I won't vote for Hillary and it has nothing to do with gender, the tone of her voice, her laugh or her husband. I won't vote for Hillary because she is a closet republican. Her position on the Board of Directors of Wall Mart, her days as a 'Goldwater girl', her support of NAFTA, CAFTA, and many of the idiot president's policies makes my rejecting her candidacy an easy one.
One of the most appalling and overtly in-your-face choices she made was attending the fund raising party thrown for her by none other than Ruppert Murdoch.
I refuse to take one for the team in this game. The stakes are just too high...
Posted by Cordier at October 13, 2007 11:50 AMCordier, I think eriposte wrote an excellent 3-part exposé debunking the perception that Hillary is a closet Republican and a "corporate whore."
With that said, here are the facts.
NAFTA:
Hillary has come out against NAFTA. She said all trade agreement should be reassessed every 5 years. Obama recently stated that he would be in favor of extending NAFTA.
Goldwater:
Hillary was raised in a Republican family. While in college at Wellesley, as the Vietnam War raged on, she evolved and quit as president of the College Republican. While in law school, she worked for McGovern's anti-war campaign.
Walmart:
One would think that a woman serving sitting on Walmart's Board of Directors is admirable. When Hillary worked for Walmart, it was not the giant it is now.
Murdoch:
Can presidential candidates afford to reject millions of dollars in donations from a billionaire? Logic tells you that cultivating friends -- even those whose philosophy differs from yours -- is advantageous. What benefit would it be for Hillary to have Murdoch as an enemy?
As for her Sentorial position, you need to refer to eriposte's 3-part series.
Posted by Jamie at October 13, 2007 01:40 PMThe reason that older, educated, professional women ambivalence about Hillary is probably because this demographic pays more attention to the actual issues.
I fit in this category and would love to see a woman president in my life time. Yet, I will not be voting for Hillary in the primary. Based on her previous votes, statements she has made on her plan for Iraq and on the selection of her advisors, I think she is the least likely of the top candidates to end the occupation of Iraq. Also, the DLC type of politics is completely opposite of where I would like the Democratic Party to be.
Posted by MO Blue at October 13, 2007 01:52 PMI won't vote for Hillary because she is a closet republican.
Maybe you're right & we should just accept a President Giuliani or Romney or Thompson et al, the "uncloseted Republicans." At least they're more authentic.
No, seriously we would be better off with the "closeted Republican" than any of those guys.
I completely agree with you that a lot of stuff H. Clinton has supported is terrible. That said, I doubt she'll continue the trend of stacking the judiciary with Federalist Society members. The White House will not be staffed 100% with lawyers espousing the Unitary Executive theory and staff more loyal to the President than the nation.
While she'll still follow a generally imperialistic foreign policy I don't think she'll be as bellicose as any Republican would be. And that means a few hundred thousand people, at least, who might not get killed in some war in the next four years. With enough progressive (NOT BUSH-DOG) Democrats in Congress she can be pushed in a more progressive direction or at least prevented from inflicting some damage (i.e. trade agreements) more easily than any of the G.O.P. monsters.
While we can HOPE and WORK FOR a more progressive candidate than Hillary Clinton, come November of 2008 I will be happy to VOTE AGAINST the Republican by picking whoever has the word "Democrat" under their name. (I'm no party loyalist and will vote for some progressive 3rd party choices in the local and state elections).
And here's hoping we get some good primary challengers to cleanse the Democratic party of it's most reactionary members. This BIG TENT stuff is way overrated.
Posted by TrainWreck at October 13, 2007 02:26 PMJamie ~ I believe 43 campaigned on the US not being into nation building. Hillary was after all present when Bill Clinton made NAFTA a major legislative initiative and we all know how that turned out. Don't you know by now that politicans will say anything to get elected.
As to her sitting on the BOD for Walmart, she shares part of the responsibility for the predatory practices under her supervisory role as a board member. Her gender is a red herring argument.
You ask, "What benefit would it be for Hillary to have Murdoch as an enemy?" and "Can presidential candidates afford to reject millions of dollars in donations from a billionaire?" I posit that the answer to those questions reveals the true nature and character of Hillary.
Hillary has spoken out against NAFTA; Obama favors extending. Those are the facts.
When Hillary Clinton came on board at Walmart, it was not the giant it is. It dominated the South, not the world, yet. Hillary has nothing to apologize for. It is unfortunate that the left demonizes anyone associated Walmart. She was the first female on the board. And during her tenure, Hillary encouraged hirings of women and minorities.
http://www.mindfully.org/Reform/2006/Wal-Mart-Clinton10mar06.htm
Those are the facts.
There is an old saying, "Keep your friends close, and your enemies closer." If you, at, live your life despising your enemies instead of cultivating their friendship in hopes of coming to a common ground, then it is obvious the only people you will ever get along with are those who agree with you on everything. And that is a world few aspire to.
Posted by Jamie at October 13, 2007 03:24 PMJamie ~ Review the definition of quid pro quo. There's another old saying and it applies to friend and foe alike; "if you dance to the music - you must pay the piper".
Hillary never! Edwards, Obama, Dodd - all very capable and not with a long track record of being duplicitous.
Get your facts first, and then you can distort them as much as you please. Mark Twain (1835 - 1910)
Posted by Cordier at October 13, 2007 04:04 PMeriposte asked for thoughts about the article so fwiw, here are mine.
But when it comes to older, affluent, highly educated women, Clinton's numbers lag. In other words, the very women most like Clinton are the ones who are the most ambivalent about her candidacy.
I qualify on two of three criteria but don't think of myself as being much like Senator Clinton. I'm neither ambivalent about nor resisting her candidacy. I admire Hillary Clinton for what she has accomplished along a career path stacked very much against women but simply prefer another candidate in the primary. Why does that need to be analyzed through the lens of grade school social networks?
If the article had been about how women in different demographic groups view the Senator's positions on key issues, it would at least have been interesting. Donna Brazile made only the briefest reference to blue-collar women and "pocketbook issues" (as an aside, those are some of my issues too) but that was it.
My reaction to this article is that it's insulting. The emphasis on emotion over substance perpetuates incorrect and unhelpful stereotypes about the decision-making bases and capabilities of women.
Toward the end of the interview, Tannen suggests that the reader question discussions about Senator Clinton: "Would it have the same meaning if it were said about a man?" Too bad nobody asked this question about female voters before publishing the article.
My reaction to this article is that it's insulting. The emphasis on emotion over substance perpetuates incorrect and unhelpful stereotypes about the decision-making bases and capabilities of women.
I just skimmed the thing, and I think this is an accurate assessment. I've started to read more closely, and boy, I've got to say, though I love Tannen, my first impression is that she hasn't had a new idea in a 8 years. This is like many conversations I had 10 years ago when I hung out with the gender studies crowd and it was fresh and new and mind-blowing that girls are raised differently than boys. Now it just seems stale and forced. I'll prolly have more once I've read it all. So far, though, blech... Thanks for the link, though, it's totally fascinating.
Posted by iamcoyote at October 13, 2007 05:48 PMChristina, Iamcoyote,
As I read through it again, I realize you are right. The discussion is short on substance and focused on superficialities in many cases. I am personally not even sure that the article's claim about Sen. Clinton's support among women is in fact correct. Thanks for your perspectives.
Posted by eriposte at October 13, 2007 07:22 PMHillary is a whore.
Posted by Ripper at October 13, 2007 09:04 PMLate to the party, but I too was put off by this piece. I notice lately that every point raised against Clinton's candidacy is explained away by her supporters in some way - there's some kind of rationale for her votes, her policies, and anything other concrete objection a skeptic may have. It really is 'shut up and get with the program', most likely due to her momentum.
I don't like Hillary Clinton,and it has nothing to do with either one of us being a woman. I think she's a smart phony, and as a New Yorker I am especially aware of how invisible she was for most of her entire first term, just when the country was plunging itself into a catastrophic war that my Senator should have taken a position on. But all she did was propose a bill outlawing flag burning. Pandering, pandering, pandering.
So where was she when we needed forceful leadership? She was waiting, preparing to run for President, keeping her powder dry so that she could fulfill some intense personal desire to be the most important person in the world.
My ideal candidate is Al Gore, who is infinitely better prepared and more qualified to lead this nation than HRC. If he isn't running, my next choice would be John Edwards, who is consistently innovative and attentive to policy issues that would make this a much better country for most Americans (including the children).
So I refuse to drink the Clinton Kool-Aid.
Posted by nyc at October 14, 2007 05:05 AM"It really is 'shut up and get with the program"
Why is it that when someone challenges or refutes a claim, that person is accused of shutting you up and demanding you be in lock-step? I don't care who you vote for. I'm not telling you to shut up. However, it is my right to present our side of the facts. And I haven't seen anyone refute the facts I've presented.
When you demonize Hillary and heap praise on Edwards or Obama, you are telling the truth. When Hillarites return the favor, we're shutting you up. Is that the logic you're presenting?
"I notice lately that every point raised against Clinton's candidacy is explained away by her supporters in some way - there's some kind of rationale for her votes, her policies, and anything other concrete objection a skeptic may have."
You see her through your biased, anti-Hillary world in which everything she does, says and votes for is "pandering" and "irrational." You just can't see the flip side of it. She's just a black-and-white caricature who can do nothing right. She's just a horrible person. That's your world view.
And when someone comes along and gives you a different perspective on how she is and why she voted the way she did, we are treated to your condescending "everything is explained away by her supporters."
If you want to gloss over the fact that John Edwards and Obama have their own flaws, then that is your perogative.
However, as this is an open forum, Hillarites have the same equal opportunity to present our side and we don't do so to "shut you up" and demand you "get with the program."
Posted by Jamie at October 14, 2007 10:46 AMJamie what are you talking about?
In a previous thread (The Audacity of Hypocrisy and Distortion) you are the one who shouted "that's bull" in response to Prabhata's sober explanation of why he was worried the amendment would make things easier for the warmongers. Then you basically accused opponents of Kyl/Lieberman as being paranoid. Why don't you explain why the worry is unfounded? The best I've heard so far is Dick Durbin said Robert Gates had assured him. That's pretty weak. You should have come back with something more substantive in reponse to Prabhata if you have anything to rebut his assertions. Or do you believe a strike against aggression would be in "our" interests?
That's not demonizing Hillary. That's just talking about her record. And furthermore why assume that when someone's criticizing Hillary that they're a partisan for one of the other candidates? Honestly all of the top tier candidates are flawed but that's the real world for you.
However, it is my right to present our side of the facts.
What does that mean, "side of facts" ???
You cited Hillary's support for hiring women and minorities in her capacity as Walmart board member. Fine, that's good. Someone else (like me for instance) might wonder, yeah but as a board member does she share some culpability for Walmart's misdeeds?
The "fact" is Hillary Clinton supported NAFTA when it mattered, when they were trying to pass it, back in the 1990s. There were plenty of us then who thought it was a bad idea and her support of it then as well as her support of the authorization to use force in Iraq in 2002 makes me wonder about her judgement and core beliefs.
Don't get me wrong like I said before she's still better than most Republicans who might be or in recent times have been President.
Posted by TrainWreck at October 14, 2007 02:31 PMJamie,
Also, could you stop referring to "the left"??? You use the term adversarially in a dismissive manner, with unspoken implications. I could be wrong but it seems like a bullying kind of term. Reminds me of when I used to catch a moment of some Fox News opinion guy talking about the evil dark "left."
When Hillary Clinton came on board at Walmart, it was not the giant it is. It dominated the South, not the world, yet. Hillary has nothing to apologize for. It is unfortunate that the left demonizes anyone associated Walmart.
If you don't think Walmart's practices are predatory then say so and why. Furthermore your reasoning about the timing of Walmart's ascension and Hillary's lack of culpability is questionable. Maybe Walmart became what it is today because of the acts of folks running Walmart back in 1986.
But don't take my word for it, see for yourself:
Wal-Mart’s First Lady - Hillary’s Past Belies Her Support of Labor
Hillary Clinton and Wal-Mart: A Love Story
Walmart:
May I remind you that Michelle Obama also sat on the board of a Walmart Associated Company as recently as 2006. Her husband had been critical of Walmart and when it was revealed that Walmart was one of her company's biggest clients, Michelle resigned.
Now, does Michelle "share some culpability for Walmart's misdeeds?" If not, why did she feel she had to resign?
I thought that was a foolish move. Neither Michelle nor Hillary should apologize for their success. Both women should be proud of their achievements. The first woman on board of a major company and the first black woman to sit on the board of Treehouse.
It was the anti-Walmart crowd that demonized anyone associated with Walmart that forced Michelle to resign. It was a needless action.
NAFTA:
As for NAFTA, Hillary has come out against it because she has seen its failure since it was implemented in the '90s; Barack Obama, also possessing knowledge of its failures, still promises to extend it. Therein lies the difference: Someone who has learned from her past and seeks to rectify the problem; versus someone who acknowledges its failure, but wants to continue with that failure for whatever reason.
The Left:
I seek to distinguish myself from this new Left. This new left that has such vitriol hatred for Bush, corporations and the war so much so that their hatred bleeds onto any person they feel has not done enough to rectify the situation.
I hate this war and Bush. But I don't target and blame Hillary, Reid or Pelosi because they are unable to end this war. I understand how complicated Iraq is. However, this new left will attack everyone, including members of their own party.
The comments about Hillary that I have read here, on Huff Post, DailyKos and other left blogosphere is no different from comments I seen on Rightwing website. If you wish for me to apologize for that, I will not.
On Huff Post, there is an article about an anonymous, untraceable email sent out to suggest that Obama is a Muslim. Half of the comments there (from RWers, Obama/Edwards supporters) have accused Hillary's campaign of being behind it. In this thread alone, "ripper" posted that "Hillary is a whore."
That is not the left I want to be associated with.
jamie: "...I don't target and blame Hillary, Reid or Pelosi because they are unable to end this war...."
which is part of the reason they will not end the war
I will not give a penny to the national Democrats, but will support individual campaigns.
Posted by Gay Veteran at October 15, 2007 06:08 AMMay I remind you that Michelle Obama also sat on the board of a Walmart Associated Company as recently as 2006.
I didn't know that. But I'm not any Obama partisan particularly. That's a "well they did it too" argument and I'm not holding up the Obamas as a shining ideal vs. the Clintons.
In this thread alone, "ripper" posted that "Hillary is a whore."
I totally agree that was a lame comment. Sexist insults are UnCool even if one can't stand Hillary Clinton the politician. IF she's a whore than so are most of her fellow politicians in both big parties, to a greater or lesser degree... guess it depends on your definition of the word. I do think she's a corporatist. I don't think corporations should have human rights in the legal system (they do now).
I seek to distinguish myself from this new Left. This new left that has such vitriol hatred for Bush...
The vitriol for Bush is well deserved. For me it's hard to understand how any fair-minded and informed person wouldn't feel rage. And some of this anger has to go to the politicans in both parties as well as many media personalities, because Bush couldn't have inflicted all the damage without their help. I think it's right to feel disdain for the Dem politicians who enabled Bush or who did too little to stop or slow him when they could have done so. And Reid, Pelosi et al are still doing too little. Why did they hand Bush the awful FISA bill this past August. Why should some of these Democrats get a pass? I don't care if they were looking out for their political hides. It just sucks, and the Democratic party MUST do better than this, either with new people or getting the current folks to change their behavior. Yeah, I think the enablers DO have something to apologize for. I'm not holding my breath. I do give John Edwards credit for having the courage to apologize for his vote (of course I give Rep. Barbara Lee WAY more credit for having voted NO in the first place, and boy did she get a lot of flack). If Hillary Clinton did the same I would think more of her. Too many are following the Bush model, to never admit you were wrong as it is a sign of weakness. I think it is a sign of strength, in a human being and in a politician.
You also used the term "the left" dismissively in your "that's bull" response to Prabhata, on Kyl/Lieberman. I didn't hear him spewing any hateful vitriol at anyone. It was very dispassionate. Are you lumping people like him or me with the "rippers" of the blog-world? That's a mistake. You know any right winger could come on, pretending to be a prog and calling people all sorts of swear words.
As far hateful comments in blogs I've read hateful comments from so-called moderates too. Do you want to disociate from that also? There is no monolithic entity called "the left." On the other hand, the right-wing seems more lock-step, though even they have different more and less polite factions.
I truly believe what is now considered "centrist" in the mainstream media used to be conservative and that it's a rhetorical trick to push the debate and range of acceptables further to the "right." What used to be "liberal" is now labeled "far left." "Bipartisanship" shouldn't mean having to bend over for the Republicans. I despise the self-appointed "centrists" for claiming to be more reasonable and mature than the rest of us, and for giving Bush's murderous policies a respectable sheen. How can they be in "the center" when 70% of the population is to "the left" of their position. That's some weird math.
NAFTA: Well I'm glad Sen. Clinton is able to see the error of her earlier position. It's hard to understanding how somebody that bright couldn't have foreseen the results before-hand. Plenty of people did. I hope she changed her position after seeing the empirical result of NAFTA rather than as a cynical appeal to progressives. As far as Obama's position, well that just brings my opinion of him down another notch, it doesn't make me think more of the other candidate, except in a relative sense, so I guess it makes sense for you to keep comparing Clinton's positions to those of her opponents.
I'm not asking you to apologize for anything. I just disagree or see things differently.
Posted by at October 15, 2007 10:45 AMHIllary recently said about NAFTA, that when the US economy is good, such trade agreements are good for us. When the US economy is bad, they are bad for us.
Thus the Clintons supported NAFTA when they could keep the economy good, but now are opposing it till they can fix our economy again.
As for professional women showing less support for Hillary than lower income women, I wonder if one small factor might be the claims by some opponents that Hillary has less experience than Obama because he has more years in elective office (state sen + US sen), while she was "just someone's wife."
Maybe lower income women are more in touch with what happens in a 'Mom and Pop' team -- everything is in the man's name, but she was in fact an equal partner and shares the experience.