Who Made Hillary Queen?

[babylonsister]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/05/AR2007100501680.html

Who Made Hillary Queen?

By Geoffrey Wheatcroft
Sunday, October 7, 2007; Page B01

Among so much about American politics that can impress or depress a friendly transatlantic observer, there's nothing more astonishing than this: Why on Earth should Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton be the front-runner for the presidency?

She has now pulled well ahead of Sen. Barack Obama, both in polls and in fundraising. If the Democrats can't win next year, they should give up for good, so she must be considered the clear favorite for the White House. But in all seriousness: What has she ever done to deserve this eminence? How could a country that prides itself on its spirit of equality and opportunity possibly be led by someone whose ascent owes more to her marriage than to her merits?

We all, nations as well as individuals, have difficulty seeing ourselves as others see us. In this case, I doubt that Americans realize how extraordinary their country appears from the outside. In Europe, the supposed home of class privilege and heritable status, we have abandoned the hereditary principle (apart from the rather useful institution of constitutional monarchy), and the days are gone when Pitt the Elder was prime minister and then Pitt the Younger. But Americans find nothing untoward in Bush the Elder being followed by Bush the Younger.

At a time when Americans seem to contemplate with equanimity up to 28 solid years of uninterrupted Bush-Clinton rule, please note that there are almost no political dynasties left in British politics, at least on the Tory side. Admittedly, Hilary Benn, the environmental secretary, is the fourth generation of his family to sit in Parliament and the third to serve in a Labor Party cabinet. But England otherwise has nothing now to match the noble houses of Kennedy, Gore and Bush.

snip//

All in all, "Democracy in America," not to mention equality or feminism in America, can sometimes look very odd from the outside. We've seen Jean Kennedy Smith made ambassador to Dublin (and a disastrous one) because she was famous for being a sister, then Pamela Digby Harriman made ambassador to Paris (and rather a good one) because she was famous for being a socialite.

Now Hillary Rodham Clinton has become a potential president because she is famous for being a wife (and a wronged wife at that). Europe has long since accepted the great 19th-century liberal principle of "the career open to the talents." In the 21st century, isn't it time that the republic founded on the proposition that all men are created equal -- and women, too, one hopes -- also caught up with it?

[ShortnFiery]

1. Some even refer to HRC as "Mama H"

So now she's a Parental figure?

Soon they'll anoint her and a couple years later deem HRC "a saint?" :(

[William769]

3. She's not Catholic.

[ShortnFiery]

4. Hey, they made George Bush, a Methodist, an honorary Catholic, they will with her highness also.

Just as soon as HRC re-iterates that "Abortion is a tragedy" ... or do you all forget that statement? :shrug:

All is NOT as it seems. :(

[William769]

7. Abortion is a tragedy, I agree 100%!

But that doesn't mean that I don't support the right of a woman to have one. Care to show where Hillary ever has?

[ShortnFiery]

9. She will have it both ways and wouldn't bat an eye if abortion is made *very difficult* while

at the same time family planning / contraception is "too expensive" given that we have OUR WARS ON.

[William769]

10. Once again your proof is?

[ShortnFiery]

11. OMG! Look at the absence of her moral compass? Look at the trashed lives of Flowers and Lewinsky?

An adulterous husband is not a victimless crime. If she will lie for her adulterous husband, what will she do for those who give her power and wealth?

Do you honestly believe that HRC will rise above all "the unitary executive" power that BushCo. has gleaned for this branch?

I must let go. But buyers' remorse will find you just like the "thousand yard stares" of the working class republicans who believed that George Bush actually gave a damn about the average hard working wage slave.

We're exchanging Neo-Conservatives for Neo-Liberals and the result will be equally horrific for our country.

I don't know what the answer is because corporations have a stranglehold of our government. But the answer is NOT to put The Executive Branch in the hands of the DLC. :shrug:

[William769]

15. Now that I have given you enough rope.

Hillary's historic statement at the United Nations Conference on Women in Beijing in 1995 that "women's rights are human rights" still echoes worldwide. As a lawyer, advocate, First Lady, and senator, Hillary has fought for issues important to women here at home and around the world for decades.

When it comes to each woman's ability to make the most personal of life decisions, Hillary has stood firm as an advocate for a woman's right to choose. She has expanded access to family planning services, including for low-income women. She spoke out forcefully against the Supreme Court's April 2007 decision that -- for the first time in decades -- failed to recognize the importance of women's health.

Hillary has worked to empower women throughout the world, especially low-income women. She has advocated for access to microfinance programs that enable women to start their own businesses and spoken out strongly against the tragic practice of sex trafficking.

As president, Hillary will continue her lifelong fight to ensure that all Americans are treated with respect and dignity.

http://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/women/

P.S. Your serve.

[ShortnFiery]

18. "all Americans are treated with respect and dignity."

Ask the women who slept with her, then Governor husband, how they were treated by HRC? Ask Ms. Flowers? Ask at least another half dozen former Bill Clinton women lovers whom his campaigns along with her "active participation" intimidated the shit out of less they come forward with the truth.

If HRC's behavior is what you call feminism, I'll have NONE of it. :(

[William769]

23. And what does this have to do with abortion?

Isn't that what we are talking about?

I forgot, you lost that arguement so your trying to move on. Guess what? I'm not going to let you.

[ShortnFiery]

27. No, but I'm proving the point that HRC is no feminist - it's not a leap to conclude

that she will not "fight" to keep Family Planning clinics up and running. Especially with our blessed perpetual wars for the benefit of the Military Industrial Complex. We need more "little people" for cannon fodder. :shrug:

[William769]

29. Lets try to stay on topic.

Prove your point on Hillary and abortion. We are all waiting.

[ShortnFiery]

36. I only have to prove that HRC is like a wind vane - that's common knowledge.

Truth is, you have NO IDEA what HRC and Bill's DLC will do when they gain control of The Executive Branch.

The thought of the above scares the shit out of me while you look at it as the ushering in of "A Golden Clintonian Age."

I guess we'll have to see, with time, which one of us is right.

I honestly hope that your prediction comes true, but I FEAR not. :shrug:

[William769]

37. So then the information you posted about Hillary and abortion was meant to mis lead then.

And I am being very kind in the words I chose to use here.

[ShortnFiery]

40. No, I was taking a "pro-life" stance as I'm Catholic but don't demand everyone believe the same.

What I'm conveying is that there's NOTHING Pro-Life or Pro-Choice about HRC. That you can't take one issue out of context and make it the Alpha and Omega of a person's character.

[William769]

43. "There is nothing pro choice about HRC"?

Can you not read?

"When it comes to each woman's ability to make the most personal of life decisions, Hillary has stood firm as an advocate for a woman's right to choose. She has expanded access to family planning services, including for low-income women. She spoke out forcefully against the Supreme Court's April 2007 decision that -- for the first time in decades -- failed to recognize the importance of women's health."

How deep do you want to dig your hole?

[ShortnFiery]

51. Consider the myriad of issues that constitute "Pro-Life" ? Then what is "Pro-Choice"?

Pro-Life means: 1) Anti-Abortion; 2) Anti-Execution and 3) Anti-War.

By extrapolation Pro-Choice means: 1) Choice "Pro or Con" for Abortion; 2) Choice "Pro or Con" for Execution; 3) Choice "Pro or Con" War.

This issue does NOT occur in a vacuum.

I suggest HRC is NOT Pro-Choice for the simple reason that "The People" have no say whether or not we stay in Iraq.

[William769]

56. Pro choice from Websters dictionary. But I am sure will find fault with it.

favoring the legalization of abortion.

http://mw1.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/pro%20choice

Just in case your wondering.

Pro life. Antiabortion

http://mw1.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/pro%20life

Yes, it's that simple. You just can't admit when your wrong.

[sufrommich]

57. Your argument is all over the map.

You started by warning us that Clinton will "make abortion very difficult". Now you're saying that pro choice includes anything you decide it does. The term"pro choice" in this country means in favor of allowing women the freedom to choose to abort and has nothing to do with capitol punishment or war.

[ShortnFiery]

60. No, you CHOOSE to focus on the simplistic - the world is not simplistic and neither are feminists.

[William769]

63. See post #56.

[sufrommich]

66. "the world is not simplistic and neither are feminists."

Well,yes. Exactly.:rofl:

[ShortnFiery]

68. You're most welcome.

;) :hi:

[creeksneakers2]

82. How Gennifer Flowers was treated?

Flowers got $60,000 for selling her story to the National Enquirer. She made false statements to embellish her tale. Then she sued Hillary. Imagine the nerve! Cheat with her husband then have the nerve to sue her too. I don't feel one bit sorry if Flowers' reputation took a hit.

Larry Klayman created many motions in his civil suits trying to prove Hillary had anything to do with the response to Flowers. Klayman came up empty.

I don't remember any Clinton sex accusers coming forward for the sake of the truth. They all wanted money. I don't know of any "active participation" by Hillary either. These are attacks that the right wing comes up with.

Whatever Hillary did with her husband is private. She kept it where it belonged.

[ckimmy57]

85. I agree

:dem:

[cali]

91. Can't you do better than that?

Pathetic. There are so many genuine reasons to oppose Hillary, but your disgusting attacks on her because her husband had affairs, are absurd. The fact is you present no evidence just right wing memes to trash her over this.

Clinton's foreign policy is fair game. Her corporate ties are fair game, but the truth is she's been a staunch advocate for choice, and there's not even a shred of evidence to the contrary.

But don't let facts or even decency get in your way. They never do.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

87. She co-sponsored the Workplace Religious Freedom Act

And continued to do so even when people like Arlen Specter pulled their support from it because it would allow pharmacists not to fill prescriptions or police officers not to protect abortion clinics if it conflicted with their religious values. She continued to support it, and made no effort to change the language of the bill.

As for her anti-human trafficking stance, why did she join with Rick Santorum to support a bill that would take away funding from organizations that help sex workers if they didn't condemn prostitution using specific language?

She loves faith-based initiatives

She continues to support the Defense of Marriage Act

[creeksneakers2]

107. I didn't dig into the other ones but

The Workplace Religious Freedom Act didn't create those protections. The ACLU opposed the bill, and created a hypothetical worst case scenario based on a hypothetical Supreme Court ruling. I looked at the law and it was highly unlikely that the court would ever rule the way the ACLU worried about. The language of the act didn't support such a ruling.

[Uben]

39. neo-liberals?

Hillary Clinton? What are you smokin, bro? I put her as the least liberal of all oour candidates.

[ShortnFiery]

42. Look it up please? The Term is deceiving. :-)

Here's a start: http://www.internationalviewpoint.org/spip.php?article496

[William769]

45. Just like everything you have posted in this thread.

[ShortnFiery]

59. Here's a little more assistence. It's complex but still glaringly disturbing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoliberalism


According to Pollin (2003), neoliberalism under the U.S. Clinton administration--steered by Alan Greenspan and Robert Rubin-- was the temporary and unstable policy inducement of economic growth via government-supported financial and housing market speculation, with low unemployment, but also with low inflation. This unusual coincidence was made possible by the disorganization and dispossession of the American working class.<26> Berkeley sociologist Angela Davis has argued and Princeton sociologist Bruce Western has shown that the astonishingly high rate of incarceration in the U.S. (1 out of every 37 American adults is in the prison system), heavily promoted by the Clinton administration, is the neoliberal U.S. policy tool for keeping unemployment statistics low, and stimulating economic growth through maintaining a contemporary slave population within the U.S. and promoting prison construction and militarized policing.<27>

Harvey (2005) sums up neoliberalism as a global capitalist class power restoration project. Neoliberalism, he explains, is a theory of political-economic practices that dedicates the state to championing private property rights, free markets, and free trade, while deregulating business and privatizing collective assets. Ideologically, neoliberals promote entrepreneurialism as the normative source of human happiness. Harvey also considers neoliberalization a form of capitalist "creative destruction", a Schumpeterian concept.<28> This indicates that while neoliberalism is a critical concept with a critique of capitalist class relations, it is not strictly a Marxist concept; the Marxist term for neoliberalism is "primitive accumulation."

Harvey (2000) observes that neoliberalism has become hegemonic world-wide, sometimes by coercion. Opponents of neoliberalism argue that neoliberalism is the implementation of global capitalism through government/military interventionism to protect the interests of multinational corporations. Even neoliberal proponent Thomas Friedman has argued approvingly, “The hidden hand of the market will never work without a hidden fist."<29> In its commitment to belligerent capitalism, neoliberalism is linked to neoconservatism. In fact other critics argue that not only is neoliberalism's critique of socialism wrong but that it cannot deliver the liberty that is supposed to be one of its strong points.<30>.

[William769]

62. Glad to see you steering clear of the abortion issue, that you so miserably failed in.

[ShortnFiery]

72. All you wish to do is FOCUS on the abortion issue. Feminism is about far more than that.

:eyes: We are also concerned about affordable birth control, child care facilities, etc. etc. I'm not going to anoint HRC for bringing more of the same policies that have kept single moms struggling in the working class.

However, if you wish to isolate abortion, I submit that it will be NO MORE available than it has been in the past. Specifically, it will be left up to the states to decide.

The argument is moot because Queen Hillary will not influence policy.

[William769]

74. I wish to focus on one thing at a time.

Like I said in another post above, once we clear up this issue, then I will address the other falsehoods you have posted in this thread.

[ShortnFiery]

76. I can't have that luxury...

At the time I'm typing with you, I'm finishing making copies of my daughter's Confirmation worksheets ... oh and I just kissed them goodbye as they are off to Catechism. Damn if I'm not multi-tasking.

Please forgive the bluntness of my arguments for I hold true respect for your positions, I just don't happen to agree with you.

Have a good day William. :hug: :hi:

[creeksneakers2]

84. What does communism prove? n/t

[ShortnFiery]

90. Huh? We're talking Neo-Liberalism here. n/t

[creeksneakers2]

93. From a communist perspective

Angela Davis is a communist who wants to abolish prisons. I don't take her ideas about the Clintons creating a slave underclass through the prison system seriously.

The Harvey guy is a communist too. He invented something called "Marxist Geography." Total kook. His views on the Clintons' economic policies come from looney Marxist theories.

I didn't look up the other people. I assume they are communists too or in that general vicinity. I doubt if any of them are good sources of opinion on the economic policies of the Clintons.

[ShortnFiery]

99. Nice try at obfuscation. Only one site is Harvey and WTF does Angela Davis have to do with this?

Other than Dr. Davis is "a lauded Professor" at Princeton, not a card carrying Commie! :eyes: Wow! You forgot the "kitchen sink" for the cherry on top of your obfuscation ploy. :eyes:

[ShortnFiery]

100. Here's more information that should make one shudder in fear: Neo-Liberalism

http://www.globalissues.org/TradeRelated/FreeTrade/Neoliberalism.asp

A Primer on Neoliberalism

In addition, they note that, “despite popular perceptions, the opposite of fascism is not communism but anarchism (ie liberal socialism), and that the opposite of communism (i.e. an entirely state-planned economy) is neo-liberalism (i.e. extreme deregulated economy).”

[creeksneakers2]

108. You used them as sources.

I'm a moderate. From my perspective, if I had to put a dot on a continuum for where the Clintons are I'd put it a little left of center. For somebody way out on the left wing fringe like communists, the dot would appear light years to the right. The righties think the Clintons are socialists. I don't see the views of either one as balanced.

I don't see what I did as a ploy. Its a normal part of debate to question sources when someone uses the opinions of those sources to make their case.

I looked up Angela Davis in Wikipedia. It says she was a communist for many years but seems to have moderated. It says she doesn't believe in prisons. At one point, a famous Soviet dissident whose name I can't spell asked her to condemn the Gulag system. Davis refused. So she definitely had some warped commie feelings in her.

[MonkeyFunk]

19. That's just insupportable

she's been a strong pro-choice leader for many, many years. She has 100% ratings from NARAL and Planned Parenthood and a 0% from the National Right to Life Committee.

Your suppositions border on the verge of outright lies.

[ShortnFiery]

22. OK, I can't reach you. I only hope we won't all have to face buyers remose. n/t

[William769]

24. Looks like I'm not the only one thats got your number.

:rofl:

[ShortnFiery]

32. I'm sorry, but I don't see legions of support. I am saddened that you're "buying into"

this delusion. As I've mentioned above, Neo-Liberalism is just a velvet glove touch on the back hand of Neo-Conservatism. They both are oppressive regimes - only the former gives you a figurative kiss on the cheek before they strip the middle-class workers of their earnings in favor of the banks, insurance companies and the corporations comprising the Military Industrial Complex ... making for one LARGE working and lower class.

Unless you have a large amount of chump change invested in the stock market, welcome to the HAVE NOTS. :(

Again, to even begin to address this tragedy, we must PREVENT Bill Clinton's DLC control of the Executive Branch. :thumbsup:

Of course I WANT a DEMOCRATIC President. I just don't want the DLC to run The Executive Branch.

[William769]

33. Hillary and abortion. We are all still waiting.

Once we clear up this little matter I will be more than happy to point out your other flaws you have posted in this thread.

[ShortnFiery]

38. See post # 36 ... abortion may be RARE but legal - WWIII will be all the rage.

What a trade off? Not exactly pro-life. :(

[William769]

41. There you go with misinformation again.

"Not exactly pro-life". Most people call that lying.

BTW, See post #37.

[ShortnFiery]

44. Not even close to either Pro-Choice (enduring war) or Pro-Life (Bill's execution record as Gov).

Not misinformation. Just that Feminism is more than Pro-Choice for abortions only. Pro-Choice means that "the people" can say NO to endless war. :shrug:

[William769]

46. Digging deeper.

[ShortnFiery]

52. No we are not communicating WITH each other. Our stands are too entrenched.

Have a good day William. :hi:

[William769]

58. We are communicating,

You just keep posting misinformation and I keep calling you on it. Normally I would say have a nice day but saying that to someone that is disingenuous as you are, would also make me disingenuous, so I won't. I will just say, see you later.

[ShortnFiery]

67. I'm 100% genuine and the information I provide is not simplistic but complex.

I do not wish to misinform at all, only to convey that "Pro-Life" and "Pro-Choice" are NOT simplistic issues. Again, as a Catholic, Pro-Life encompasses a number of issues.

I genuinely hope you have a good day William. :hi:

[William769]

71. The misinformation you provide is not simplistic nor is it complex, it's just misinformation.

[ShortnFiery]

73. OK William, would it help you to retire to your corner if I say that we disagree?

;)

[William769]

75. What would help if you could only admit that you have been disingenuous

And apologize for doing it.

[ShortnFiery]

77. I won't because I'm being honest ... no spin - this is what I believe.

:-)

[William769]

78. Then I have pity on you.

See you later.

[ShortnFiery]

79. Awe, no need. Have a good one.

:hi:

[MonkeyFunk]

31. No

you will never "reach me" with vitriol, lies and stupidity.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

98. I Support Abortion But It Does Represent A Human Failing On The Part Of The Man And The Woman

I don't think anybody wants to have a pregnancy; only to see it end up in abortion...

[Totally Committed]

13. Queen Hillary...

The Authoritarian Queen of the Triangulated DINO Democrats


TC

[babylonsister]

28. OUCH! nt

[Totally Committed]

54. Too bad you couldn't have used that pic in your OP!

LOL!

TC

[NotGivingUp]

61. i hope my breakfast stays down!

:puke:

[Yael]

70. Bwahahahaha!!!!

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[Joanne98]

89. BWHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!

[Nutmegger]

105. LMAO!

Thanks for the laugh!

Good to see you TC. Where did you get that bumper sticker??? :hi:

[Flea]

109. Mind if I steal your sig?

:toast:

[L0oniX]

94. She's not Catholic, she is the Borg queen.

[William769]

2. So Obama and Edwards far surpass her in experience?

[peacebird]

5. I disagree with his premise that HRC is famous because only because of Bill Clinton

She has worked hard and gotten elected to the Senate. She has been, by most accounts, a good senator for New York. Face it - Babs Bush is famous for being first lady, and has done nothing else. I seriously doubt Laura will ever amount to anything on HER own either. But Hillary didn't settle for being first lady, she has gotten into the fray and been elected. I think that she has earned her position. That said - I still do not plan to vote for her.

[ShortnFiery]

8. She's famous because, like 90% of republican wives who catch their husbands repeatedly cheating

HRC decided to "suck it up" and stand by her man. More than that, she helped Bill TRASH the character of Ms. Flowers on National Television during the 92' and 96' campaigns. How feminist of HRC is that? Covering and obfuscating for her husband's adultery on HER?!? :eyes:

To be honest, I have little to no respect for a woman who won't break out on her own when after she's convinced that her husband can't control his hormones.

To me, staying with Bill meant that her desire for increased wealth and power trumped her self-respect. That is a very dangerous person - living in a marriage that is a lie. I sure as shit don't want her to be "my boss" or "the leader of a country." Why? We have NO IDEA where her true MORAL COMPASS lies. :(

[peacebird]

14. on the other hand, maybe she loves him and had enough strength to forgive him

and enough heart to want to save her mariage? :idunno:

I dislike her refusal to answer simple questions in the debates. I am disgusted by her vote on Kyl/LIEberman. But I'll give her a pass on her standing by Bill. I totally see your point, but I just don't know if her heart was set on power OR if her motivation was love..

[ShortnFiery]

20. save her marriage by repeatedly intimidating his ex-lovers?

No, IMO, she has no moral compass save for the desire for increased power and wealth. That person, IMO is a very dangerous player, man or woman. :scared:

[ChiciB1]

26. Sorry... For Me It Was NEVER About Saving Her Marriage! It Has

been about SAVING her Political Agenda!! YOU may not agree, but see my post below! Been there myself!! I chose my DIGNITY first!!!

[ShortnFiery]

49. Good for you! My best friend hired a PI and got the information to

take her husband to the cleaners. He was shameless in his philandering.

It is disrespectful to the spouse of the one who's cheating. IMO, I concur, it's just plain wrong to look the other way. :thumbsup:

[ChiciB1]

55. Thank You... It's Something I Do Believe In... I Will Add Something Here

though. I felt it was rather STUPID, knowing what they did to have a Special Prosecutor hired and spend so much time on the Lewinsky matter... but then again, as a person (Bill) to even pull another stunt while PRESIDENT struck me as odd!

What did he think, they weren't going to be looking for this very type of behavior?? Ken Starr went over and above the "call of duty" but hey... think about it!

[Uben]

35. she helped Bill TRASH the character of Ms. Flowers ?

Do you honestly think for one minute that Flowers didn't know Bill Clinton was married? Yes, her name was dragged through the mud, but she's jumped into the quagmire head first willingly. When you play with fire, you get burned! She was after attention just like Lewinski was. I have no sympathy for either of them, and neither of them had any character to trash, that wasn't already trashed.

My opinion, of course.

[ShortnFiery]

47. Of course there are no innocents when we're talking adultery, but HRC played an very

active role in the smear campaign against his ex-long term lover (10+ years). :shrug:

This is disquieting and goes to a less than stellar character of the wife who will protect the husband's career at all costs. It certainly isn't "feminist" in any sense of the word.

[Maribelle]

53. Your opinion, yes.

And I totally agree. But I would like to add that the majority of those that claim Hillary would be an unknown if not for Bill, have it backward. Bill would never had made it as far as he did without Hillary's undying love and committed support.

And she truly loves Bill.

My opinon, too.

[sufrommich]

48. Unless you have some inside information

on what the acceptable parameters of their relationship is or how either of them defines"love" ,"commitment" or "loyalty" , you really have no business deciding she is somehow less than committed to feminist issues.You sound like the church lady from SNL.

[ShortnFiery]

50. Well, common sense would suggest that HRC is NOT predictable. n/t

[Carolina]

16. But

her running for NY Senate in 2000 had everything to do with the fact that she was Mrs. William Jefferson Clinton. First Lady Clinton!

Had she run in NY as Hillary Clinton, the unknown, the unconnected, Rick Lazio would have won and she wouldn't have a perch from which to launch a presidential campaign.

She may work hard, but so do a lot of us.
She may be smart, though her votes -- especially IWR -- have made me question that.
Bottom line still is that without Bill Clinton, she would not be where she is today.

[peacebird]

17. Point conceded.

[MGKrebs]

102. Do you realize how ridiculous that premise is?

The only way you can make that argument is if Hillary basically stopped existing at some moment shortly before... what, marrying the future governor of Arkansas?... and then popped back into existence just in time to run for a Senate seat in New York. You (or I) have no idea what her life would have been like had she not moved from Washington DC to Arkansas, but since she graduated with a PoliSci degree and a law degree, and was already working on campaigns and for the US House of Representatives before she met Bill, I think it is safer to say that she would have had SOME sort of resume to run with.

[Carolina]

104. ridiculous

my ass. Or to use HRC's parsing language: who can predict what would have happened if ...

Bottom line is she was and is WJC's wife and HE had the smarts and CHARISMA in spades! She hitched her wagon to his years ago because she recognized HE was going places. And yes, in 2000, without him, her candidacy would have been laughable (cackle, cackle). Indeed at the beginning of this campaign she was lackluster and turnouts were fair to middling until the BIG DOG showed up.

Flame all you want. The truth hurts.

[MGKrebs]

106. She was the one working for the US House of Representatives while he was

teaching and losing his first campaign in Arkansas.

You don't have to like her, and you don't need to make stuff up to justify your dislike.

[ChiciB1]

34. What You Stated IS True, But It Has Always Been My Belief That She

WANTED to be a POLITICAL POWER HOUSE, consequently she pursued this path! Yes, Bill Clinton said it a long time ago, "You get two for the price one ONE!" Those words have always rung true to me!

It does not MAKE her less affective in some areas, but it does tell me "WHY" she has chosen to "stand by her man" regardless of her famous "cookie" statement! To me, she stood by her man because she saw what she could achieve if she did!

If this coronation continues, and if we as Democrats allow it to continue, we may well see that there will be yet another Repuke in office, because while I have wondered if I could vote for her in the GE, I may be falling of the fence and saying "screw it" because I DON'T see that much difference! So if, as a Democrat I think this way... just stop for a moment and think what Repukes must be thinking! They DESPISE her, and I doubt many can refute this.

I have yet to make up my mind, but I'm NOT going the bang the drums for her, nor will I round up others to vote for her as I have for other candidates in the past!

SORRY, go ahead and hit me!

[creeksneakers2]

86. Republicans despise everything

They hate the poet Maya Angelou and a guy with a pony tale who,during a debate, asked if personal attacks could be halted. They hate France. They hate croissants. They hate movies. They hate colleges. They hate everything.

They'll hate the Democratic nominee, regardless of who it is.

[gorekerrydreamticket]

83. Really? You had heard of her before Bill Clinton was elected President? n/m

[mmonk]

6. The pundits.

Throw in the party bosses.

[Tellurian]

12. DU has made her QUEEN!

not that thats such a bad thing...but thats the anomaly of DU.

[NotGivingUp]

64. you're right...following lockstep with corporate media. n/t

[ChiciB1]

21. We Need Many Many More Articles Like This One... I Myself Was Once

a person who was thinking Hillary Clinton would/could be GOOD For America as the First woman President! I have LONG since given up this notion. At least two years ago, if not three I realized that we were headed toward a Monarchy by choosing to have this Bush, Clinton, Clinton, Bush, Bush AND now the CROWNING of yet another CLINTON!

It goes against the grain of what this Republic was founded upon. That's ONLY the tip of the iceberg when it comes to Hillary Clinton! She has a VERY long list of issues that really concern me, not just a little, but a GREAT deal. Now I find myself almost FANATICAL in opposing her nomination since she voted on making Iran a Terrorist Nation! And yet, even more problematic connections and positions have surfaced. I as a woman, find it a slap in the face that even when she knows and has known for a very very long time that "her man" continually abused his marriage vows, that this supposed "strong" woman simply looked the other way. Having gone through this experience myself, I stood my ground knowing gull well it would make my life more difficult and decided it was important to show my children that I had enough dignity to stand my ground and say to my husband, "No, your behavior IS NOT acceptable!" And Hillary Clinton most certainly would NEVER have had to "suffer" the financial difficulties I had to.

I KNOW most of it's driven by the GREED OF MONEY for those who already HAVE more that I could ever imagine having, but the POWER that it brings is even more disturbing! To think a Democratic Party leader is being given this type of coronation because of her past wife of President Bill Clinton doesn't seem very "democratic" to me. While I voted for Bill, and feel he did do a lot to unite this country, I find Hillary to be different from him. An example of this was her statement in the last debate when she stated "he isn't standing here, I am" and then hearing Bill Clinton disagreeing with her to some extent on other issues. I must also say, then while I did like Bill Clinton, I always knew he was more conservative than I.

Since leaving office his close relationship with Poppy Bush, and their continued relationship bothers me greatly. I no longer "HOPE" for much, but I WISH we could wake up and see what is going on. As a Boomer, I have NEVER seen anything like this. I DO realize that times and issues change from generation to generation, but we seem to be sliding close to falling off a cliff here. Yes, we have had other father/son Presidents in the past, but there has been NOTHING like this to date.

Please let's stop and think about what we are doing, and PLEASE for all those who support another candidate, let's let our voice be heard in some way that's not only LOUD, but CLEAR! The ONLY thing I know to do is to reach out to my community, Red as it is, and then try to show how completely irritated I am that MSM is leading this Hillary Mania so far out of the GE!!!! I am very afraid, very afraid!

[Uben]

25. Hillary wins because......

.....because the republicans despise the Clintons for their successes in the nineties. So much so that they were willing to cheat to win an election.....or two. Once in power, they became the most corrupt administration in history trying to outdo Bill Clinton's success. Of course, not only did they fail, they failed miserably! They spent more than any administration in history on tax cuts for the wealthy and a bogus, trumped up war in Iraq. They wanted so much to be the saviors of America, instead they did just the opposite. Now, they have fallen from grace to disgrace.

Americans remember the Clinton years.....the prosperous ones, the peaceful ones. They long for those times again, and hope Hillary can bring them back......with Bill's help of course. After eight years of having an illiterate buffoon at the helm, any candidate who made it past the third grade would be an improvement!

Is Hillary the best candidate for the job? I think so, but many do not. Experience? Obama and Edwards have nothing on her. In fact, she is the only candidate who can hit the whitehouse floor runnning. The others would need time for the learning curve.
Hillary has her spouses help to get through any snags.

I like all of our candidates, and will vote for the one who wins the primary. I wish they all were campaining on getting us out of Iraq, but as we have seen, none have, with the exception of Gravel, and he has no chance of winning.

If we leave Iraq, there will be wide-spread upheavel.....just ask the Saudis, or Jordan, of the Kuwaitis. So? They wanted Saddam out...he's out. Now it should be their job to stabilize the region, not ours. Why should our men and women die for their peace when they are not willing to do so? Bush broke Iraq and could not fix it, not the democrats. Why should we shoulder the burden for an idiotic venture by a wannabe "war president" who has failed at every venture in his life? Put his name on it and let it go!

[meegbear]

30. The Lady of the Lake ...

her arm clad in the purest shimmering samite held aloft Excalibur from the bosom of the water, signifying by divine providence that she, Hillary, was to carry Excalibur. THAT is why she is your queen!

[Maribelle]

65. Now look what you've done.

Here come the unresolvable arguments over the stone vs. the lady's hand.

[NotGivingUp]

69. great post. we have dynasties behind the guise of democracy. n/t

[msongs]

80. more right wing framing and propaganda smear? nt

[Prophet 451]

81. Quite. What has she actually done?

Understand, I'm not slamming Hillary here but what has she done that qualifies her to be president? She has a decent record but I don't think anyone's arguing that many others have better records. She's neither especially charismatic nor especially likeable (which is not to say that she's especially dislikeable or uncharismatic) and has an annoying habit of pandering. Her experiance is questionable (how much political work do First Ladies actually do?) and since I'm a Brit, the fact that she's a woman isn't a novelty to me.

Understand, I'm sure she'd make a decent president if elected but I'm equally sure that some of the other candidates (Kucinich especially) would be far better. If her husband hadn't been president then she wouldn't even be in the running now. Even if she had been elected in New York, she certainly wouldn't have been all but handed the nomination at this stage of her career (maybe in eight years if she did well in New York).

I just don't get it.

[MGKrebs]

88. That is the stupidest article I've seem from the WaPo in a long time.

That's gotta be embarrassing that the editors actually let that through. It's even got weird typos all through it.

First of all, it's a stupid premise. No one has made Hillary "queen". She running as a candidate. If she has been able to build and run an effective campaign organization, that should be a plus. It's easy to screw it up.

Hillary Clinton has a long and distinguished career outside of her marriage. Graduated with honors, Children's Defense Fund attorney, on the cover of Life magazine at 22, US House of Representatives staff attorney, all BEFORE she got married. She actually moved away from the center of power, Washington DC, to move to Arkansas of all places, and pretty much started over, teaching and then practicing law. There's much more, but the idiot writer chooses to reduce all that to "someone whose ascent owes more to her marriage than to her merits" and "And in no other advanced democracy today could someone with Clinton's r¿sum¿(sic) even be considered a candidate for national leadership. It's true that wives do sometimes inherit political reins from their husbands, but usually in recovering dictatorships". That is a ridiculous statement. Leaving the marital relationship out, Clinton probably has the prototypical resume for office-seekers. Successful attorney, politically active and connected, community service.

And then, "expecting to be made senator by acclamation". Like I said. Embarrassing.

And more: "The only political task with which she had ever been entrusted was her husband's health-care reforms" which is an outright lie. She had been involved in politics quite a bit before that, including being on the board of the US Legal Services Corporation (federal non-profit indigent legal aid), not to mention the little US House of Representatives staff attorney gig, and several campaign positions.

And the final desperate lunge: "Now Hillary Rodham Clinton has become a potential president because she is famous for being a wife ". Pathetic. This trash would be more comfortable in Newsmax than the Washington Post. This might be another case of an inept attacker cutting them self worse than their intended victim.

[cali]

92. I agree. It's a revoltingly sexist piece of crap.

And I do not want her as the nominee.

[emilyg]

95. Agree.

[Carrieyazel]

96. Why on Earth is Hillary the Frontrunner?

Unhappy reading for Hillaryland, and those who would vote to make Hillary Rodham Clinton, the nominee based mostly on her last name.
She has no claim to high office, other than the fact that her husband is Bill.

Her major vulnerabilites are laid bare here, and I just wish the dismal US media would have the guts to do it. Instead, we have to have an Englishman nail "The Case Against Hillary". Yes, our friends across the pond know their stuff.

[cali]

101. So the explicit sexism in this article doesn't bother you?

I don't support her, but as someone upthread pointed out, she has very real accomplishments.

[Carrieyazel]

103. You know, I can definitely see how you may think the article was sexist

but it was full of the accomplishments of other female leaders around the world. How they rose against impossible odds to become the first female heads of state in their countries. They were regarded as every bit as good as any male leader.

[NoPasaran]

97. Gee, just a couple of days ago she was just "inevitable"

Now she's a queen!

At this rate, by Thursday you will have elevated her to goddess!

[MethuenProgressive]

110. I call bullshit.

Now Hillary Rodham Clinton has become a potential president because she is famous for being a wife (and a wronged wife at that).

So *that's* why?
Bullshit.