Reply #46: She was the first lady of Arkansas.

[Lyric]

Arkansas and Wal-Mart go together like peanut butter and jelly. Bashing her for being nice to Wal-Mart is about as naive and illogical as bashing the first lady of West Virginia for being buddies with the coal industry. I don't know what kind of idealistic planet you're living in, but here in the Really Real World, this is not exactly rocket science to understand. Governors and their spouses would be crucified and promptly kicked out of office for NOT supporting the major corporations and industries of their respective states. Do you think Obama supported the ridiculous ethanol industry any less as an Illinois legislator and national Senator?

The rest of your rant is nothing more than highly prejudiced conjecture and sour grapes--which is sad, considering that your candidate has all but won. The Repukes are the reason Hillary's healthcare reform failed--or have you conveniently forgotten that while spouting their talking points about her here at DU?

She'd be a terrific candidate for the SCOTUS because the Repukes can't filibuster her as "too liberal". Our own party has spent the past year bashing her for not being liberal ENOUGH, so that justification on their part has practically no credibility. That would make her easy to get through the confirmation process.

More importantly, Supreme Court justices (unlike Senators, governors, first ladies, and legislators) are beholden to NO-ONE but We The People for their jobs. And even then, we can't fire them unless they've committed some gross negligence or behaved in a provably corrupt manner. Remember David Souter--hailed as a conservative until he got to the bench and was suddenly free to rule his conscience, rather than in favor of corporate interests? He's become one of our most reliably liberal justices. The Supreme Court tends to bring out the "extremes" in its justices, because they have nothing to lose by indulging their truest beliefs when making their rulings. Clinton is a practical realist out of necessity of keeping herself in office as a legislator, but as a SCOTUS justice, the necessity of kow-towing to lobbyists and corporate interests in order to keep your job is not longer a factor.

What it comes down to is whether she really BELIEVES in the corporatist crap, or whether she does it (like all other legislators and Senators do it) because she feels like she has to in order to get elected. I think she does it because she has to, and if she didn't have to, we'd see an entirely different and far more liberal Hillary Clinton. You might not believe in her. That doesn't bother me a bit. I think your candidate believes in her, though--he's a lot smarter than DU'ers give him credit for, and a lot more realistic too.