Hillary supporters, show yourselves. I want to know who to blame in 2008 if Hillary wins the nomination. I know of only one blogger who is actively supporting Hillary, who will remain nameless. Where are the rest of you? Not reading my blog, I’m sure.
In just one day, I have read four very disconcerting pieces about Hillary.
First, I will say that a Hillary nomination would risk the Democrats losing in 2008. Missouri state Minority Whip Connie Johnson said of Hillary’s prospects in the general election in Missouri: “If Hillary comes to a state like Missouri, we can write it off.”
Then there are Hillary’s fundraising activities which could become a serious issue. We had Norman Hsu, and now we have a whole lot of‘bundled’ donations in the thousands from working class citizens in Chinatown.
The other stories point to the risk of her winning in 2008. Her ‘bundled’ employee donations from defense contractors like Lockheed Martin, Boeing, Northrop-Grumman, General Dynamics and Raytheon should give us pause. This article from the UK’s Independent notes, “Mrs Clinton has received $52,600 in contributions from individual arms industry employees. That is more than half the sum given to all Democrats and 60 per cent of the total going to Republican candidates.”
Then there’s more dirty money. There is her relationship with Alan Quasha. Quasha bailed out Bush’s business ventures back in the 1980s. More recently, he gave Clinton confidante Terry McAuliffe a job, and his business partner, Hassan Nemazee, is one of Hillary’s biggest fundraisers. There’s more. Lots. Read the whole thing.
Taking a trip down memory lane of my blog, we see the conservatives’ adoration of Hillary HERE and HERE. We see her risk of losing in 2008 HERE and HERE. And then there’s Rupert Murdoch’s support.
So why would we risk losing in 2008? Or alternatively, having a President who will have won thanks to the very people who put Bush in office? Why would we be so stupid?
Crossposted at Worldwide Sawdust and The Liberal Journal
I don’t support Hillary and would be horrified if she were the nominee. I have no problem with the issues you bring up, but I’m a little dismayed about the “stupid” thing. No candidate is perfect — even my favorite one. Some people will consider the issues you bring up and feel there are other overriding issues that cause them to support Hillary. That doesn’t make them stupid — mistaken perhaps — but necessarily stupid. We have a way to go in the primary season without disrespecting those with whom we disagree. At least that is what I think. But maybe it is a dumb idea.
I think the ‘stupid’ moniker is appropriate in the primaries.
The title of this post was meant to be provocative. I have been writing about Hillary’s suspect ties and hawkish tendencies for months. I know I am only one lowly blogger, but every month her numbers tick up a little bit more, and I am beginning to get frustrated.
We are three months out of the first primaries. Hillary’s nomination appears more inevitable with each passing day. It’s “put up or shut up” time. If we are too passive, we risk keeping the country on the same general direction it has been going. I made the decision to use a harsh, blunt phrase because too much is at stake.
People still are filled with nostalgia about the Clinton years.
They do not know how tied to Bush and his cabal the Clintons have become.
Hillary’s Bush Connection: Bush’s mystery money man becomes Hillary’s
Hillary is being bought by the corporate elites and Democrats are not paying attention.
Clinton bucks the trend and rakes in cash from the US weapons industry
An unlikely treasure-trove of donors for Clinton
There’s a lot more to fear about Hillary than her going on to sell a lay in the Lincoln bedroom for contributions. There’s her pandering to the Neocon agenda that got Bush in trouble and her willingness to continue a militaristic foreign policy. There is the pandering to the health insurance and drug industries which she is now willing to give 15-20% off the top in medical care dollars in return for covering all Americans. In short, she is now willing to sleep with the enemy in order to promote her own career as president.
I would love if a woman achieved the American presidency, but this one is just not the liberal Democrat we can support.
Would Edwards make a better president? I would say yes. Would Obama? Perhaps. If you believe so, vote for them.
But if Clinton gets the nomination, what then? No matter what your feelings are, you better get behind her whole heartedly, because at this point America simply cannot afford another Republican administration. It is certainly true she is a sell out when it comes to contributors, but what person of either party is not? (those with a realistic chance, that is) The political situation in this country for the last few decades absolutely prevents anything but a sell out from getting either nomination.
If we have learned ANYTHING the last 20 years it is that federal court appointments are CRITICAL. At least there Clinton will most certainly do her duty to America. Another area is she is certainly a ‘realist’ when it comes to international affairs. She would NOT bomb Iran (of course IMO Bush will already have done so). Will the palestinians get their country if she is elected? No. But the reason is universal to all the candidates. They will not get their country until there is a LARGE SCALE political movement here for us to step in and get it done. There is no such LARGE SCALE movement.
As far as the weakness in getting elected because of campaign contributions. This is a republican talking point. ALL the candidates have such issues. It’s only because the media is selective in reporting them that Clinton would get slammed on this. IT IS OUR JOB TO PREVENT THEM FROM GETTING AWAY WITH IT! It MIGHT be true to select a candidate to prevent this selective ‘enforcement’ (I would gladly argue the opposite is true) would be ‘wise’. But do you REALLY think if Edwards (or Obama, or Dodd) was nominated instead they would NOT get such attacks?
Let’s be realistic. No matter who the nominee is, unfair attacks are coming. The right (and their media cohorts) do NOT need ‘real’ incidents. They will just make them up.
Edwards would be a ‘pretty boy’.
Obama would be a black man with a funny name.
Let me tell you a secret….Clinton (and her husband) are far better at striking back than Edwards and Obama. They are not ‘tough’ in the way the Clinton’s are. They would end up looking like the ‘weak’ leaders we have in congress. She would not.
To paraphrase that dipshit Sec of Defense;
You fight the war with the leader you have, not the one you wish you had.
nalbar
America can’t afford to have democrats give Bush another war, but they are doing their damndest to do just that. I think voting is irrelevant at this point. If appointments are so critical why did they give the pass to Alito?
Voting is irrelevent? A republican dream is to get American’s to really believe that. That is the same attitude that got Bush as president over Gore. Are you seriously saying there is NO difference between the two?
Alito passed (don’t forget the republicans were a majority at that time) because a president usually gets a pass on their SCOTUS appointments. Would the republicans give a democratic president the same consideration. No. That is what makes them republicans.
But that is no arguement that there is NO difference between Clinton and Romney (or god forbid, Huckabee) as far as appointments are concerned. Of course there is. If we get REALLY lucky Clinton will show a little bias and put more than two women on the court. But my main point is that the courts are a LONG term project. It’s a 16-20 year project.
Virtually EVERY problem we have right now HAS to be addressed through the courts. To say it makes no difference between Clinton and ‘the others’ is, IMO recklessly dangerous.
The courts are all we have standing between us and…..not great times. We cannot afford to throw it away because a certain democrat has problems.
nalbar
It is likely that Gore only could have won by agreeing to be a pod like Hillary. I just ain’t going for scare tactics any longer. so blah blah blah. I think direct action is the way, the cogressional dems have proven my voting for change don’t make it so.
the very reason i won’t be voting for hillary.
maybe this is just the “wake-up call” the American public needs….don’t just vote for whom the media adorn’s…vote for who will really do the job ..
Edwards is the one…we need to make sure it happens.
You notice I said WE ….it will take a lot of commitment, and hard work, but our present, and future rest entirely upon just that. HARD WORK, COMMITMENT
GET TO WORK PEOPLE…. not just lip service.
A Zogby poll released yesterday found that Hillary Clinton is the candidate of either party with the lowest ceiling of support. 50% would never vote for her.
http://liberaljournal.blogspot.com/2007/10/lets-talk-electability.html
from the nation
This to me is totally unexceptional
http://www.hillcap.org
http://www.peterfpaul.com
Try and access those, the Google pages are still there though.
sites have for her, why on earth hasn’t this been better publicized by freeper types?
Because politics is a for profit industry with the sole purpose of deception. Look up Hegelian Dialectic.
Talking points on both sides are still brought up in measured quantities, quantities just short of revealing the real truths.
…First, I will say that a Hillary nomination would risk the Democrats losing in 2008…
hillary in 08: snatching defeat from the jaws of victory
it’s unrealistic, nae,moronic, to think these negatives are insignificant, and able to be overcome, especially before the real onslaught occurs… but that’s the dlc: back to the 90’s when what the people are looking for is a new direction and some real leadership.
lTMF’sA
Of course, I have no reason to believe my vote is counted as cast. Which doesn’t mean I won’t vote! Hope springs eternal, whether reality-based or not.
But I wish those who have time to campaign this cycle realize this is all a wasted exercise if our vote is already gone. We have so many reasons to believe it is.
That is the only campaign I’ll support at this time – the campaign to reclaim our vote. Every other issue pales in insignificance in comparison.
She is not a leader. So far, there is not one single issue of any interest to progressive/liberals/leftleaners that she is leading on, EXCEPT HEALTH CARE. She is not leading on FISA. She is not leading on the war. She is not leading on politicization. What is she leading on?
She is a panderer.
She is divisive. Attitudes about her are set.
She is, ultimately, a product of her husband. Without Bill, no Hillary. If she was a single person, or married to someone else, she would not be a Senator. She would not be a candidate. In fact, I doubt she would be much of anything.
I don’t support her at all. I believe that Chris Dodd is a far better candidate.