Another Example of Why Clinton Scares The Hell Out of Me

[DrFunkenstein]

Listen, I know that Clinton doesn't project the warmest personality, and I would be totally cool with that. Particularly given credible reports that she is warm in person. It has nothing to do with her personality and everything to do with her policy.

When she takes her political triangulation onto the international stage, that's when it becomes downright spooky.

Her need to seem "tough" to quell fears about her being a woman and a liberal has repeatedly, over and over, put her in defense of the most wrongheaded hawkishness available. Clinton has already proven on several occasions that she is willing to put hundreds of thousands of lives on the line to achieve gravitas in the eyes of the media.

With both votes and unequivocal statements, she has not only promoted unnecessary and counter-productive warfare on a grand scale, but has worked hard to undermine voices arguing for a more sensible, long-term approach to global terrorism. Clinton has belittled the efforts of moderate voices and voted against key amendments to reign in the gung-ho escalation of both the war and the defense budget.

In short, for whatever personal reasons, she's another cowboy.

We all know that deeming the Revolutionary Guard a terrorist group not only strengthens the Bush-Cheney hand, but it also binds our own hands in creating diplomatic, long-term solutions to the situation. All for the sake of appearing "tough on terror."

At least I hope it is for appearances. God forbid she actually believes in the things she says and votes for.

I don't think it is too difficult to come up with scenarios in which a President Clinton would be faced with a tense situation in a terrorist hot-spot in which she has to choose between a long-term approach that doesn't play well with an ill-informed public and boosting her "toughness" image.

I cannot say that I have much confidence that she would choose the long-term approach.

I do not doubt that she would do some important things while in office, as I do not doubt so in other candidates, but there are crucial, global, life-and death matters that could easily dwarf the scale of all other considerations.

I am not a zealot by any means, but I must admit that I really do feel quite strongly that Clinton's nomination - not for electability concerns or what have you - could foreseeably become a choice we would later regret.

[ShortnFiery]

1. 'Her need to seem "tough" to quell fears about her being a woman'

Yes, HRC would beat the war drums constantly - a true war horse IRON MAIDEN - meet America's Margaret Thatcher. :scared: :thumbsdown:

[sharp_stick]

3. Exactly why we should never elect a woman

not to mention the fact that we'd have to enter bomb shelters once a month unless she's already undergone the change huh?

:sarcasm:

[ShortnFiery]

9. Nothing to do with her being a woman - like some of my women officer peers, FEAR makes them swagger.

It is not only shameful to not be one's self, but glaringly OBVIOUS when women try to exude testosterone. Those women became inflexible and self-righteous. They, too often, would refuse to listen to their NCOs because they were "tough" and "knew it all."

Insincere, swaggering women make poor military officers much the same as "a macho posturing HRC" would make a shameful President.

I don't want the first woman president to be DLC's HRC. That's not a role model that I wish for my daughter to emulate, i.e., to WIN at ALL COSTS - even to one's true nature. :thumbsdown:

[Vickers]

20. "we'd have to enter bomb shelters once a month"

Har!





(and yes, I am taking into account the :sarcasm: thingie)

:P

[CanonRay]

2. I used to really like her

but she's starting to scare the hell out of me too. The last couple of weeks, between the pro-corporate image, the hawkish war stance, and her dodge the question performance on the Sunday talk shows, I'm having trouble figuring out what she stands for, although whatever it is, it apparently doesn't have much to do with what I'm about. I suppose I'll hold my nose and vote for her, but I'm not ready to annoint her in the primaries.

[aquart]

6. DON'T.

Don't you dare vote for her in the primaries if she is not your choice. VOTE YOUR CHOICE. ONLY YOURS. The primaries belong to us. The general election belongs to the party.

[Divine Discontent]

13. I'm in FL. n/t

[aquart]

15. Oh, well.

Too late for Spain to take you back, I suppose. If you got EU healthcare, bet that would solve your mortgage crisis.

[ChiciB1]

33. She WAS Once My First Choice... Now My Last! For Many Reasons

already stated. And THAT laugh is beginning to grate on my nerves! I also live in FL.

[aquart]

4. Name one woman this would not apply to, if running for this office.

Name one woman who could be a serious candidate without this same problem. One.

[ShortnFiery]

12. ANY other woman. You can appear FIRM and true to your GOALS without the bluster.

HRC scares the living shit out of me because she IMO, honestly WANTS to exude "a female John Wayne" image.

The military despises "John Wayne personas" because they get the rest of us killed in combat.

A woman does not have to behave in a swaggering and threatening manner to PROVE that she can be a good leader. You earn that reputation by the respect you glean from people who have worked for you.

To date, I have not heard one person state that it was "a pleasure" to work for HRC. Why? IMO, she's a lone wolf COW-GIRL and NOT a team player. :scared: :thumbsdown:

In fact, HRC and * have more in common than we think. :wow:

[DrFunkenstein]

17. Oprah?

If a woman had the rhetorical skills that Obama has demonstrated, I am sure that it is entirely possible that you could become elected in the post-Bush/Cheney era without having to go to the lengths she has gone to display her hawkish credentials.

I, for one, would be thrilled to have a female candidate that I could rally behind. So would most Americans. Sure, you would lose the macho-hick vote by default - just as Obama would lose the racist vote - but an inspiring figure could do the trick.

A candidate wouldn't have to be a peacenik to calm my fears. I believe that military engagements on a limited scale are an indispensible tool in our shed, and it would not be difficult to present a case for a female candidate with a foreign policy agenda along the lines of Richard Clarke's prescriptions. But Clinton goes much further in order to play the media game, and I think it is unnecessary and disheartening.

[sandnsea]

21. If women have to be more hawkish than men

then we'll have to dispense with a woman President. This hawkish bullshit is exactly why the party supported Iraq. It's what caused us problems in 2004 when she kept on with her "stay the course" rhetoric. And here we are again. I don't think a woman has to be wrong on military matters in order to win. But clearly Hillary does and that's what makes her the wrong choice for the Presidency, not her gender.

[Mojorabbit]

32. Barbara Boxer n/t

[Captain Hilts]

39. I'm not aware she's running for any national office. nt

[KaptBunnyPants]

40. Do we have any other elected national offices besides the Presidency?

The question the poster asked would be fairly stupid if it was name any other current female presidential candidate who wouldn't have the same problem. But if a woman can only get elected by the Thatcher route, then what's the point in electing one?

[Captain Hilts]

43. Miss America/USA? nt

[Mojorabbit]

47. No but

she gets the job done without losing her humanity.

[Captain Hilts]

53. Easier when you don't have to campaign in red states. nt

[karynnj]

48. Barbara Boxer

and the governor of Arizona.

[BridgeTheGap]

5. Is it also the AIPAC influence?

$$$$ talks...

[aquart]

8. Because the Jews have all the money in the world and control everything?

Don't imply, dear. Say it all. Tell us how you really feel. The rules of the board prevent me from telling you how I really feel about that simply adorable statement.

[KaptBunnyPants]

42. AIPAC would never push the US to enter war with Iran, and saying otherwise is racist.

http://jta.org/cgi-bin/iowa/breaking/100580.html

[BridgeTheGap]

52. Absolutely not.

It's the money - the buying of influence - and AIPAC certainly isn't the only player in that game.
Be REALISTIC - lobbies don't donate large amounts of money to politicians without the expectation of a return on the investment. It's a problem whether it's AIPAC or any other lobby.
Be careful before you jump to conclusions!

[Freddie Stubbs]

18. How much money did AIPAC donate to her campaign?

:shrug:

[saracat]

7. What a beautifully written post.Thank you for placing the perspective

on the thoughts of many who are not thrilled with the prospect of a Hillary Clinton presidency!

"I am not a zealot by any means, but I must admit that I really do feel quite strongly that Clinton's nomination - not for electability concerns or what have you - could foreseeably become a choice we would later regret."

[DrFunkenstein]

24. Thank You for the Compliment!

n/t

[Moderate Dem]

10. Hillary's already running in the general election

That's why I like her right now, she's one of the few Democrats who doesn't have to pander to the far left. She merely has to avoid getting the far left really angry.

I want a President who will do the responsible thing, whether it's a rightie issue or a leftie issue. Hillary impresses me as someone who would do that.

[Fredda Weinberg]

14. ..

[truebrit71]

16. "pander to the far left" Excuse me? Like what for instance?

What do you consider "far left"?

One of the main reasons she won't get half as much support as she thinks she will is because she's TOO damn centrist. I don't want a centrist, I want a Liberal thank you very much.

[Freddie Stubbs]

23. Most Americans don't want a liberal

Most Americans don't want a conservative either. That is why our next President will be a moderate, just like the last Democratic Presidnet we had.

[DrFunkenstein]

28. It Is an Image Thing. We Need Someone Who Makes Liberalism The New Moderate

Rather than the steady push to the right from triangulators and the right-wing media circuit working in tandem.

Although I have yet to endorse anyone just yet, this is clearly something that Obama is capable of doing. He speaks in a way that brings liberalism back to the common sense.

[Moderate Dem]

26. Well, my handle isn't "liberal" Dem...

I want someone who won't be either side's puppet. I'm more of a traditional Democrat than a leftist, antiwar Democrat. My big issues are civil rights, labor, health care, etc. We're still allowed to be Democrats too, right?

My "liberal" issues tend to be more domestic, and no, I do NOT want a candidate who panders to the far left, because I am not far left. I also think that it'll be much easier to win the general election that way.

[cascadiance]

36. But what is a "leftist"?

I don't think you need to be a "leftist" to be anti-war. More than half of this country is anti-war. That's a majority of people on both the left and in the center and even some on the right. Are you "pro-war"?

Otherwise, it's not clear what you consider as undesirable positions from "the left".

And I consider many of those claiming to be "centrist" but who are in fact DLC corporatists not truly representing issues of the center of the political spectrum of America, but for the corporate elite's interests. Those two groups are NOT the same, even though the corporatists try to sell themselves inaccurately as "centrists".

The bankruptcy bill screws over many middle Americans and even conservative Americans just as much as it does those on "the left". Those who voted for that weren't doing that as "centrists", but *corporatists* paying back the masters that pay their bills.

[Usrename]

37. Sure, and she likes to blame the Iraqis for their own fate.

She wants to cut off aid to the Iraqi government if they don't straighten up and fly right. Damn straight, those assholes.

But she will never criticize Halliburton or anyone making good money over there. She has her priorities right. :patriot:

:puke:

[aquart]

19. An election is a minefield.

All these helpful people saying, "Step over here, Hillary."

[ProudDad]

22. "She merely has to avoid getting the far left really angry."

Too late!

She's fucking toast!

[Freddie Stubbs]

29. She's polling pretty well for toast

http://www.newsday.com/news/local/wire/newjersey/ny-bc-nj--poll-presidential0926sep26,0,4755540.story

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/09/25/nh.poll/?iref=mpstoryview

If she's toast, Edwards and Obama must be crumbs.

[ShortnFiery]

44. The left and the liberals are as Mad as Hell! IMO no amount of guilt trips will work this time. nt

[Hell Hath No Fury]

34. "She merely has to avoid getting the far left really angry."

Oops.

Too late. :shrug:

[ProudDad]

54. Way too late

She finally lost me for GOOD with her evil plan to give-away another 110 BILLION of our tax dollars to the health insurance mafia...

[rudy23]

35. I think at this point I'd settle for her not making the moderate and conservative Left angry.

I've seen nothing from her so far that would indicate that she's a member of the "left".

[Capn Sunshine]

11. RIght On, Dr.!

Much like LBJ's immersion in Vietnam, Hillary's worldview seems to indicate we will be in combat forever in the Middle East.

[Think82]

25. link: Chris Matthews on Hillary with Joe Biden:

http://video.msn.com/video.aspx?mkt=en-US&brand=msnbc&vid=cecbba4f-fc95-4a88-a5b9-1d32f7f23f08

Please switch to this guy. He's the best.

[Captain Hilts]

27. Male presidents haven't consciously acted 'tough'? This is not unique to women. nt

[DrFunkenstein]

30. Recent Chickenhawk History Has Proven That

[Captain Hilts]

31. My mother bought meone of those. I need to undress it. nt

[ovidsen]

38. My distrust of Senator Clinton has nothing to do with her sex

She panders. She waffles. She plays to the lowest common demoninator. And I don't like that.

Her strong support of a proposed Contitutional amendment banning "flag burning" is just the most obvious example of how her priorities have been mixed up. To clutter one of the most important documents defining the US with an amendment covering a piece of cloth demeans it. IT MAKES THAT STUPI

She may swing me around in a year. Her health plan outline shows promise, although I'd like her to fill in the blanks. In the meantime, I wouldn't trust her as far as I could throw her AND her justifiably admirable husband.

That last phrase is not sarcasm. I did, and still do truly like Bill Clinton.

[ShortnFiery]

45. As a woman & a former military officer, I'm ashamed that HRC is the first serious female contender.

It just reflects the horrific fear and hate that's been spewed about by our Unitary Executive Branch. Only such EXTREME tactics could make a self-righteous inflexible woman to rise to the top tier of Presidential Candidate.

Yes, I'm ashamed that she's of my gender. We deserve much better - yes, someone like Barbara Boxer would be more attune to a Strong Woman Leader who has no need to swagger and exude warmongering rhetoric. :thumbsdown:

[ProudDad]

55. Exactly -- I'd vote for President Boxer

but never for another president clinton...

I did that in 1992...never did it again...

[AtomicKitten]

41. She scares me too.

I realize she is running the general already rather than the traditional primary go left, but - dayum - some of the strident rhetoric combined with the enhanced executive powers the Democrats have surrendered is pretty damn scary.

:scared:

[BootinUp]

46. You called her a cowboy?

So you think she would have kicked the UN inspectors out of Iraq in '03 and sent in the forces eh? You think she is going to use the military forces on new campaigns of imperialism instead of for humanitarian causes like her husband did?

Here's what I think, I find your post offensive for its ignorance and the slanderous statements that are completely baseless in this universe.

[OneBlueSky]

49. a Hillary administration = BushCo in a skirt . . . n/t

.

[cooolandrew]

50. I can only hope that world opinion and the impending doom of climate chage will shape her presidency

[ProudDad]

56. She hasn't won yet!!! (n/t)

[oasis]

51. You'd better see an analyst or prepare to be scared for the next eight years.

:scared: