells me. "Like she's higher-than-thou."
The conservative pundit Bay Buchanan also takes offense at what she calls Hillary's "superiority and arrogance." In her office in the Virginia campaign headquarters of Republican presidential candidate Tom Tancredo, Buchanan posits that Hillary's perceived haughtiness has roots in a deep-seated insecurity that "is the driving force in this woman's life."
Buchanan's evidence for that insecurity? Clinton's myriad hairstyles over the years. Buchanan literally illustrates this theory in her 2007 book, The Extreme Makeover of Hillary (Rodham) Clinton, with a page of photographs documenting the evolution of Clinton's coiffure. (The captions to the different snapshots of Hillary's hairdos read "a) 'I'm serious.' b) 'I'm nice.' c) 'I'm Lady Di.' d) 'I'm smart.' e) 'I'm French.' ")
Dick Collins has invested more than $300,000 of his own money into Stop Her Now. He's also hired what he says is a top-notch staff that he thinks will make the site really damaging, especially once it reaches the $4 million fund-raising target he has set.
The heart and soul of Stop Her Now appears to be the cartoons of Kuenster, who spreads his drawings on a small table in the corner of the Dallas restaurant. Plump and sloppy in dress, Kuenster has done animation for the films An American Tail and All Dogs Go to Heaven, but now he's focusing on sketches of Clinton's brutalized rivals—Barack Obama with a cigarette jammed into his ear and John Edwards with his $400 hair frazzled and teeth knocked out.
He pushes his wire-framed glasses closer to his face and pulls out a drawing of Hillary relaxing in her trophy room, where Gennifer Flowers's head is mounted on the wall like a prize deer. To narrate the picture, Kuenster imitates Hillary by deepening his voice to a Kathleen Turner–esque smoothness that is meant to be menacing. "That lying ***** deserved to be taken down," he says, sounding nothing like Hillary Clinton.
The next morning, Collins introduces me to the site's "red meat" blogger, Mark Harvey, a former army contractor who claims to possess a unique gift for interpreting body language. Dressed in a black suit and tan ostrich cowboy boots, he taps the wooden table with his fingernails while speaking with contempt about the "pandering czarina." He says he detects in her physical movements "a lot to hide. It's the eyes. I dwell on the eyes. She's very condescending. And has this look of 'Oh, you poor person, I've got you so hoodwinked.' " (At the beginning of October, Collins severed his official relationship with Harvey, though Stop Her Now occasionally still links to Harvey's Take Our Country Back blog. "We wanted a more philosophical view of Hillary and her policies," Collins explains to me months later. "His was a harsher line that we prefer to link to.")
For his part, Collins does not project nearly as much open hostility as his staff. Affable, good-natured, and a firm believer in the afternoon nap, he prominently displays on his office walls photos of former Republican presidents and current GOP presidential candidates shaking his hand. (A veteran Republican fund-raiser who served as Texas finance cochair for Bob Dole's presidential campaign, Collins has given money to Rudy Giuliani and John McCain but says he's not endorsing before the primary.) Collins leans back in his chair behind a large wooden desk cluttered with papers, his laptop, an antique pistol, and a collection of campaign buttons. (i shot j.r. reads one, depicting Ronald Reagan with gun drawn. i despise bleeding heart liberals.) He professes ignorance about what it is that gets Hillary's opponents so riled up. At least part of Collins's own motivation appears to be in the long and largely failure-ridden tradition of seeking personal gain at Hillary's expense.
"To the extent that we're successful, it raises my profile," says Collins, who acknowledges harboring ambitions to one day serve as governor of Texas or as a U.S. senator. "There are some benefits, I guess."
But there appears to be something else at play, too. A picture of his mother, the first woman elected to the Dallas city council, hangs on the wall across the room.
"They wanted an attractive younger woman," Collins says to explain his mother's political ascent. "She was a team player; she was a traditional southern woman."
Collins is surrounded by strong, accomplished women. His mother was a trailblazing politician, one of his daughters is a newscaster, the other is a college athlete. The ebullient accountant with whom he shares office space is a crack shot with a rifle and audits all his businesses and charities.
But the unabashed ambition of Hillary Clinton is unseemly to Collins, who sees her candidacy as a triumphant feminism piling on after winning the 1960s culture wars.
"In a sense, the feminists have already won," he says, swiveling in his chair. "There is equal pay for equal work. But the feminists take it to the next level, the bra burning and 'We don't need men except for breeding purposes.' All this kind of extreme stuff."
He says Lady Bird Johnson was a much better model for a president's wife and traces all the animosity people feel for Hillary to her violating the country's traditional conception of a first lady.
"She became the first partisan first lady," Collins says. "Then she became a feminist first lady."
Either Collins's seventh-floor office is stuck in a time warp (bra burning? Lady Bird?), or he is still grasping for a pellucid reason to justify what he does. With him and other Clinton foes, there is always the sense that there is something else below the surface he would prefer not to discuss or doesn't really comprehend.
The good news for Hillary is that she's heard it all before, as the charges against her really haven't changed in fifteen years. But that hasn't stopped her enemies from rehashing old material through new mediums.
Because Internet videos and digital films are cheaper and easier to produce than television commercials, there will be more and more films like Hillary: The Movie, a feature-length documentary that "aims to expose the truth about her conflicts in the past and her liberal plot for the future." The film is the brainchild of David Bossie, a former Whitewater investigator who in 1998, while working on another case, was forced to resign for trying to incriminate Hillary for fraud by selectively editing the transcripts of Webster Hubbell, Bill Clinton's first associate attorney general.
Bossie is now the president of the conservative group Citizens United, which is located in a four-story row house on Capitol Hill. On the first floor, editing bays have culled hundreds of hours of film, even as his crew continues to scour the country for more footage.
"Half my freaking staff is out all over the freaking place trying to do stuff," says Bossie. In his top-floor office, a bust of Ronald Reagan stands near a mailing sent out by his group's political-action committee: dare to be bold. help stop hillary before she becomes president.
Bossie says his film will span decades of Hillary's life. "She has a long record, and we will cover a multitude of topics," he says, boasting that people "very familiar personally with the Clintons" will offer testimonials. He also says the film, which will be released in early 2008, will feature interviews with Dick Morris, Newt Gingrich, and Jeff Gerth, who followed Whitewater for The New York Times and coauthored the book Her Way: The Hopes and Ambitions of Hillary Rodham Clinton. (The book reported on a secret pact between the Clintons that assured each of them a turn in the White House.)
Bossie is confident there's still an inexhaustibly fertile market of Clinton hostility, but where that rage comes from, he says, is none of his concern. "That's an emotional question," he says. "I don't get involved in the emotional aspects of politics."
And yet the more he talks about his opposition to Hillary, the more you realize that he believes the good guys have been wronged and that she has gotten away with something. It is an aggravation that pervades the anti-Clinton universe and that imbues it with self-righteousness and an almost crusading sense of mission that shows no signs of abating.
"Clearly, there are no more investigations," says Bossie. "So the only way she can be held accountable is by the voters."
Despite the inconclusiveness of exhaustive legal and journalistic investigations, Whitewater, Travelgate, and the Wellesley College years are still subjects of feverish speculation for some Hillary haters. But those engaged in the frustrating search for fresh material believe they have stumbled upon an unlikely font in Peter Paul.
"He's one to keep an eye on," Buchanan told me as I walked out of her Virginia office.
Paul, a former Hollywood manager who discovered the romance-novel pinup Fabio, turned his hours of private Hillary footage into a documentary called Hillary! Uncensored. (Paul claims he has received financial help on the project from a murky Clinton-phobic group called the Equal Justice in America Foundation, the spokesman of which would communicate only via e-mail and accused "Clinton operatives" of intimidation and "hacking into our offshore ISP by mysterious forces.") A preview of the film, posted as a Web clip, is promoted on a Web site operated by Robert Hahn and Scott Swett, two technical producers who developed the site for the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth. The preview has received more than 3 million views on YouTube and Google Video and features a "constitutional law specialist" sitting in front of a cheap backdrop of the Supreme Court. At one point, he tells the camera, "What we're looking at here is the largest election-law fraud in the history of the United States."
One afternoon in June, Paul answers the door of his North Carolina home dressed in jeans, brown loafers, and a blue sport shirt stretched across his round stomach. As his wife, a tall blond dressed in sweatpants and a pink shirt that says nothing to wear cleans the kitchen, Paul draws two seats up to a computer in his small study, under a painting of a Christian martyr and beside a copy of a book called Hillary's Secret War. Behind the seats, four orange plastic crates labeled paul v. hillary hold hundreds of legal files related to his ongoing civil suit.
In a nutshell, Paul's case is that after secret talks with Democratic Party officials, he agreed to throw Bill Clinton a Hollywood gala that would double as a fund-raiser for Hillary's 2000 Senate campaign. In exchange, the president, upon leaving office, would join the animation company Paul had formed with Spider-Man creator Stan Lee.
Paul says he spent $1.9 million organizing the event, which featured performances by Cher, Michael Bolton, and Melissa Etheridge. Clinton's Senate campaign filed the cost of the event with the Federal Election Commission at around $500,000, which Paul alleges is a gross underreporting that amounts to federal election fraud.
Further still, he claims that Clinton illegally coordinated the fund-raiser with him and had knowledge of all the money he was laying out for her. He says his smoking gun is a conference call he videotaped in which Clinton can be heard telling him and Lee, "I'm just thrilled" and "You just let me know if there is anything I need to do" about the gala.
A California appellate court dismissed Clinton from the suit in October and ruled against permitting the call as new evidence. The Clinton campaign strongly denies his accusations.
"Peter Paul is a professional liar who has four separate criminal convictions, two for fraud," the Clinton campaign said in a statement. "His video repackages a series of seven-year-old false claims about Senator Clinton that have already been rejected by the California state courts, the Justice Department, the Federal Election Commission, and the Senate Ethics Committee."
Paul's case is flimsy at best, completely indecipherable at worst, but the Clinton antagonists want a piece of him anyway. Never mind that the former Clinton donor has a history of felony convictions (including a cocaine charge and trying to defraud the Cuban government), that his politics lean liberal, and that his allegations border on paranoid. It is sufficient that he provides the promise of new dirt on Hillary.
With clicks of the mouse, he opens videos and spins a web of conspiracies. In 2000, Paul, a brash and bearded dealmaker with a gravelly radio voice, started attending Clinton fund-raisers. Remarkably, he started filming them, too.
One clip he shows me has him hosting a fund-raiser for Hillary on June 9, 2000, at Wolfgang Puck's restaurant Spago in Los Angeles. Hillary talks to him about everything from how the buying of Hillary domain names amounted to an invasion of her privacy to how a date she had at Dartmouth got drunk and surfed down a snow-covered hill.
"Look at those eyes," says Paul as he watches the video. "The strangest expression in her eyes." (Analysis of Clinton's eyes is a favorite motif among her most rabid adversaries, who, despite paying little attention to her policies and positions, believe they have a profound reading of her soul.)
Paul also accuses Hillary of making eyes at his wife, using cocaine, and being a phony worse than "Nixon in drag."
After Hillary personally thanked him from the stage at the August 12, 2000, Hollywood gala, The Washington Post revealed Paul's felony convictions. The Clintons promptly distanced themselves. He blames Bill Clinton for welshing on the comics deal and causing the failure of his business. He also apparently blames the Clintons for forcing him to commit the stock fraud for which he is currently awaiting sentencing under house arrest. Hillary, he argues, plotted his whole downfall from behind the scenes.
"She did this to me, to my family. I'm responsible for getting her elected," says Paul, his beard gone gray and his ankle fitted with an electronic bracelet. "How did she repay me? She destroyed me."
The search for a unifying theory of what drives Hillary's most fanatical opponents is a futile one. And the haters' accusations, in the end, say more about themselves than the object of their ire.
"It is often as much about the beholder as Hillary," says Bernstein. "Some of this stuff goes deep into some angry people's psyche. It sets off the crazy button."
The Clinton campaign is dismissive of the phenomenon. "Who knows what motivates these people?" says Jay Carson, a spokesman for the campaign. "But they should probably get out more, because if they did, they might realize that people are tired of the divisiveness and destruction in which they engage, and Senator Clinton is winning and they are losing."
But the "*****y quality" and "look at those eyes" type of discourse will likely not stay on the fringes for long. With seemingly rudderless candidates crowding the Republican field, Hillary Clinton is already becoming the party's one galvanizing issue. In the Republican primary, she has hovered like a specter over every debate, with candidates intoning her name like an incantation to wake the slumbering Republican base. (Republican candidates and debate moderators uttered her name forty-three times over the course of the October 21 contest in Orlando.)
Without a consensus-building Republican candidate to energize the party in 2008, the down-with-Hillary battle cry appears to be the best they have. The frothing and stomping of the haters tills the GOP landscape for mainstream institutions like the Republican National Committee, which has already sent out scores of e-mails to reporters skewering Hillary with hater-lite headings like "Hillary Hypocrisy" and "4 More Years of Clinton?" which asserts, "The Clintons haven't changed one bit since the 1990s."
But perhaps the oddest aspect of the whole hater phenomenon is that for all the voodoo dolls and barf bags, Hillary Hammers, and unrestrained spewing of anti-Hillary vitriol, many of the most active practitioners in the movement refuse to count themselves among the ranks of the haters. On the one hand, the last thing they want is to give the Clinton campaign an excuse to dismiss them as an army of lunatics lurking in the margins (even though many of them happen to be lunatics lurking in the margins). But the denial is also tinged with a shame that suggests some awareness of just how confounding and irrational these emotions are.
In his office in Dallas, Collins sits in front of a raindrop-beaded picture window that looks north onto the flat expanses of Texas and, beyond that, to an America he believes and hopes swells with anti-Hillary malice.
"In the end," he says, "we'll have a pretty substantial nationwide network of Hillary haters."
He stops himself.
"I shouldn't say haters."
quote:
Originally posted by HoneySuckle
I would like to know specifically why so many people hate her please.
I hear stupid things that don't make sense to me, so figured it was best to let some of you vent here.
I don't hate her. I just think she is not genuine. She brushes off dishonesty too easy.
Mrs. Clinton speaks well and probably means well, but I perceive a hunger for power, more than an honest drive to make things better. She panders to people. She has not offered one solution that has a sound financial strategy behind it. She simply promises to give people stuff.
The lack of honesty is reflected in the people the Clintons have surrounded themselves with, and the turmoil that follows them.
For instance Hillary just fired Patti Solis Doyle this weekend. I had forgotten that name, but it sounded familiar so I looked her up. She was the woman that the Secret Service detained for removing and destroying documents from Vince Fosters office after the discovery of his body. She denied the charges, even though several Secret Service agents witnessed the removal by her, of a stack of files from his office, and she had signed into the office building that night.
If you peer into the people hovering around the Clintons you find some scary folks.
I know that we Americans have a wonderful way of demonizing people based on conjecture, and our leaders are our favorite targets, but she (and Bill) have been legitimately surrounded with felons and aids that are willing to face prison to distort or destroy documents. What could be so damaging that people are willing to be imprisoned, or die?
I can't hate her because there is no basis for that, but distrust, yes, I cannot lend her any trust.
quote:
Originally posted by HoneySuckle
I would like to know specifically why so many people hate her please.
1) Many supporters are a cult of the personality, for Bill. Bill had the good times rolling, he was charismatic, likable, and damn it if he wasn't good looking. But we aren't voting for Bill, so I resent this level of support to some degree.
2) Additional supporters vote for her because she is a woman. Just as I think it is wrong to vote for someone because they have a penis, I think it's wrong to vote for someone because they don't (or any other sex, race, orientation, ethnic or in most instance religious criteria [I understand religion often represents a persons values so it is more understandable]).
3) Hillary herself consistently bends the truth. "35 Years of Service" going back to law school. Including service when she banked $250,000+ a year in the early 1980's working as a corporate lawyer and serving on major Boards (read: not community service). She misrepresents and takes quotes out of context and/or sends other's to do so for her. While somewhat expected in politics she then gives speeches talking about getting integrity in the White House.
4) No tears for dead soldiers, no tears for her dead constituents on 911, no tears when her marriage is on the ropes... but when her campaign is having trouble she cries every other week. Thus, she is either manipulative or self centered - take your pick.
5) Her actions and history have given me an earnest belief that Hillary is in it for Hillary. I believe she wants to win to make history and to gain power, not to try to improve the nation (other's I disagree with I feel still have an honest desire to improve things). From her fake southern accent, to renowned political hit squads sent after rivals, to moving to a state she has few connections with to get elected - she'll do anything for power.
6) I disagree with her on most of her positions. Over the course of her political career I have disagreed with the vast majority of her initiatives and they have repeatedly proven to be ineffective. What's more, she has accomplished nothing in her political career starting with her failures in Hillary Care and on to her current do-nothing term in the Senate.
Proposed initiatives include $5,000 per child born (presumably borrowed from China and repaid with interest in federal taxes when the kid grows up), wage garnishments to pay for mandatory government health care, and slowing down the economy to stop global warming. I disagree.
7) That is to say I disagree with her positions when she gives them. Thus far she has taken a firm stance on few things. On those issues she has been forced to give her opinion on she has failed to give any detail, purpose, or method of accomplishment. No talk of how to fix social security, Medicaid, the tax system, what an appropriate size for the military... and when she does give details (as mentioned above) I strongly disagree with her method (and frequently her end goal).
- - -
In my opinion, Hillary is a populist who will say whatever suits the current audience to get elected. She stands on no principles of her own but for getting Hillary elected. Economically she is a stout socialist that in spite of her vast personal wealth wants to take more of my earnings away. I dislike her personally, I disagree with her politics, and I feel she is dishonest and only interested in Hillary.
Specific enough? [:P]
Gaspar, we just finished with two terms of a man who could have been described the same way with his own criminal conspiracies surrounding him and his administration. You have to go beyond those types of criticisms because any politician or successful businessman lives in a spider web of dubious connections.
In my experience even though they say so, few men like strong women. They get jobs and promotions that we think we should have, they exert authority over us as children in the home and the schools. They can't build things as well as us and yet they seem to be smarter. They laugh at us when in groups of other women. They withold our dearest activities on a whim and most importantly, they just won't listen to us! Secretly, we know they are a superior design when it comes to family responsibilities, social graces, and the ability to tolerate pain and it irritates us to no end. The last real place we can hold them back is in politics and we won't give it up easily!
Real men don't hate Hillary personally, they hate her because they see in her all of those things present in one person who happens to be Democratic. I can't speak for why a woman would hate her.
I suspect the obsessive dislike for Hillary Clinton has less to do with her politics-if her agenda figures into it at all. No, i think it's a personal thing, an emotional thing.
quote:
Originally posted by waterboy
Gaspar, we just finished with two terms of a man who could have been described the same way with his own criminal conspiracies surrounding him and his administration. You have to go beyond those types of criticisms because any politician or successful businessman lives in a spider web of dubious connections.
In my experience even though they say so, few men like strong women. They get jobs and promotions that we think we should have, they exert authority over us as children in the home and the schools. They can't build things as well as us and yet they seem to be smarter. They laugh at us when in groups of other women. They withold our dearest activities on a whim and most importantly, they just won't listen to us! Secretly, we know they are a superior design when it comes to family responsibilities, social graces, and the ability to tolerate pain and it irritates us to no end. The last real place we can hold them back is in politics and we won't give it up easily!
Real men don't hate Hillary personally, they hate her because they see in her all of those things present in one person who happens to be Democratic. I can't speak for why a woman would hate her.
You may have a point. I think some dislike her because she is a strong woman, but that doesn't change the fact that Man/Woman/Martian, she is dishonest. I personally am attracted to strong women, and would love to see a woman president! That barrier needs to be broken, but not JUST for the sake of breaking it.
I don't believe Bush was a particularly successful president. I think he did a good job of handling a tough administration during difficult times, but the demonization of Bush is senseless because it is based on nothing but conjecture and emotion. If anything, I think Bush was a fiscal liberal and who was socially too conservative. Therefore he was not my ideal president. The only thing I truly admire about him is that he did exactly what he said he was going to do, polls be damned. I admire that rare form of determination, others hate it.
The wild accusations and conspiracies are rather farcical to me, so don't sink to that level.
quote:
Originally posted by waterboy
Gaspar, we just finished with two terms of a man who could have been described the same way with his own criminal conspiracies surrounding him and his administration. You have to go beyond those types of criticisms because any politician or successful businessman lives in a spider web of dubious connections.
In my experience even though they say so, few men like strong women. They get jobs and promotions that we think we should have, they exert authority over us as children in the home and the schools. They can't build things as well as us and yet they seem to be smarter. They laugh at us when in groups of other women. They withold our dearest activities on a whim and most importantly, they just won't listen to us! Secretly, we know they are a superior design when it comes to family responsibilities, social graces, and the ability to tolerate pain and it irritates us to no end. The last real place we can hold them back is in politics and we won't give it up easily!
Real men don't hate Hillary personally, they hate her because they see in her all of those things present in one person who happens to be Democratic. I can't speak for why a woman would hate her.
Unfortunately, it's very personal with some of them, in fact personal to the point of some quasi-psychotic obsession.
quote:
Originally posted by HoneySuckle
I would like to know specifically why so many people hate her please.
I hear stupid things that don't make sense to me, so figured it was best to let some of you vent here.
Perhaps the better question is why people believe she is presidential material or why people "love " her...
I don't like her politics. But I really question her integrity....
"Likewise, Democrats must firmly oppose any shenanigans regarding delegates from Michigan and Florida. The party and the candidates all agreed that the delegates coming out of those states would not be seated. Unringing that bell after the fact and by fiat would be an outrage. We have only two legitimate options when it comes to Florida and Michigan: either we stick by the original agreement. Or we organize new elections in those states this summer in which both the Obama and Clinton campaigns can evenly compete. "
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ari-emanuel/my-brother-the-superdeleg_b_85924.html
Hillary has no integrity after seeing her promise neutrality in Florida then claiming victory there.
Integrity is something you have or don't have. There is no in between on that.
Interesting reading. Thanks for giving me your opinions.
Hillary is a strong woman, one with "cajones" and there are men who have a problem with that.
quote:
Originally posted by HoneySuckle
Interesting reading. Thanks for giving me your opinions.
Hillary is a strong woman, one with "cajones" and there are men who have a problem with that.
Is that why she fired her chairwoman but left all Bill's boys in her campaign office?
HoneySuckle seems to think this is a sex based hate. I don't believe that is the case. I think the folks to dislike Senator Clinton do so because they do not trust her (based on actions in the past) and they think she simply pandors to her followers rather than actually wanting to make a difference for them.
quote:
Originally posted by HoneySuckle
Interesting reading. Thanks for giving me your opinions.
Hillary is a strong woman, one with "cajones" and there are men who have a problem with that.
Actually, it's the "vast, right wing conspiracy" that worked in the travel office and who are named after the first person who conquered Everest that are against Hillary
quote:
Originally posted by guido911
quote:
Originally posted by HoneySuckle
Interesting reading. Thanks for giving me your opinions.
Hillary is a strong woman, one with "cajones" and there are men who have a problem with that.
Actually, it's the "vast, right wing conspiracy" that worked in the travel office and who are named after the first person who conquered Everest that are against Hillary
Edmund?
quote:
Originally posted by izmophonik
quote:
Originally posted by guido911
quote:
Originally posted by HoneySuckle
Interesting reading. Thanks for giving me your opinions.
Hillary is a strong woman, one with "cajones" and there are men who have a problem with that.
Actually, it's the "vast, right wing conspiracy" that worked in the travel office and who are named after the first person who conquered Everest that are against Hillary
Edmund?
Yup. I know you know that, according to Hillary Clinton, she was named after Sir Edmund Hillary (even though he did not climb Everest and thus become famous until after she was born...).
I think the so-called Hillary hatred is way overstated.
That said, I think the reason Obama is doing so well lately is simply because he's a more talented politician than Hillary.
Back in Illinois, a fellow I knew who was tight in Democratic circles told me about him when he was a nobody in 2003 and that I'd better keep an eye on him ... that he was going places and the skies were the limit.
Needless to say, I was skeptical about a fellow with an African name winning over the Land of Lincoln. But he did it -- he was getting votes not only in usual strongholds like Chicago, but from dirt farmers downstate who'd rarely ever see a black man.
My wife says Obama is "Senator Paul Simon with charisma." Anyone who knows anything about Illinois politics knows that is high praise indeed.
That doesn't mean Obama's going to win the nomination, but the fact he's overcome so much of Clinton's immense name recognition speaks volumes about how well-run his campaign has been.
I suppose the simple answer is that there are male chauvenist pigs who hate Hillary Clinton because she's a woman. Or that "them thar femi-nazis" will support her no matter what...
For me, I think she's a sellout (follow the money), and I really don't like the idea of being "triangulated" again...
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap_campaignplus/20080213/ap_ca/on_deadline_clinton_7;_ylt=AjcYr4Skvboz5RJo9VoHn59h24cA
Chickens come home to roost By RON FOURNIER, Associated Press Writer
Obama has won 23 of 35 contests, earning the majority of delegates awarded on the basis of election results. The remaining 796 delegates are elected officials and party leaders whose votes are not tied to state primaries or caucuses; thus, they are dubbed "superdelegates."
And they are not all super fans of the Clintons.
Some are labor leaders still angry that Bill Clinton championed the North American Free Trade Agreement as part of his centrist agenda.
Some are social activists who lobbied unsuccessfully to get him to veto welfare reform legislation, a talking point for his 1996 re-election campaign.
Some served in Congress when the Clintons dismissed their advice on health care reform in 1993. Some called her a bully at the time.
Some are DNC members who saw the party committee weakened under the Clintons and watched President Bush use the White House to build up the Republican National Committee.
Some are senators who had to defend Clinton for lying to the country about his affair with Monica Lewinsky.
Some are allies of former Vice President Al Gore who still believe the Lewinsky scandal cost him the presidency in 2000.
Some are House members (or former House members) who still blame Clinton for Republicans seizing control of the House in 1994.
Some are donors who paid for the Clintons' campaigns and his presidential library.
Some are folks who owe the Clintons a favor but still feel betrayed or taken for granted. Could that be why Bill Richardson, a former U.N. secretary and energy secretary in the Clinton administration, refused to endorse her even after an angry call from the former president? "What," Bill Clinton reportedly asked Richardson, "isn't two Cabinet posts enough?"
And some just want something new. They appreciate the fact that Clinton was a successful president and his wife was an able partner, but they never loved the couple as much as they feared them.
The Politics of Parsing
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qggO5yY7RAo
The ick factor! You will see this reprinted here at TNF but no other publication in Tulsa...
A Flawed Feminist Test
By MAUREEN DOWD
Published: February 13, 2008
WASHINGTON
Skip to next paragraph
Fred R. Conrad/The New York Times
Maureen Dowd
Go to Columnist Page » Russell Berman, a young reporter for The New York Sun, trailed Bill Clinton around Maryland all day Sunday. The former president was on his best behavior, irritating the smattering of press.
After Bill's last speech at Leisure World retirement community in Silver Spring, Berman interviewed two women in the audience.
Elaine Sirkis, 77, an Obama supporter, confided that she just isn't sure she's ready for a woman president. Betty Conway, 83, a Hillary supporter, confided that she just isn't sure she's ready for a black president.
As Conway walked away, Sirkis smiled sheepishly. "I'm sorry," she told Berman sweetly about her friend. "She's a bigot."
We're not just in the most vertiginous election of our lives. We're in another national seminar on gender and race that is teaching us about who we are as we figure out what we want America to be.
It's not yet clear which prejudice will infect the presidential contest more — misogyny or racism.
Many women I talk to, even those who aren't particularly fond of Hillary, feel empathy for her, knowing that any woman in a world dominated by men has to walk a tightrope between femininity and masculinity, strength and vulnerability.
They see double standards they hate — when male reporters described Hillary's laugh as "a cackle" or her voice as "grating," when Rush Limbaugh goes off on her wrinkles or when male pundits seem gleeful to write her political obituary. Several women I know, who argue with their husbands about Hillary, refer with a shudder to the "Kill the Witch" syndrome.
In a webcast, prestidigitator Penn Jillette talks about a joke he has begun telling in his show. He thinks the thunderous reaction it gets from audiences shows that Hillary no longer has a shot.
The joke goes: "Obama is just creaming Hillary. You know, all these primaries, you know. And Hillary says it's not fair, because they're being held in February, and February is Black History Month. And unfortunately for Hillary, there's no White ***** Month."
Of course, jokes like that — even Jillette admits it's offensive — are exactly what may give Hillary a shot. When the usually invulnerable Hillary seems vulnerable, many women, even ones who don't want her to win, cringe at the idea of seeing her publicly humiliated — again.
And since women — and some men — tend to be more protective when she is down, it is impossible to rule out a rally, especially if voters start to see Obama, after his eight-contest rout, as that maddening archetypal figure: the glib golden boy who slides through on charm and a smile.
Those close to Hillary say she's feeling blue. It's an unbearable twist of fate to spend all those years in the shadow of one Secretariat, only to have another gallop past while you're plodding toward the finish line.
I know that the attacks against powerful women can be harsh and personal and unfair, enough to make anyone cry.
But Hillary is not the best test case for women. We'll never know how much of the backlash is because she's a woman or because she's this woman or because of the ick factor of returning to the old Clinton dysfunction.
While Obama aims to transcend race, Hillary often aims to use gender to her advantage, or to excuse mistakes. In 1994, after her intransigence and secrecy-doomed health care plan, she told The Wall Street Journal that she was "a gender Rorschach test."
"If somebody has a female boss for the first time, and they've never experienced that," she said, "well, maybe they can't take out their hostility against her so they turn it on me."
As a possible first Madame President, Hillary is a flawed science experiment because you can't take Bill out of the equation. Her story is wrapped up in her marriage, and her marriage is wrapped up in a series of unappetizing compromises, arrangements and dependencies.
Instead of carving out a separate identity for herself, she has become more entwined with Bill. She is running bolstered by his record and his muscle. She touts her experience as first lady, even though her judgment during those years on issue after issue was poor. She says she's learned from her mistakes, but that's not a compelling pitch.
As a senator, she was not a leading voice on important issues, and her Iraq vote was about her political viability.
She told New York magazine's John Heilemann that before Iowa taught her that she had to show her soft side, "I really believed I had to prove in this race from the very beginning that a woman could be president and a woman could be commander in chief. I thought that was my primary mission."
If Hillary fails, it will be her failure, not ours. "
quote:
Originally posted by izmophonik
HoneySuckle seems to think this is a sex based hate. I don't believe that is the case. I think the folks to dislike Senator Clinton do so because they do not trust her (based on actions in the past) and they think she simply pandors to her followers rather than actually wanting to make a difference for them.
Yes, I do believe some of it is gender based because of the people I have talked to (older males/females) who are really upset to think that a woman MIGHT be president.
I do understand though that for some it is about trust, but which politician can anyone trust?
As for pandering to her followers, don't they all do that?
I don't believe I've ever responded to a political posting here or anywhere.
In my opinion, we are all looking at this from the wrong side. As much as I've read and watched on TV or heard on radio, I haven't heard anyone bring this point up.
It IS a matter of gender. My concern would not be what I think about a woman president, or if what I think is PC or not. The real issue nobody is talking about is that this female would represent our country to the world. That might fly is Israel, Canada, France, or even South America (to a lesser degree) - but with our Muslim rivals this represents a giant problem.
The biggest problem is that our standing in the world has changed. We are viewed as bullies and invaders. This is a problem we need to fix. Would having a female hurt us more with those groups that oppress women in their own countries? Would muslim leaders actually seriously sit down with a female to discuss political and cultural issues? Women are viewed as a little more than property in those cultures.
Why is nobody talking about this? Wouldn't this be an issue? I've heard plenty of people say, "The world hates us because of Bush!" Maybe rightfully so - but would the world love us more because of Hillary? Or less?
Having a woman president may be cool to us - but we are not the world.
Interesting question, restored.
I guess my response would be to those who object to a female commander-in-chief would be this:
Grow up.
Religions HAVE to change with the times, or else they eventually get consigned to the dustbin of history.
If a female commander-in-chief forces fundamentalists around the world to rethink or reconsider beliefs, all the better. It's been sorely needed, anyway.
And it's not like Hillary, if she's elected, would be the first. Maggie Thatcher was running Britain 20 years ago, and it seemed that many nations then were mature enough at the time to handle it. I don't see why things would be any different.
But we are One World....one love ..... let's get together and, for a change, feel alright!
What the Muslim world feels about women is their problem...period. Did we feel that electing an actor to president, twice, was thumbing our noses at Russia who had no real film industry?![:D] Seriously, no pandering to other countries needs or wants should enter into who we choose to lead.
That sounds awfully "ugly American" and ethnocentric. We expect the other cultures of the world to adopt our worldview because we see them as immature?
Will that be our official foreign policy? Grow up, Iraq. Grow up, Iran. Grow up, Saudi Arabia. Grow up, North Korea. Grow up, China. Grow up, Indonesia. Grow up, Africa.
Isn't that kinda like the missionaries having bush women wear bras and such?
Can we really expect respect and progress from people who arrest and kill women for appearing in public with a male who is not a family member? Or....
Nevermind.
I'm confused with your response. I don't expect other cultures fo the world to adopt our view at all. Our foreign policy is totally separate from our decision to elect a woman or a minority to lead us. If thats ethnocentric, then I don't know how. We simply don't consult with Europe or the Middle East when deciding who to lead us even if they are offended by it. Why would we? For heavens sake our Secretary of State is a black woman! If they can live with that I think we're okay.
<restored2x wrote:
We expect the other cultures of the world to adopt our worldview because we see them as immature?
<end clip>
Yes.
If they see that we have our share of female leaders and that we're an internally peaceful and prosperous country, then yes, it might occur to them that perhaps they've taken the wrong attitude on things. It happens. It's called learning, and it's called maturity.
Why do I not like shrillary clinton........hmmmm....
Let me count the ways.......
http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/individualProfile.asp?indid=18
http://www.jeremiahproject.com/trashingamerica/progressive.html
http://www.usasurvival.org/ck061903.shtml
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=39205
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID=4C151402-CBE7-4262-BD0E-B82F089869BA
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID=9BCFFE58-D625-4F47-8303-2DC11C2E682B
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID=932EDCB4-160B-4F28-B856-304EB24161BF
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID=4FF4B454-D5C0-4941-B357-19C6C96E6F5C
This is just a sample. There is plenty more if you would like.
I'm certainly open to listening to another point of view, if there is one.
Vlad Putin weighs in:
http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0208/Putin_vs_Clinton.html
I neglected to add that she really is rather photogenic.......
shrillary pics (//%22http://www.zombietime.com/really_truly_hillary_gallery/%22)
quote:
Authored by the Marxist/Maoist theoretician Carl Oglesby, who was a leader of the radical Students for a Democratic Society, this piece defended Ho Chi Minh, Fidel Castro, and Maoist tactics of violence....Hillary later said that the Motive article had played a key role in her metamorphosis from Goldwater Republican in 1964 to leftist Democrat in 1968. During her years as First Lady of the United States, Mrs. Clinton would tell a Newsweek reporter that she still treasured the Oglesby piece.
Wow, thanks for the links Wingnut.
I prefer the pics of McCaint hugging Dumbya. Far more destructive in the general election. At least Billary together looks somewhat democratic.
Save us Barack! Let's go Ohio or Pennsylvania!
quote:
Originally posted by cannon_fodder
quote:
Authored by the Marxist/Maoist theoretician Carl Oglesby, who was a leader of the radical Students for a Democratic Society, this piece defended Ho Chi Minh, Fidel Castro, and Maoist tactics of violence....Hillary later said that the Motive article had played a key role in her metamorphosis from Goldwater Republican in 1964 to leftist Democrat in 1968. During her years as First Lady of the United States, Mrs. Clinton would tell a Newsweek reporter that she still treasured the Oglesby piece.
Wow, thanks for the links Wingnut.
That was great..
Putin vs. Clinton
http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0208/Putin_vs_Clinton.html
quote:
Wow, thanks for the links Wingnut.
Your certainly welcome.
While I'm not a big Obama fan, this is troubling...
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=56293
For a history lesson...
che info (//%22http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/individualProfile.asp?indid=2054%22)
This is going to be one heck of an election!
quote:
Originally posted by Wingnut
quote:
Wow, thanks for the links Wingnut.
Your certainly welcome.
While I'm not a big Obama fan, this is troubling...
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=56293
For a history lesson...
che info (//%22http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/individualProfile.asp?indid=2054%22)
This is going to be one heck of an election!
Please, recognize the junk you are receiving, whether in emails and internet talk boards (anonymous), or in the airwaves (dominated by conservative infrastructure), as the manipulative misinformation and misdirection that it is.
You're not welcome....would be the appropriate phrasing.
OK, this is just plain funny...I don't care who you're for, you have to see the humor in it!
(http://members.cox.net/tulsamini/sign.jpg)
quote:
Hillary is a strong woman, one with "cajones" and there are men who have a problem with that.
?? Strong in what way? What has she done that shows she's "strong"? If she had some groinage, she would let her thesis and tax records be released. Let's see the real hillary clinton.
Please...the law does not require that politicians disclose their income tax records. If she is the nominee, she will release the tax records.
There is plenty of time. In 2000, Dick Cheney didn't release his until mid-September...or you could do it like Mitt Romney and hide millions of dollars in a blind trust.
Uh huh.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/15/opinion/15fri1.html?ref=opinion
Editorial
Show Us the Money
Published: February 15, 2008
As the presidential campaign narrows and its costs skyrocket, detailed disclosure of financial resources becomes ever more important. Of the leading contenders, so far, only Senator Barack Obama has released his full income-tax returns — a level of disclosure once routine for candidates after the political corruption of Watergate.
Release of the tax returns should not be made conditional on winning the nomination, as Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton has made it. Both Senator John McCain, the Republican front-runner, and she owe it to their parties and to voters to promptly make available their Internal Revenue Service filings, and to respond to any questions about them. It is true that as senators, Mrs. Clinton and Mr. McCain are required to file financial disclosure forms. But those forms present only general parameters of family financial resources, not the detail available on tax returns.
The need for greater transparency regarding the income and overall financial dealings of candidates and their spouses was underscored by Mrs. Clinton's recent decision to make a $5 million loan to her campaign. Such borrowing is a permitted practice under the campaign laws. But the campaign said the money came from her share of the Clintons' joint resources, and that calls attention to the lack of information about their family finances. As a former president, Bill Clinton has been making millions annually giving speeches and traveling the globe. What is publicly known about his business dealings is sketchy, and clearer disclosure of them is required to reassure voters that Mrs. Clinton's candidacy is unencumbered by hidden entanglements.
In the same spirit, the Clintons are obliged to make prompt disclosure of the major donors who have been backing the former president's library and foundation. It is not even clear whether Mr. Clinton would disclose his library's donors if his wife won the White House.
------------------------------------------------
Hey, I'm from Illinois (which makes me biased for Obama) but I see a huge difference between the two...... Hillary touts her experience, but what did she accomplish in her self-proclaimed "35 years of experience?" Do we in this country have the "Managed Care" solutions that were "championed" by Bill & Hillary Clinton over the more radical "single payer"??? No, we don't. And what is the legacy of the Clintons on health care? My memories from the 90s involve being offered to extend my health insurance through "COBRA" in-between jobs.... a very aptly named program.
---And when it comes to one of several issues that mean alot to me -- not passing off the federal deficit onto unsuspecting future generations of kids... well....
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/13/AR2008021303635.html?nav=rss_politics
Candidates' Earmarks Worth Millions
Of Front-Runners, McCain Abstained
By Paul Kane
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, February 14, 2008; Page A01
Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton helped secure more than $340 million worth of home-state projects in last year's spending bills, placing her among the top 10 Senate recipients of what are commonly known as earmarks, according to a new study by a nonpartisan budget watchdog group.
Working with her New York colleagues in nearly every case, Clinton supported almost four times as much spending on earmarked projects as her rival for the Democratic presidential nomination, Sen. Barack Obama (Ill.), whose $91 million total placed him in the bottom quarter of senators who seek earmarks, the study showed.
Sen. John McCain (Ariz.), the likely GOP presidential nominee, was one of five senators to reject earmarks entirely, part of his long-standing view that such measures prompt needless spending.........
I don't have a problem voting for a female president... I have a problem voting for this particular female.
Bogus stat...
Sometimes one Senator will do all the heavy lifting. Last year Coburn did zero, Inhofe did $146 million.
Hillary's efforts work out to $17 per New York resident. Inhofe's was over $41 per Oklahoman.
Obama has only been in the Senate for three years and has been busy running for President for more than half of those. I could say he has forgot the people who elected him because he has been selfish.
quote:
I don't have a problem voting for a female president... I have a problem voting for this particular female.
Agreed. I perfer a man as president, unless there is a very good female candidate. The only real woman to seek a nomination that I would vote for is Liz Dole. She puts chillary to shame.
Liz Dole bio (//%22http://www.elizabethdole.org/biography.htm%22)
I believe she would make a very good female president.
Hey Ruf, isn't Hillary a Chicago native?
It's going to be hard to find a candidate without some sort of weird entanglement these days. Hillary and Bill owe favors all around the globe. McCain's been around long enough there are plenty of special interests he will do bidding for whether he admits to it or not.
That's where Obama is going to have an edge on McCain or Hillary- he's fresh enough that the casual voter will consider him "least tainted" amongst candidates.
Out of the three I trust McCain the most. At least he's got a long enough voting record in the Senate to see where he really stands. I have not seen him back track nor flip-flop on anything significant.
Obama has shown very, very little other than being a Democrat party sock puppet. Stats in WaPo show he's missed 38% of votes in the current Congress. I guess I'm still miffed by some upstart who runs for President after two years as an un-distinguished Jr. Senator from Illinois. (I wasn't born when Kennedy was elected).
ChEnge.....
I do not know if this has been discussed, but here is a Hillary aide basically stating that Obama's victories are irrelevant.
http://youdecide08.foxnews.com/2008/02/16/top-clinton-adviser-says-superdelegates-will-decide-election-obamas-victories-irrelevant/
This is absolutely delicious.