Why I can't vote for Clinton in the primary, no matter what.

[cali]

It's almost wholly her foreign policy stance. I can't vote for anyone in the primary who voted for the miserable IWR, but that's not the sole reason for my objections.

Clinton seems so determined to appear "muscular" on defense and tough on foreign policy, that I have no idea how she'd really act in the White House. At a time when I believe U.S. politicians, particularly prominent ones, should be ratcheting down the agressive language, she's doing the opposite. Yes, she's calling for talks with Iran, but that message is buried in her overall rhetoric.

I don't trust her to do what she knows is right when it comes to critical issues. And I do believe she knows what's right.



On edit: If she wins the nomination, I will vote for her. She's far better than any of the possible repuke candidates.

[lazer47]

1. I don't support Hilliary either, however in her defense I have to say

that she is trying to overcome the antiquated idea that a woman would not be as aggressive as a man, or as tough on national defense, it is an age old belief that only men are really tough, and aggressive, That is the only reason I can figure she is posturing like she is,,,and I say that as a man, disabled veteran, and John Edwards supporter.

[cali]

2. I agree.

But will she feel she has to maintain that if she does win and become president? Will it lead us into further misadventures?

[lazer47]

3. I threw my crystal ball against the wall when Bush got elected

for the second time, My guess is she will always try to portray herself as the savior of the Democratic party, while at the same time being the alternative to the Repugs desires.

[EST]

4. Wouldn't it be nice if people studied history?

Matriarchies, though not common, are certainly not unusual throughout history. There is no indication that governments led by women are any less aggressive or vicious than those led by men nor particularly more peaceful or comfortable.
I suppose I may be in the minority because of my automatic assumption that men and women, intellectually and temperamentally, at least, are and have always been equal.

Customs and tastes may change, but people are what they are.

[ccpup]

7. you're right

a famous example is how Henry VIII ran England into the ground and into debt, his daughter Mary doing no better -- and actually worse! -- when she was Queen and then followed up by Elizabeth I who, with her gender being hung around her neck like an albatross despite being one of the most intelligent and well-educated women in Europe at the time, turned everything around by using her innate strength while simultaneously taking advantage of the misogynistic, antiquated ideas of the female sex to her advantage. Turned England into quite a powerhouse militarily and financially.

[lazer47]

11. It's not what I believe or have studied, it is what she believes

I think women are just as capable as men in any situation,, However Mrs Clinton has to appeal to the predominate electorate as well as the Bible Belt,Redneck,Bubbas

[SergeyDovlatov]

26. Let's take Catherine the Great as an example

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

Catherine made Russia the dominant power in south-eastern Europe after her first Russo–Turkish War against the Ottoman Empire (1768–1774), which saw some of the greatest defeats in Turkish history, including the Battle of Chesma (5 July - 7 July 1770) and the Battle of Kagul (21 July 1770).

The Russian victories allowed Catherine's government to obtain access to the Black Sea and to incorporate the vast steppes of present-day southern Ukraine, where the Russians founded the new cities of Odessa, Nikolayev, Yekaterinoslav (literally: "the Glory of Catherine"; the future Dnepropetrovsk), and Kherson.

Catherine annexed the Crimea in 1783, a mere nine years after the Crimean Khanate had gained independence from the Ottoman Empire as a result of her first war against the Turks. The Ottomans started a second Russo-Turkish War (1787–1792) during Catherine's reign. This war proved catastrophic for the Ottomans and ended with the Treaty of Jassy (1792), which legitimized the Russian claim to Crimea.

she acted as mediator in the War of the Bavarian Succession (1778–1779) between Prussia and Austria. In 1780 she set up a group designed to defend neutral shipping against Great Britain during the American Revolution, and she refused to intervene in that revolution on the side of the British when asked.

[PATRICK]

19. One more thing in her

defense. Although the military solutions and general policy advocated by General Clark bother me fundamentally, what she is doing is trying to get back to the same ground and the same way as Clark. He would take no heat or blame and his credibility on the issue is very high. When Hillary tries to found her policy on the same perspective(which is why her endorsement by Clark makes sense) she is going to get a lot less respect. You can list the reasons, principally not being from the Armed Services, a women, a hawk or opportunist perhaps.

So I can see what she is trying to do and respect it. I just think it is wrong policy and does not recognize new facts while trying to simply restore old competence with rebuilt power despite a now very revealed flawed and criminal policy.

So I say she is perceived as posturing, inevitably, though in conjunction with her political calculation, her thinking is more in terms with much of Clark's ideas of fixing the US ME presence. Unless she is hamstrung politically I think she would make some strong efforts to accomplish those particular goals. I think part of the fatal flaw in the sound reasoning is that the party is politically hamstrung already and I can't see that improving with her candidacy. People want(need) new strength not the crippling past.

From nomination to her last day in office, the bitterness of a painful, sniped at, competent attempt to create gold out of mud may just be Vietnam Redux Part II "The Smart Goodwilled People Take their Shot- at War. Clark admits it has gotten so bad that many of his original suggestions are now unfeasible. But were they ever- and are the new ones still based on a lingering can-do unreality, inappropriateness?

No I think it is more solid, and to me even more worrisome in the likely details, to regard her foreign policy as pretty thought out and committed to reforging a strong stance on the world scene.

Which brings up Edwards' policy which is also closer to Hillary and Clark than DK. There are contradictions for the easily dismayed there and for Obama supporters, but no it is not fair that Hillary gets characterized when no one else is.

[RufusTFirefly]

20. Perhaps. But isn't this breath-takingly callous???

Sorry your children had to be killed, your water had to be rendered undrinkable, your electrical grid had to be destroyed, your oil had to be stolen, and your town had to be leveled, but I had to prove that I wasn't soft on defense. I'm sure you understand. No hard feelings, OK?

[Ian David]

5. I'd rather vote for Chelsea. n/t

[jody]

6. OK but the important questions is will you vote for Hillary in the general election?

[cali]

8. Yes. I thought by stressing that I'm referring to the primary

people would get that. Maybe I should edit it in.

[jody]

10. Thanks. n/t

[BeyondGeography]

9. She doesn't care what's right at the end of the day

getting back to the White House is what matters. And, if she gets there, getting re-elected will dictate everything she does. The problem with this is it takes short-term thinking to a whole new level. Her political horizons extend to the end of the next polling cycle. Factor in her perceived need for a female to appear "strong," and you wind up with a predisposition that can and will continue to yield frighteningly wrong-headed results.

[MLFerrell]

14. You, Madam or Sir, have hit the nail right on the head.

I salute you!

[superkia]

12. I wont vote for her because of her vote to go to war for oil!

Anyone who supports any of our candidates that supported a war with no evidence, should really rethink their choice. Either they knew their was no evidence and was in with Bush on going to war for oil or they were very ignorant and refused to look at the facts and made a decision to send our troops to war to die and to destroy a country and its people. Either way, they shouldn't be in charge of our children's future. It seems very convenient that they voted for it when there was no evidence and now they all have turned completely around and say its Bush's fault. Sorry but they are there to protect us and other innocent countries from this happening and they failed everyone horribly.

If you go back and look at the speech's some of them made, they were spewing the same propaganda that Bush was about Saddam, Iraq and Al Queda. Everyone knows that Iraq and Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11 but they all used the same propaganda to sell their votes. Only one of our current candidates stood up and spoke the truth in 2002 and never voted for the war or any of its funding, why did the rest all vote for the war and then continue to fund it for all these years? How long did it take them to " know what they know now" ? If they are that stupid, they should not be in charge of our children's future.

So as you all vote in the primaries, please think about the facts that are there and PLEASE think about our soldiers, their families, all the Iraqis dieing and suffering, the destruction of a country and most of all...our children! This election is for real this time, it means more than we know and I don't think we will be able to fix it if we get it wrong this time!

[Froward69]

13. From the Rhetoric she puts out

wouldn't it be easier for her to simply say "During Bills presidency, I pulled the strings. In reality I was in charge. Vote for me again."???

[Rosa Luxemburg]

15. Bill will be there, don't worry

[Nimrod2005]

16. I don't trust her and I won't vote for her................nt

[eallen]

17. As a civil libertarian, I don't trust her not to assume Bush's powers.

We need a next president who will step back from the excesses of the current one, not a president who will happily take up those extended powers.

[Catherine Vincent]

18. It seems like you are wary of all the candidates. n/t

[Rowdyboy]

21. We agree. She's not my first choice but if she wins the nomination...

I'll do whatever I can to help her beat the pigs of the Republican party.

[sallyseven]

22. You should not vote for Hillary

Please do not vote for Hillary. I beg you not to vote for her. Why not vote for Romney or Tancredo or Rudy or Brownback or just be satisfied for another bush look alike.

[RufusTFirefly]

23. If you're not for Hillary, you're for the terra-ists n/t

[bagrman]

24. I want the canidate that says he/she will restore our Constitution.

The rest that voted for it's dismemberment can be jailed later.


Latr

[SergeyDovlatov]

27. I want the candidate who will actually do it.

[eallen]

28. Does anyone believe Hillary is either one?

[SergeyDovlatov]

29. Anyone? Not a single person?

[Ignis]

25. We once called them "hawks" and "doves."

Now the public/MSM rhetoric has branded them "patriots" and "traitors," respectively.

I weep for the future.