Hillary's positions on War and Authority

I'm also a New Yorker, and have followed Hillary's career more closely than people outside the state. Her consistent position on war and presidential authority is troubling, not because she's waffled on the war, but because she has clearly demonstrated that what she's for is a Presidency at least as "strong" as the one articulated by W, i.e. an authoritarian President. She voted for war authorization, and against various positions critical of the war early on, and has shaded her criticism even later, because she seems to believe that the President should be nearly absolute in his/her power. That has also been her position on most Presidential appointments, no matter how awful they may be: the President should have the prerogative to name his people and that power should be just about absolute.

The other thing about Hillary: she does not appear to be at all constrained by what is right, or moral, or above-board. She is willing to do almost anything to win the Presidency. If she could successfully spread the lie that Obama is a closet Muslim, brainwashed by that "madrassa" in Indonesia, then she would do so. However, she knows it's better to spread that kind of lie through other mouths. It's amazing how many Hillary supporters still believe this story.

In addition, Hillary is supported by a Changed Bill. Bill was not so willing to be vicious and mean-spirited when he was running for office. Some suggest that he's had a personality change since his major surgery; it's not impossible. In any event, the one thing I respected him for when he was presidential candidate (both times) was his unwillingness to depend upon negative campaigning. Now, it seems, negative campaigning is what he's about.

by Douglas Smyth (17 articles, 4 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 55 comments) on Sunday, March 30, 2008 at 10:20:19 AM
 

Author, and first commenter, both got it right

Hey N.Y. guys,

Thanks for setting the record straight on Hi[l]lary. She is exactly like Bush - she'll say anything, and do anything, to anybody, to get elected, then do whatever the hell she pleases to enhance her own power, and the power of her wealthy elite "friends."  She's got to be one of the most dishonest politicians in our lifetime, which is saying a lot. She is mean, yes! She is devisive, yes!  She is selfish, yes!  She is a liar, yes! She will do anything for money and power, yes! She only cares about promoting Hillary, yes! Wake up America. This woman is dangerous! If you're still not decided how to vote, then try this:  Sit quietly for a few moments and ask yourself this question: "Why would someone who mathmatically CANNOT WIN, legitimately, continue on with her destructive war against her Democratic counterpart?" You might be surprised at what you come up with."

Okay, so Obama's not perfect. Okay, so he may not have years and years of "inside" Washington experience. SO WHAT? He does have the ability to unite, make people feel good about their country again and to bring numerous new folks into the process. And, he is eloquent....which can't be a bad thing when he starts bringing people together, both domestically and internationally, to solve problems that were created by the Hillary-like Bushevics.

At this point, having watched the Clintons for many years, since their adventures in Arkansas, and knowing how much they are like the Bush/Cheney/Rumsfield/Rice/Rockefeller clan, I'd vote for almost anybody to get a change!   And Obama MAY turn out to be another legacy, like JFK, MLK and others....who were taking our country in great directions....until SOMEBODY(?) had them killed.   I only pray it doesn't happen to him!  But I'm concerned it might.

by im4unity (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 45 comments) on Sunday, March 30, 2008 at 1:08:03 PM
 

Honest polarizing is good

Manipulative, cheap, and lying polarization is bad.

by John Hanks (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 1085 comments) on Sunday, March 30, 2008 at 6:33:07 PM