WP,pg1: Sen. Clinton Is Politician Not Easily Defined: Platform Unclear

[DeepModem Mom]

Clinton Is A Politician Not Easily Defined
Senator's Platform Remains Unclear
By Dan Balz
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, May 30, 2006; Page A01

Hillary Rodham Clinton has fashioned a political persona that generates intense passions but defies easy characterization. She is viewed as a hawk on Iraq and national security, stamped as a big-government Democrat for her work on health care in the 1990s, and depicted as seeking the middle ground on abortion.

After three decades in public life, New York's junior senator is one of the most recognized women in the world, her every move and utterance interpreted amid the assumption in Democratic circles and her own circle that her reelection campaign this fall will pivot into a run for president in 2008. Yet for all her fame, there are missing pieces to the Clinton puzzle: What does she stand for? And where would she try to take the country if elected?

Clinton's roles as senator, first lady, governor's wife, lawyer and children's advocate have given her a depth of experience that few national politicians can match, but she is still trying to demonstrate whether these yielded a coherent governing philosophy. For now, she is defined by a combination of celebrity and caution that strategists say leaves her more vulnerable than most politicians to charges that she is motivated more by personal ambition and tactical maneuver than by a clear philosophy.

In recent weeks, Clinton has moved to clarify her agenda with major speeches on the economy and energy. Later this summer she will help present a new strategy for the Democrats. She has also given speeches setting out her foreign policy views. But she has yet to wrap up her ideas in a kind of package like the "New Democrat" philosophy her husband, former president Bill Clinton, used in his 1992 campaign or the "compassionate conservative" label George W. Bush adopted in 2000....

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/29/AR2006052901029.html

[Old and In the Way]

1. Another bullshit piece masquerading as informed commentary.

"that strategists say leaves her more vulnerable than most politicians to charges that she is motivated more by personal ambition and tactical maneuver than by a clear philosophy." Yeah, hardly anyone running for POTUS has personal ambition.

"What does she stand for? And where would she try to take the country if elected?" Yes, because she could take our country to worse places than this administration.

I hate these opinion pieces more than the stuff coming from known biased sources. These pieces don't educate, they just trash the Clinton legacy and introduce reinforcing memes for the Sunday talking heads to cluck over. Few in this country could do a better job as POTUS than Hilliary Clinton, but her opportunity for a fair and objective run is poisoned by shit pieces like this.

How about a critical piece on Guiliani or McCain? These same statements could easily apply to them as well.

[DeepModem Mom]

2. WP does Clinton, on same day NYT does Pelosi --

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/30/washington/30pelosi.html?hp&ex=1148961600&en=a99943eca9e14b6b&ei=5094&partner=homepage

[Richard Steele]

4. Gotta agree. Paid-by-the-word FLUFF mixed with damning "faint praise"...

...and nary an actual POINT to be found.

It isn't even correct to call this an 'article' or 'editorial'or 'essay';
it's a "collection of sentences", and just barely.

While I am certainly no Hillary fan,
(I certainly don't consider her to be "hard to define")
it's obvious that this article
is a vague, meandering, pointless waste of space.

"Neither fish, nor fowl, nor good red meat", as they
used to say back when WORDS conveyed MEANING....

[neoblues]

3. Standard Rule Number One: Ignore or Be Suspicious of...

Anything and everything you get from major media. (period)