You wrote "I can tell you first hand that she is the most competent of the candidates in the Democratic primary."

Do you have the same sort of "first hand" personal knowledge of the other candidates - like Kucinich for instance?

If not then you've nothing comparable to set against your "first hand" knowledge of Hillary Clinton. Perhaps you'd be recommending Kucinich if you just happened to personally know him better.  Or perhaps you'd be recommending him if you made a hierarchical list of what the most important  policies or positions are for any President and then came back to see who was actually arguing for those. 

I am not an American and will not be voting but a couple of years ago I liked the idea of Hillary as President - I thought it was time for a smart and capable woman President and based on what I'd read she seemed to be at least as capable as her husband.

But I've changed my mind because Hillary from her own mouth did not read the National Intelligence Estimates. Hillary didn't do the important job she had.

The last thing the world needs is another American President that just believes stuff when making good decisions requires not just a capacity to understand complex material but also a willingness to do the actual homework. A National Intelligence Estimate when a country is about to invade another country is not a trivial document to overlook.

Hillary's capacity to do what is most needed now, to impeach Bush to restore the rule of law, is impeded because she dropped the same ball he did only to a lesser extent.  Hillary like Nancy as one of the handful that was supposed to be briefed on intelligence went along with the bandwagon too much when homework and courage might have allowed her to stop harm being done.

The role of the President of the United States does not have the powers of a god but it does consolidate enormous power and that power needs to be used responsibly. It can't be if the person in the role doesn't do their homework. 

In my opinion Hillary has not been a good senator. She should not be promoted. Americans should not be picking their presidents from the least bad of two candidates and that is what is likely to produce a President Hillary Clinton.  

by Brett Paatsch (0 articles, 3 quicklinks, 23 diaries, 1308 comments) on Wednesday, Dec 19, 2007 at 5:06:58 PM

  (0+)

No offence, but this smacks of DLC politics. Nice and casual, with (God forbid) no talk of naughty things like Iraq and global warming and the Bush Police State, just chatting about the personal lives of the Clintons (who gives a s___). This is like an interview on Fox Snooze.

This woman may be your friend and maybe, once upon a time she had some guts, but for the last seven years she's been a clone of George W. Bush. It's like she's an android that's been progrogrammed to do and say NOTHING. She's trying to be the last one standing, but the contempt most liberals feel for her is beyond measure.

If she got some bad advice, so what? She took it. Millions of us have been waitng for years for this woman to do or say ANYTHING.

Bill Clinton was OK (barely -- in spite of his sucking up to Daddy Bush), but Hillary is a politician at the very worst. Yes, she's probably taking the DLC advice to play everything infinitely safe, but do you know what? She's played it SO safe, she doesn't even exist.

Sorry to be so blunt, but this woman is the Democratic Party at it's worst.

If, God forbid, she get elected, there will be ZERO change in the country. All of her policies will continue to suck up to the elites (as her husband is probably doing as we speak). The Clinton's have NOTHING to do with the lower and middle classes. Their religion is to be spiritually dead "politicians". And they do it to perfection. Let's face it, their souls belong to the elites (who they are trying so VERY hard to be themselve).

Agian, I'm struck that your piece, just like Hillary, touchs on NOTHING that has national or internation substance, but I guess that's the beltway thing. Just have parties and talk about marriages and act like the world is perfectly fine.

But it's NOT perfectly fine. Our planet is DYING. Our countryis DYING -- and we're supposed to listen to little tidbits about the possibly ONE time in her life she said something real (when she was in school).

This woman is walking death for America and we're are a thousand times more interested in ozone holes and dying oceans than Bill's zipper.

My GOD do we have our work cut out for us! And to have this political nothing in our face is more life and death challenge for those of us who want to stay in touch with reality. Someone has to!!!

by W. Christopher Epler (Bill) (291 articles, 59 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 767 comments [44 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Wednesday, Dec 19, 2007 at 8:47:41 PM

  (0+)

Let's get right to it:

Look at the tragic words Mr. Drobny used:

She would gain a lot of points by doing that and making herself LOOK LIKE she is her own Woman. The more she CREATES A PERCEPTION of being herself and showing that her Presidency will not be a repeat of Bill's THE MORE CHARMING SHE WILL BE TO THE PRESS AND THE ELECTORATE.

The author's words seem to embody what is so wrong with Hillary Clinton: it's all about "looking like"; it's all about "perception"; it's all about manipulating the press and the electorate. This is NOT the stuff that real leadership is made of. Maybe this advice "sells"; it surely doesn't "lead."

This is not about Bill Clinton. It's not about the right-wing hate machine. It's not about whether Hillary is an "attack candidate" or should appear to be more charming. It's also not about what she did at Wellesley College or her support for George McGovern. If we choose candidates using criteria like these, we deserve all the suffering we get and then some. One might argue it's how we ended up with Bush. "You know, I've heard he's a really good guy to have a beer with."

If we keep judging candidates on personality and perception and poise we will be judging them based on marketing-created, much rehearsed, theatrics. We are rapidly approaching "the urgent times" in this country; we have no margin for more of our electoral foolishness.

Don't measure Hillary or any candidate on the nonsense offered by the MSM. As citizens, we must do better.

Look at a few of Hillary's most critical votes on key issues and then decide.

The author already mentioned two of her most unfortunate votes: she voted for the Iraq War Resolution and she voted for Lieberman/Kyle. These were both tragically wrong votes. Should we overlook Hillary's hawkishness because she's really lovable if you really get to know her? Let's stop distracting the electorate with such trivialities.

And then we had last year's vote on the Feinstein amendment to the Defense Authorization Bill. The amendment sought to bar the sale of cluster bombs to any country that refused to ban their use in heavily populated civilian areas. Cluster bombs frequently do not detonate on impact and far too often have been responsible for the loss of life and limbs in civilian populations. The intent of the amendment was to protect civilians. Hillary joined a handful of right-wing Democrats and every Republican and voted against the amendment. Spin it any way you like, she voted against protecting innocent civilians, i.e. men, women and children, from these deadly weapons. Let's see her charm the press and the electorate while she explains that one.

But perhaps most disturbing was Hillary's refusal to acknowledge the problem of big money in Washington. I won't take the time to research her exact words but the essence of her comment was that there really is no connection in her mind between how Senators vote and the big money that backs their campaigns. Think about that. If the American people could only bring about one change on one issue, I can think of nothing more important than restoring power to the American people by severing the link between the corporate money pump and our elected "representatives." For Hillary, it's apparently a non-issue.

Our runaway defense spending, our pursuit of empire, our relentless grab for oil at any cost are all killing the last vestiges of hope in the country. The power behind that agenda and the money it wields in the halls of Congress are devouring the final table scraps of America's future. This is not about the silly left versus right architecture created for us by the MSM. The problems we face are very deep and very real and we are served a steady diet of horseracing results and "gotcha" politics. It's all total crap. It's not at all clear that we can awaken a new spirit in America that seeks the reforms we need. What is clear is that remaking Hillary's image or getting her elected has nothing to do with getting this country pointed in the right direction.

Mr. Drobny closed his essay by suggesting that Hillary needs "to separate herself from the negative perceptions of the Clinton years which has made invisible all of the good things done during the 90s." Let's take a brief look at one of those "negative perceptions" and try to determine whether we should allow Hillary to "separate" herself from it. During Bill Clinton's entire term in office, sanctions on Iraq, begun during Bush I, were continued. How many innocent Iraqis died from these sanctions? The UN administrator sent to Baghdad to administer the program eventually quit and referred to the program as "genocide." Somewhere between a quarter and a half-million Iraqi CHILDREN died from the sanctions. Overall, perhaps as many as a million Iraqis died. Hillary likes to keep bringing up her experience in the White House. She likes to talk about the key role she played. She likes to highlight the positives. Well, she can't have it both ways. GENOCIDE. A HALF MILLION DEAD CHILDREN. That was Bill Clinton's legacy in Iraq "in the 90s." No, Hillary wasn't in charge. One simple question though: did she speak out against the policy? It's exactly the direction the Lieberman/Kyle amendment is taking us. Sanctions on Iran will kill the weakest in Iranian society. It's an inhumane policy. Real leadership and courage demand that Hillary speak out against yet another threatre of human suffering that Iran may soon become. She won't, of course. Speaking out like that would create the wrong "perception."

by welshTerrier2 (7 articles, 3 quicklinks, 4 diaries, 105 comments) on Thursday, Dec 20, 2007 at 12:07:04 AM

  (0+)

Wonderfully put and I fully agree!  I must admit I had a lingering belief in the Clinton royalty's well-meaning until Bill stuck his finger in the face of a 9-11 truther a few weeks ago and shouted, "How DARE you?" 

How dare we question fantasies that led to over a million people dying?  Do these politicians not read ANYTHING?

 Dennis Kuchinich said he didn't vote for the Patriot Act because he READ IT!

 Apparently no one else did.  Just getting that anthrax in the mail was enough to scare almost all of Congress. And now it's started against Dennis. His brother dying was no accident, believe me. No more than JFK, JFK, Jr, MLK or Paul Wellstone was an accident...  These scumbags we have in power (and I'm including Hillary in that bunch) will kill anyone who really presents a threat to their hierachy. 

 I hold no hope that anything will change.  Americans are sheep, by and large.  The roughly 20% of revolutionaries that formed the Founding Fathers would today be stymied by the much larger weapons King George has at his disposal.   Lacking a full blown violent revolution (I'd like to suggest bombing Faux News as a first salvo) nothing will change.  The economic depression is upon us, millions will be thrown out of their houses and starve slowly to death, and Bush will still 'be fun to have a beer with...'  Cheney will still be smirking.  And it'll be Bush/Clinton/Bush/Bush/Clinton etc. 

 Only Dennis Kuchinich is smart enough and honest enough to start salvaging things. And they'll kill him before they let him take power.  

by Dawn Owens (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 8 comments) on Sunday, Dec 23, 2007 at 1:06:01 PM

  (0+)

Admittedly, I was a huge supporter of Bill Clinton. I remember a great economy and a budget surplus - and to be honest, times were good.

Then, almost four years ago I began studying politics, here and abroad. I noted that it was Bush Sr. that started the initiative to pass NAFTA, and it was Bill Clinton that finally got the measure passed. NAFTA and CAFTA have been instrumental in wrecking havoc on the "average American", and no matter how good the economy was on his watch, it took years for the issue of NAFTA to impact our country - and its impact has been disastrous!

For that reason alone, the Clintons are dead to me as a viable option, and electing Hillary Clinton is only making sure that we have more of the same separation of the classes - rich and poor.

Nope, as much as I respect Bill Clinton and his diplomatic skills, their coziness with Bush Sr. is enough for me to realize that the Democrats and Republicans are one in the same on the core issues we need to change.

William Cormier

by William Cormier (152 articles, 11 quicklinks, 21 diaries, 420 comments [9 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Thursday, Dec 20, 2007 at 7:39:24 AM

  (0+)

Hillary Clinton, in her political career including as First Lady, has never seen any American-led war or war appropriation she didn't support.  She has even criticized Bush for not having enough troops in Iraq.  For this reason alone, all supporters of peace should oppose her.  A vote for Clinton is a vote for endless war, endless killing, and endless "defense" expenditures.  Every time we kill or maim innocent civilians, we create more anti-American sentiment around the world and help the real terrorists in their recruiting efforts.

by Ray Smith (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 18 comments [2 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Thursday, Dec 20, 2007 at 11:07:29 AM

  (0+)

Hillary has friends in high places.

 Just don't think the average joe will get to meet them or share in their profits.  

Corruption In charity and politics, Clinton donors overlap 31.3 million single donor donation ?? etc etc etc

 ORIGINAL ARTICLE =

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22335754/

by DanielleClarke (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 18 comments) on Thursday, Dec 20, 2007 at 12:26:49 PM

  (0+)

Now I understand how Air America got to be such an ethical mess with Drobny at the helm.  The man thinks it's all about spin; he thinks that with the right sales pitch proressives will vote for Hillary against our own best interests.  And he still makes his money shilling shady investment schemes, second mortgages and quack medical cures.  Drobny thinks Hillary's "ethics" are just fine, because he has none himself.

by JonmarkP (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 111 comments [13 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Thursday, Dec 20, 2007 at 5:38:59 PM

  (0+)

FOR ONE THING (GLOOGLE THE CLINTONS BODY COUNT.) THEN NEXT DO A HILLARY CFR SEARCH. THEN DO A (HILLARY GUN CONTROL SEARCH) AND THE LIST GOES ON AN ON. I MY SELF WILL NOT VOTE FOR ANY CANDIDATE THAT IS A MEMBER OF CFR OR ARE FUNDED BY TH TC GLOBALIST. MY CHOICE IS THE ONLY CANDIDATE FOR THE JOB RON PAUL, AND HE IS NOT PERFECT BY I AM NOT EITHER WHAT SAY YOU.

by RICHARD SHADE (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 460 comments) on Friday, Dec 21, 2007 at 5:37:51 AM

  (0+)

Hillary loves to to tell us how many buckets full of experience she has, but she's not much on showing us what is in the buckets.

Bucket #1 is a failed attempt to reform healthcare in the U.S. Buckets #2 through #5 are Travelgate, Whitewater, Rose Law firm and cattlegate. The rest of the buckets are her stint as Senator from New York. Has she voted correctly on any major issue yet? I thought not.

On the positive side, she has learned to work that K Street Rolodex, having been schooled in it by Terry McAuliff, Mark Penn, Howard Wolfson and the rest of her campaign corporatists.

Indeed, it's a resume to rival that of George W. Bush.

by John Sanchez Jr. (9 articles, 0 quicklinks, 25 diaries, 1794 comments [148 recommended, 3 rejected]) on Friday, Dec 21, 2007 at 9:26:48 AM

  (0+)

Mr. Drobny is correct.

Hillary is the best of the candidates and anyone willing to listen to reason can see that. It seems that a lot of people here are haters of the first order -- that's too bad for this democracy.

Yes, of course there are wonderfully idealistic candidates like Kucinich and, to a degree -- a very muddled degree, Mr. Paul, but despite the warmed over FlowerChild optimism, these candidates haven't got a chance -- for whatever reason.

What is with people who cannot see the best in a candidate and choose to make up facts to fit their worst assessment scenario? Hillary is a wonderful person who deserves a chance to restore this country to its rightful place at the roundtable of nations.

None of the others on the Democratic side have what it takes and ALL of them have dark and seamy sides. ALL of them have flaws so big that they will be exploited immeasurably in the fall campaign. Biden, a wonderful man, has a past in politics that will come back to haunt him. Obama, aside from the self-admitted fact of his drug use, is also a hypocrit on so many things (just one example: he has an anti-gay minister campaigning for him and refuses to fire his ass). Dodd is amiable but has been in politics a long time and has a paper trail which will be exploited. ALL of them are similarly flawed and exploitable. The only one who has been through the mill and has nothing left for the Republicans to uncover or tar her with is Hillary.

Stop thinking in  a knee jerk or overly idealistic fashion and get on the bandwagon to win the White House and the Congress with a candidate who CAN win. Hillary!

by fou (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 98 comments) on Sunday, Dec 23, 2007 at 12:39:56 PM

  (0+)

Here we finally see an effort to defend Hillary in this thread. Let's take a careful look at exactly how that defense was presented.

A compelling case for any candidate, it seems to me, should be based, at least for the most part, on that candidate's positions on the issues. We should be told where they want to "take the country." We should be able to understand what issues that candidate considers to be the most important and we should be able to understand that candidate's values and beliefs about those issues.

Having said that, look at the post above by whypc. Look as hard as you possibly can to find even a single time Hillary's position on any issue was used to make a case for her.  Foreign policy? Nope! The economy? Nope! Education? Nope! Electoral reform? Nope! Taxes? Nope! Global warming? Nope! Media concentration? Nope! Lobbyists? Nope! Corporate welfare? Nope! Overseas military bases? Nope! Cluster bombs? Nope! Star wars defense shield? Nope! Bloated military budget? Nope! Mass transit? Nope! Energy policy? Nope! Gay marriage? Nope! Patriot Act? Nope! Balanced budget? Nope!

Was the case presented credible? NOPE!!!!!!!!

What we really have is a post by someone who chose to call other posters a bunch of names. We had "haters." I made a post that focussed on a number of critical issues facing the country and I'm called a "hater." We had "FlowerChild optimism." We had "overly idealistic." Oh, and we even had that classic right-wing phrase:  "knee jerk." Nice name calling.

The problem we face in this country is that most, if not all, national policies are controlled by those who seek to benefit a very narrow segment of American society. If we need to use labels, call them corporatists. Their goal is not to solve the problems of the US and the global community; it's to PROFIT those with power and influence and wealth. While one might create all sorts of nuance beyond the simplicity of "us versus them", the bottom line is that one side caters to Big Defense, Big Pharma, Big Energy, Big Banking and Big Insurance and the other side has the best interests of the American people at heart. It really is that simple.

The argument that "Hillary can win" could not be more vacuous. Are we "FlowerChildren" because we dare to ask "win what?" Hillary is doing very, very, very well with her K Street supporters. Those who think only in terms of "winning" think this is good news; it isn't. Hillary said there is no link between the contributions she receives and her actions in the Congress. Do her supporters believe that only evil Republicans are influenced by the money that keeps them in office? It's laughable.

If you want to make a case for Hillary, then make one. Explain why you are not concerned about her vote on the Iraq War Resolution when she said that she was voting for it because she trusted Bush. Explain why you are not concerned about her saber-rattling support against Iran. Explain why you are not concerned for her failure to speak out against the sanctions on Iraq during the Clinton administration that killed perhaps as many as a million Iraqis including roughly a quarter to a half million children. Explain why you are not concerned about her vote against banning the use of cluster bombs in civilian areas.

If all you've got to offer is "invincibility", you'd better keep looking in the rear view mirror. As Satchel Paige once said, "don't look back; someone might be gaining on you." Hillary foolishly built her campaign around invincibility; the image will be gone in a nano-second once that illusion is shattered. What a shallow premise for a campaign she has offered Americans. It's time we citizens demand real ideas and real values and real answers to the problems confronting us. Our survival and the survival of the nation itself depend on it. Those void of idealism who trade only in the bankrupt currency of winning and losing have nothing to offer Americans but a soulless future.

by welshTerrier2 (7 articles, 3 quicklinks, 4 diaries, 105 comments) on Monday, Dec 24, 2007 at 12:32:10 PM

  (0+)