If HRC had just stayed true to her Wellelsey '69 values, she'd HAVE the nom and we'd all be cheering

[Ken Burch]

And we could count on a solid victory.

Instead, she embraced the ideas of those who cheered when the cops beat up hippies and peaceniks.

The problem was the conservatism she embraced and the ugliness with which she expressed it.

If she'd just stayed true to herself, no one her would have a problem with her.

Is that so hard to understand?

HRC's supporters deserved a REAL feminist to support.

She was never worthy of them.

[Oregone]

1. Clinton ran as the best woman AND best man she could be...

Im not sure how she reflects any feminist values. Seriously...she saw herself only viable running as a "man" (pro war, pro Israel, anti diplomacy, hardline). Of course I am a man, but I seriously see her as a figure that hurt the feminist cause.

Instead of empowerment, there was entitlement. Instead of strength through feminism, she emulated masculine strength. I feel sorry for women who stood behind her to carry their banner, when she only carried her own.

[Ken Burch]

2. good post. Thanks.

n/t.

[newmajority]

3. Wasn't she the president of the Young Republicans at Wellesley?

:shrug:

[Ken Burch]

4. Only in her freshman year, and then she resigned. She moved more left later

As the commencement speech showed.

http://www.wellesley.edu/PublicAffairs/Commencement/1969/053169hillary.html

If she'd only kept her original belief that inspiring people and appealing to their ideals mattered.

[Heather MC]

5. She did stay true to her true self, she use to be a Repuke, I think in her old age she has

re-embraced her ways of yesteryear

[aaaaaa5a]

6. And then when the campaign went south....

She made a mockery out of feminism and those who really fight discrimination everyday by crying foul!

[hfojvt]

7. what a difference 39 years can make

How would the young Hillary react to the Hillary of today? I just read the speech.

http://www.wellesley.edu/PublicAffairs/Commencement/1969/053169hillary.html

At first, this seemed backwards.

"We've had lots of empathy; we've had lots of sympathy, but we feel that for too long our leaders have used politics as the art of making what appears to be impossible, possible."

Shouldn't that be the other way around? Who would complain about politicians who make what appears to be impossible, possible? Instead, we get the opposite. It appears to be possible to provide decent health care to everyone in a nation. Other countries do it. Yet it seems to be impossible for our politicians.

This is very good, but she seems to have changed her mind about that, if she ever really agreed with it.

"We are, all of us, exploring a world that none of us even understands and attempting to create within that uncertainty. But there are some things we feel, feelings that our prevailing, acquisitive, and competitive corporate life, including tragically the universities, is not the way of life for us. We're searching for more immediate, ecstatic and penetrating mode of living. And so our questions, our questions about our institutions, about our colleges, about our churches, about our government continue."

She is now totally immersed in the competetive political life. Not transforming the dog eat dog American way, just trying to be the biggest and meanest dog. Would this young Hillary really embrace a politics of personal attack?

This was particularly telling

"Trust. This is one word that when I asked the class at our rehearsal what it was they wanted me to say for them, everyone came up to me and said "Talk about trust, talk about the lack of trust both for us and the way we feel about others. Talk about the trust bust." What can you say about it? What can you say about a feeling that permeates a generation and that perhaps is not even understood by those who are distrusted? All they can do is keep trying again and again and again. There's that wonderful line in East Coker by Eliot about there's only the trying, again and again and again; to win again what we've lost before."

This is the biggest thing that has been revealed in this campaign to those who were not already aware of it - Hillary cannot be trusted.

http://rawstory.com/news/2008/Poll_shows_majority_find_Clinton_untrustworthy_0416.html

According to that ABC poll, only 39% of Americans find her "honest and trustworthy". However, the majority of that 39% seem to be Democrats, as 63% of Democrats call her honest. This may just be the media, but it's kinda sad that partisanship makes for gullibility. It's like the stat that only 33% of Republicans think Bush hasn't told the truth about Iraq.

[VotesForWomen]

8. if hill had stayed true to some idealistic hippie values, she never would have gotten anywhere in p

politics. it's called the real world. oh, and btw, the same applies to your messiah. his shit stinks just like everybody elses.' he is not 'different,' as so many of his disciples so naively believe.

[Warren DeMontague]

11. 'it's called the real world'. No, it's called crass political calculation, and when you're talking

about voting for an idiotic war based on obvious lies, and then steadfastly refusing to admit that vote was a mistake, it is not just morally reprehensible, it is BAD crass political calculation to boot- because a majority of Americans oppose that war, and particularly this year, people are sick of crass political calculation.

So guess what- her "real world", gritty, play-the-game amoral triangulation mentality is quite possibly, more than anything else, what LOST her the nomination.

Put that in your pipe and smoke it.

[VotesForWomen]

21. i'm afraid you're giving O credit for simply not being in the senate when the IWR vote took place; t

that's not quite enough to get me to vote for somebody. it's my guess that he would have voted yes on it, being the ambitious politician that he is. heck, hillary 'spoke against' taking unnecessary pre-emtive action without letting the UN inspections continue, etc. and as i mentioned, i voted Nader in 2004 over IWR, when the rest of you lock-steppers were pushing war-boy Kerry, so you can save your self-righteous indignation. the time to take a stand on IWR was 2002 and 2004; there is no point in doing an *apparent* flip flop on it, especially when there is no difference between O and hillary on the war.

[Ken Burch]

15. None of us have EVER called Obama "The Messiah".

Are you HRC folks EVER going to stop repeating that insult? All anybody ever felt for Obama was normal sincere enthusiasm. Why can't HRC supporters accept that?

My point is, HRC stopped being worthy of women's support or the Democratic Party's support once she stopped being a liberal. It can't be worth electing a woman if she has to be a bland centrist to win. And once you embrace a hawkish foreign policy, you do stop being a liberal and are reduced to bland establishment centrism. Because the costs of hawkishness make liberalism impossible.

You will agree, I hope, that if she got in and wasn't an inch to Bill's left, that it wouldn't have been worth electing her, right?

You will agree that we never need to have another Democratic president be as conservative as the last one was, at least I hope you would. You would if you actually were a Democrat.

[VotesForWomen]

18. i'm not the only one who's noticed a certain cult-like quality to the O movement, and here's the dea

deal about any dem candidate's liberal bona fides: certainly, i would like a truly liberal candidate/president; there was a Kucinich bumpersticker on my car before there was a hillary sticker, but of course kucinich or any truly liberal, radical candidate would not have any chance to win at this juncture. so one has to make the choice to either pick a 'realistic' dem candidate and go for the short-term victory, or vote third-party, write-in etc., in the hopes of pulling the dem party to the left in the long term. i have done both. this time i decided to go for a 'realistic' candidate, and since hill and O are the only choices left, i picked hill because i think she's the most qualified. but here's what you apparently don't get: Obama is no more liberal, progressive, whatever you want to call it than hillary is. the cult of personality that has grown up around him thinks he is, and he will certainly let them believe that if it will get votes, but he is every bit as much of a centrist climber as any other candidate who had a realistic shot at getting the nom. how do i know that? because if he wasn't, he would have been out of the race ages ago, along with kucinich and anybody else who posed a threat to the establishment.

[Ken Burch]

20. You know as well as I do that nominating the less progressive candidate

Has to make it harder to move the party to the left.

And doesn't it bother you that HRC would mean the DLC will rule the party forever?

Obama isn't as progressive as I'd like, but(unlike HRC)he at least respects progressives and activists, unlike HRC, who will make her administration a progressive and idealist-free zone.

Obama admits that idealists and activists matter. HRC hates all idealists and activists, and it goes without saying that if she campaigns against us know she'll have to govern against us.

That's why I had to go with Obama.

and it also goes without saying that you can't have a single humane value in your soul and talk about "obliterating" another country, especially since HRC knows we'd only kill innocent Iranian civilians(leaving the mullahs and Bad Beard Guy unscathed in their shelters).

[VotesForWomen]

23. i must disagree that O is more progressive; i believe that his supporters have projected their own h

hopes onto him, and given that he was a virtual blank slate compared to hillary, it wasn't hard to do. and give it up with the 'obliterate' hysteria; 'Mess with us and die' is standard national security doctrine in just about every country on the planet. the type of statement you just made is why dems are considered weak on national security and can't get elected.

[Ken Burch]

25. There was no good reason to say it(and you can't be humane and say things like that)

Iran was never GOING to attack Israel. The NIC already proved they'd given up their nuclear program.

We can't be different from the Republicans if we use hawk talk. Hawk talk means you're right wing domestically too. You can't a liberal hawk anymore, since the money required to be hawkish means there's none left to be liberal.

2004 did NOT prove we have to be Scoop Jackson to win.

[VotesForWomen]

28. I am not a 'hawk' by any stretch, but i am also not naive about the threats Israel faces, as i belie

believe a lot of 'leftist' obama supporters are. i speak enough arabic that i'm able to read the newspapers, websites etc. from over there, and i have been reading these, corresponding with arabs/muslims for the past several years, etc., and let me tell you, the *average* arab (and i'm guessing this would apply to Iranians as well) makes jerry falwell look like a flaming liberal. if they had the bomb and israel didn't, israel would have been wiped off the map a long time ago. the iranian (arabic language) state news station, AlAlam, does not even show israel on the maps it uses in its newscasts; the whole area is called palestine or 'occupied palestine.' I *know* what these people think and what they say when they think no one else is listening, and it is scary, and frankly, the apparent israel-hating/arab-loving that is apparent among O supporters is also scary.

[Ken Burch]

30. 95% of the "threats" would end if the Palestinians finally got a state.

Which would have to be a REAL state(it could only be real if it were all the West Bank)and an apology for the expulsions of '48, and compensation for the damages done. Also, an admission that collective punishment was wrong would help.

What HRC is doing is perpetuating the myth that the whole thing is just because "the Arabs hate 'the Jewish state' and 'hate Jews'". It's never been that simple and Israel has never been that innocent. All Obama has said is that we need balance on Israel/Palestine policy, rather than always assuming that Israel is right and the Palestinians are wrong. Is that really so terrible?

[Ken Burch]

16. Why do you hate the very idea of idealism? Why assume that only a spiteful, rigid cynic can win?

And why would you think it was possible for someone to campaign as HRC does and still be a non-Republican in office?

It goes without saying that everyone who ever campaigned ugly governed ugly. No one ever did positive, progressive things in office after acting like a thug on the stump.

[VotesForWomen]

19. uh, i voted nader in 2004 over IWR and other 'idealistic' things. please see my other response above

here is where the whole 'cult, messiah' thing comes in: you (and other O-ists) IMO are seeing what you want to see in O; you are seeing a perfect knight in shining armour, who is the antithesis of the ultimate evil embodied in BushCo, and who will rescue the world, punish wrong-doers, reward the good, etc. i don't see him that way. as far as i can tell, he's just another ambitious politician, and as such, he will do whatever it takes to win, just like the rest of them. his campaign has been no 'cleaner' or more honorable than clinton's. that is a matter of his supporters' perception.

[Ken Burch]

22. How can it be better to nominate a candidate who hates idealism and idealists?

And how can it ever be acceptable to nominate another hawk? Obviously if you're a hawk on foreign policy issues its impossible for you to do anything progressive on domestic ones.

If you voted Nader in 2004, that didn't make much sense to do so. Most of those who'd done so in 1996 and 2000 had rejoined the party and worked first for Dennis and later for Kerry. Kerry lost because he didn't fight back against smears, not because he didn't look "hawkish" enough.

And what YOU don't see is that HRC can't still have a chance to win. Obama is certain to be the nominee. And there is nothing so inherently superior about HRC that could possibly the ugliness that's dominated her campaign since Super Tuesday.

She didn't have to bash progressives and idealists. She didn't have to trade on white resentment. She didn't have to try to create a false divide between working-class whites and blacks(most of who are also working-class, as HRC refuses to admit for some reason).

It's going to be Obama. You know this is the case. And you don't have any real reason to hate the man.

We can't win with the less exciting candidate in the fall. Bland speakers never win the presidency.

[VotesForWomen]

26. we might as well be speaking different languages, because the Obama you're talking about is not any

anybody i know. you continue with this dichotomy: Obama=anti-war, Hillary = pro-war. i completely disagree with that. obama is no more anti-war than hillary, and i didn't vote for Nader because kerry was 'hawkish enough' for chist's sake, i voted nader because kerry voted yes on IWR!! i opposed the iraq war since before day 1!!!! what part of that don't you understand??? it is your opinion that obama is a better choice than hillary on the war. i disagree with that. as i said, he's no more anti-war than hillary, but he'll sure let his supporters think he is, which is lose-lose for dems. we lose on the perception side, and we lose on the substance side.

[Ken Burch]

29. I was talking more about idealism in general, not specifically "the war"

Obama welcomes idealists and activists in his campaign. HRC clearly disdains them and campaigns as a cultural conservative("hardworking white people"?).

They may be close on some views, but Obama represents a party(unlike HRC)where activists are respected and welcome. HRC represents a party where only big donors matter. Does that clarify matters for you?

There is nothing so intrinsically superior about HRC that could possibly justify the tone her campaign has taken since March. And more importantly, you and I both know she can't be nominated without the party saying, in effect "to hell with what the voters wanted".

Her nomination would have to be as ugly as Humphrey's was in '68. This is the point you keep refusing to acknowledge. She would have no hope of having everyone in the convention hall stand and cheer her acceptance speech. And she would have no chance of generating passion or enthusiasm in the fall. It would be a dead zone campaign like Humphrey vs. Nixon. That's the kind of campaign we always lose.

[Ken Burch]

24. I see Obama with open eyes. And neither I nor anyone else see him as "the messiah"

So will you please never use that pointlessly divisive phrase again?

I believe Obama is more electable(since a charismatic candidate will always get more votes than a non-charismatic one).


Nader could never have done well in 2004. Not because the country was anti-idealistic, but because third-party presidential candidates
can't work in the land of the Electoral College.
And because Ralph alienated almost all possible supporters by refusing to consider a "safe states" strategy, which would have allowed him to get his message out without helping Bush. And also because Ralph ran against the Greens.
Ralph, if he had to present an alternative to the Dems, should have just campaigned for David Cobb of the Greens, with whom he agreed on everything.

You are way off base to argue that Ralph's failure means that idealism can never succeed. It proves, instead, that third party candidates who split the vote from OTHER third-party candidates can never succeed. It doesn't mean that we had to settle, as you have, for supporting the most conservative, passionless, cynical candidate in the race. It's always better to nominate an idealist with charisma over a cynic with none.

We need to have a fall campaign that, for once, doesn't throw the progressive wing of the party "under the bus". We need a fall campaign that actually tries to get people enthused. Obama can give us that campaign, HRC(who no longer inspires passion or enthusiasm from anyone but southern racists)can't.

You don't have to give up all your principles just because the way you worked for them in 2004 didn't succeed. And voting for HRC means voting for a party with no principles at all.

We don't have to be cynical and hardline militarist to be "realistic". It's not possible to out-Republican the Republicans(which is HRC's strategy)anyway.

[VotesForWomen]

27. OBAMA IS NOT MORE PROGRESSIVE THAN HILLARY!!! that is your opinion!!!

do you understand that not everyone shares that opinion??? not only do i believe that hillary is every bit as progressive as O, but i believe she is simply more qualified, especially on the economy. and i hate to break it to you, but O is not nearly as electable as you think. i guarantee you that the repugs and MSM are going to work the not-ready-for-prime time, muslim/manchurian candidate angle for all it's worth once he gets the nom, and it will work. it's already getting a lot of traction, and polls are showing that hill is doing better against mccain. i know polls don't matter right now, but i guarantee you that O is not as popular outside the cocoon as he is inside it.

[charlie]

17. Let's hear about Hillary the hippie chick

This oughta be good.

BTW, "votes for women" was once as starry-eyed idealistic as you could get. It took some staunch commitment and intractable heel-digging to make it happen. But now that you've got yours, we need to pull up the drawbridge and "get realistic" now, eh?

[Warren DeMontague]

9. The 1993 version would have been fine with me, too.

After she got to the Senate, though, it was all downhill.

Voting for the IWR and refusing to admit it was a mistake are the biggies.

[Raine]

10. Goldwater Girl...that's what she stayed

true to. x(

[madrchsod]

12. she never really changed

today goldwater would be a republican light...and he would still have more principals than hillary. that`s why i do`t call her a goldwater girl anymore. barry deserves more than that

[charlie]

13. If she showed the same bullheaded obstinacy

fighting Republicans in the Senate as she does fighting the "wrong" contingent of her own party today, the primaries would've been a going-through-the-motions formality. She'd be the nominee by acclamation.

[sandnsea]

14. Some current Republicans oppose the Iraq War too

Doesn't mean they embrace all the values of the Democratic Party, or even understand them. I don't think the Clintons ever really did.