This is why I won't vote for Hillary Clinton.

[Skidmore]

http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/nationworld/sfl-aclintons26aug26,0,2494210.story?coll=sfla-news-nationworld
Clintons make nice with old foes
Art of reading their motives is back in vogue
By Ron Fournier
The Associated Press
Posted August 26 2005


WASHINGTON · One Clinton jets to Alaska and Iraq with Republicans, and enthusiastically sponsors legislation with GOP members of Congress who impeached her husband. The other plays golf with former President Bush and accepts assignments from the current one.

All this bipartisan snuggling by Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton and former President Clinton has some Democrats and Republicans questioning their motives....

____________

This was the LEAD article in our local paper as well, although it wasn't posted on their online version. What is with these people? Do they honestly think that sucking up to the Bush crime family and the GOP will get some of that magic to rub off on Hillary? Why on earth would someone cozy up to the snakepit that spent a decade destroying them? Perhaps Hillary should run with McCain. They ahve the same masochistic need to hunt foxes with the old guard. I am disgusted! I will not be part of a movement to put a "Me,too" candidate or an R-lite candidate in office in the guise of being a D.

[Tesha]

1. Bill Clinton *STARTED* the DLC.

That and his attrocious behavior in office are the reasons why
the Democrats are left wandering in the wilderness now.

Tesha

[OneTwentyoNine]

2. It'll only get worse as it goes,pandering to most all the wants of the RW.

This whole mess will really get shitty,this is Hillary's one and only shot and its going to be a kiss ass on the RW mess as she tries to embrace as many RW ideologies as possible.

[Claymore]

4. ...

...and here's the kicker; they'll whore themselves out and when it comes time for Republicans to choose who to vote for, there's no way they'll even consider Hillary a viable option. No amount of pandering or ass kissing will change that simple fact.

[bluestateguy]

3. Of all the possible candidates, she is my 2nd to last choice

Biden is my last choice. Right now I hold Evan Bayh in higher esteem than Hillary.

But she will be treated as the front-runner throughout 2007, mainly because of name recognition. She'll be able to live off of name recognition for many months until the other candidates become better known. But this "Hillary the hawk" business is only angering the anti-war base of the party--who actually does the voting in Iowa and New Hampshire--while right wing neocon superhawks just stand by and snicker. They will never vote for Hillary.

I greatly prefer Wes Clark, Mike Easley, Mark Warner, Russ Feingold or Bill Richardson.

[Spurt]

5. No way....

...should Hillary even be considered. She is damaged goods, by association if nothing else.
And nor should Kerry be considered either. Now before you beat me up I'll clarify....

The next POTUS needs to be a different animal to what has been required in living memory. The requirements of the next pres will be unprecedented.
The gov't is broken. All of it, to a greater or lesser degree. Federal and many (all?) states. The patient is gravely ill and needs the best specialist physician that can be found.
Traditionally a pres has been hired to "run" the nation. Now the country actually needs serious repair. That means a new job description needs writing and a candidate profile developed.
There are ample examples of bent politics and whoring politicians on both sides of the house. It is time for a fresh start with a fresh face.

I believe the next pres should be a true independent. Both major parties are too dysfunctional and both have had their noses in the collective trough too long. The parties are part of the problem.

America needs a new face, one who can say sorry on behalf of the people and be believed. One who can stop America hurting other people as it pleases. One who is brave enough to let in the international experts to audit the gov'ts business on behalf of the people. One who can lead a big team with mops and buckets to clean all the manure out of gov't in plain view - no secret deals. One who can encourage the mysteries of 911 to be properly developed, and knows that the safest vote is with pencil and paper, and that there are repairs to be done all around the world. And perhaps most importantly can put in place a whole new administration that can achieve all the above without getting their noses in any troughs, public or corporate. Treble their salaries and give them less reason to be even tempted.

I fear that the patient may die in the hands of either party.
The WH needs to go neutral to be able to clean up both sides of the houses without fear or favour. Anything else will likely be a coat of whitewash.

[zanne]

6. I don't think she'd win the primary

By trying to cozy up with the conservative Democrats, she loses both sides. Conservatives don't think she conservative enough and liberals (myself included) don't think she's liberal enough. The "middle" is such a matter of opinion, sometimes I don't think it exists.

[Skidmore]

17. I was just thinking the same thing.

In the 50/50 divided nation that we've seen over the last 2 national election cycles, I think that the elusive centrist is a rare creature.

[tx_dem41]

7. Looks like the "divide the Democrats" agenda is working quite well.

Being swallowed up whole.

[Skidmore]

8. Hillary is doing an excellent job alienating Dems on

her own. She frequently endorses positions that I can't and won't embrace AND this whole business of hanging out with the * clan will not lead me to caucus for her in our state caucuses. I will support someone who doesn't quack like an R or need to rub up against the Rs to shine an agenda.

[tx_dem41]

9. Yep...its working. n/t

[Beer Snob-50]

10. flame on....

people here criticize the clintons for the attempt at bipartisanship. i think the american people want more of that! yes, generally those on the left and those on the right are rabid for their ideas but most of america wants a candidate in the middle. bill clinton balanced the federal deficit, and while he also did much that upset me (no not monica!, i am talking mainly about his welfare reform) he was a good president. anything close to his tenure in office is better than the crap we currently have.

[noonwitch]

11. I agree-the candidate has to appeal to middle america, not the extremes

And that includes a lot of people here. No offense intended, but we (myself included) are more liberal than most americans, who are centrists. The swing voters that decide the election will vote for a right winger over a left winger, but will also vote for a reasonable centrist, too.

That's why Barbara Boxer, Dennis Kucinich, John Conyers, etc., will never be president as much as we may love them.

I do think Hillary has a good chance to win, if she sticks to the centrist position and picks the right running mate. Unless, of course, all the liberals stay home on election day, crying because they didn't get their way. That would be a great way to ensure another 4-8 years of the current crap.

[jonnyblitz]

12. naa...we "crying libruls" just want an actual opposition candidate

apparently that is too much to ask for according to some of you.

no PRO WAR DEMS!

[Skidmore]

14. Thank you.

I'm not sure what centrist means anymore. The discourse has shifted so far to the right that centrist seems to be defined as liberal. I want someone who doesn't jump up and down and squeal "Me, too". I want opposition candidates who stand for the issues that affect working class people.

[Beer Snob-50]

15. I think centrist candidates do stand for issues

that affect working class families. Maybe not to the extent that liberals would like but still stand for them. The reality of things is that I believe those on the far right and those on the far left are going to go by the wayside politically.

[Skidmore]

16. What exactly do you define as far left issues?

I've been told I'm radical and progressive by some. I consider myself liberal and progressive, because I don't think you can be one without the other. However, I don't think that questioning our foreign policy, asking that someone stand up and say "no" once in a while to legislative crap designed to give free rein to corporate interests at the expense of the worker makes me radical. I want a party that clearly differentiates itself.

[Beer Snob-50]

21. i would agree with being liberal and progressive

but i would temper my liberalism (yes, i am liberal) with the reality that getting 70-80% of what we want is good. it would be fantastic to be hardline but most people would cringe at that. that is going to be the downfall of the neocons. they have been emboldened by their victories and are trying to snatch everything. the public will see that and vote their sorry asses out.

[Raksha]

29. When have we (liberals) been getting 70% to 80% of what we want?

Or even 50%? Or 25% Or ANYTHING???

[Skidmore]

22. So how did how centrist pols stand for the working class

by supporting that monstrosity of a bill that handed the working class over to the credit card companies?

[Beer Snob-50]

24. there are times they supported things that we don't agree with

i don't agree with anyone or anything 100% of the time.

[Skidmore]

26. I would say that is more often than not these days and

I don't think there is any excuse for it. The medications bill was another fine example. These are huge issues for working class citizens, not academic or political exercises.

[leesa]

19. The Bush's are a crime syndicate, don't you get it?? There is nothing

moderate about the Neocons.

[Beer Snob-50]

20. excuse me....

i never said bush and his cronies were moderate.

[StayOutTheBushes]

13. Just had a funny thought, wouldn't your handle be a great name for

a mens underwear line?:evilgrin:

[leesa]

18. Probably hoping to get on the board of Carlisle like Blair will.

That's where the real money is made.

[renie408]

23. Well, that sure worked to get Dems going after each other...

Good ole 'liberal' media, you gotta love'em. Divide and conquer.

[iconoclastNYC]

25. I don't trust the Clintons.

You know something about how Scaife set upon destroying Clinton makes me wonder.

[Q]

27. The Clinton's 'bipartisanship' is costing us elections AND principles...

Some on this thread have called the Clinton's cozy relationship with the RWing fascists 'bipartianship'. But what's in it for the DEMOCRATIC PARTY?

While they play the 'middle'- right...WE get a party that stands for nothing. We've been compromised to death on issues such as 'national security', election fraud, civil rights,worker's and women's rights, social security (they're not done with this one yet), public education, corporate/government corruption...the list goes on and on and on...

Millions of American citizens didn't join the Democratic party only to be told that what they've believed in their entire lives isn't worth fight for...

[Skidmore]

28. Yessireee, Bob!!!

Dems need to STAND for something. I won't vote for Hillary. I will vote for anyone who will stand up and represent the average citizen in this nation, not just the corporate class or the wealthy. We need the country to work for everyone across the economic board.

[Raksha]

30. Very well stated. n/t

[hopein08]

31. Perhaps the Clintons are just plain old CONFUSED...

Perhaps they take for granted that Hillary has the votes of the entire Democratic Party.

Perhaps they don't realize that they are the ones dividing the Democratic Party.

Perhaps they think that, the blue vote all sewed up, they must now concentrate on the tasty red vote.

Perhaps they don't realize that the Republican Party stands for, however secretly or openly, drastically different things than the party they claim to represent.

Perhaps they have forgotten the stinging partisanship that Hillary stirred up when she talked of a "vast right-wing conspiracy" and laughed in the faces of many for the simple reason that her husband was President.

Perhaps they think that attaching Hillary as an appendage to the most likely Republican candidates in 2008 will not only steal votes from said Republican candidates but build an aura of bipartisanship to strengthen Democratic votes.

Perhaps they don't realize that the majority of Americans think there is something, somewhere, regardless of what exactly, WRONG with the war in Iraq and staunch support of said will not aid a candidate with those Americans.

Perhaps they have forgotten that Bill Clinton was elected as a little-known governor from Arkansas over an incumbent President because the country was tired of that type of politics and wanted something new.

Perhaps they have forgotten the little people who met them in cafes and on street corners who dared to work for them in the dying glare of a dozen years of Republican rule in the White House.

Perhaps they are content that their friends in high places can secure the votes of the average American who is colored the blue that is peace so they can concentrate on the average American who is colored the red that is blood and hatred.

Perhaps they have forgotten that Americans, both blue and even red, are smart and can see clearly what a game politics is and will choose the candidate who most closely resembles himself ten years ago.

Perhaps they are simply confused by over a decade in the political bubble of unending power.

Perhaps they simply don't care.

Perhaps if I feel that they don't care what I think, I refuse to care what they think and will never, ever cast a vote for "Clinton for President."

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Just my humble opinion.

Thanks for listening.

[Pepperbelly]

32. so you take an obvious flame bait article by some asshole and ...

try to start a flame war here?

That is egregiously fucked up. You should be ashamed.