You could say that these failures were Bill’s and not Hill’s – but she’s running on her experience in the White House and thus she should be held accountable for them.
And when it comes down to it, I just don’t want to go back there again. Yes, the Clinton’s were and are amazingly successful at winning their own elections. Yes, they are probably far better prepared for another spell in the WH this time. But, I don’t believe they left the country better off when they had the chance. Clinton’s scandals made Bush’s election possible (I know Gore had something to do with that as well) and quickly whatever progressive changes they enacted were undone.
And I don’t want the Party to become a machine for the expression of their ambition and vanities (as if they are the only authentic voice we have). I don’t want another Clinton administration to serve as vindication for the first (as if everything was great then when in fact it was a time of pettiness and small ideas). I don’t prefer a Clinton dynasty as a replacement for the Bush one. At least the Kennedy’s inspired folks to think big dreams about a better world. The Clintons don’t – they put electoral success first before anything else. No inspiration there.
If Hillary wins the nomination, I’ll storm the walls for her because we can’t afford another four years of neo-con fantasy, but I want the country to move forward and I don’t think she’s the best candidate to do it.
To the candidate that will not only continue to export jobs by providing tax breaks to companies that move them offshore, but will also activly work to exclude Americans from seeking jobs within their own country ,,
Hillary Clinton can wash my car .. that’s it, Go away.
<
p>
Hillary India Caucus Paid Shill
<
p>
SupportH1BReform
But then who do you support for the nomination? If you tear down Clinton but leave no convincing alternative, perhaps all you’ve accomplished is to convince some dems to just stay home and not vote. If you don’t want to aid the republicans by creating hopelessness among dems, you need to pitch a good alternative.
First of all, I’m not tearing Hillary down. She has many positives but she represents the past and I’d prefer we go forward. Hillary does have a few qualities I don’t like such as the fact she is not only a highly partisan figure but decidedly centrist as well – a really annoying combination. Isn’t the whole point of being a centrist so you can win votes from folks across party lines.
<
p>
I support Obama and I’ve come to that conclusion after watching the race for awhile. I think he represents the best chance for a fundamental rewrite of the political playbook. A fresh and hopeful start.
…but just four years ago, he was an Illinois state senator. He seems like a great guy and he is a rising star in the Democratic Party; but let’s face it…he is not qualified to be President of the United States in 2009. Maybe in 2013 or in 2017, but not now.
<
p>
So, I wish the Obamas and the Edwards, et al, would stop trashing the only Democrat who has a chance to win next year…and that would be Hillary Clinton. Sure, she’s not perfect, but she’s smart, tough and qualified to take over on day one. She is the best that the Democrats have to offer this time.
<
p>
The more they beat her up, the more likely it is that we will wind up with a Republican again in 2009. And that would be a disaster.
Frankly I think Hillary’s experience is going to be attacked as well. She’s just into her second term in the Senate, which is the first and only elected office she has ever held.
<
p>
Obama is half way through his first term in the Senate and spent a number of terms in the State Senate, which given that States are often the “idea machines” on domestic policy means he gained valuable experience there. Having served in the trenches in the Illinois legislature meant he had to cut deals to get bills passed, mind to constituents more directly and without lots of staff to help, etc…In many ways a state legislature teaches you a lot more about getting things done than the rarefied US Senate does. What you lack is foreign policy experience and Obama is now getting that.
<
p>
Don’t get me wrong, Hillary is impressive, but the idea that her experience far out distances her rivals is fantasy. And the things I’m not too keen on about her outweigh those positives for me in choosing a Dem nominee.
Edwards was the man in 2004
Biden and Dodd were Fred Flintsone’s senators
Gravel stopped his term as senator when plaid was in fashion
Kucinich has already run once, and is a 5-term congressman
Richardson has been on at least 2 VP shortlists
<
p>
The only candidate not “trapped in the past” is one who has trouble understanding the present: Obama.
<
p>
I do think Hillary Clinton is a pretty amazing woman who although no doubt riding her husband’s coattails to where she is (for better or worse), possesses great strengths – particularly her immense grasp of policy and quiet confidence.
<
p>
As far as I’m concerned, she failed ignominiously at least twice. The first was her incompetent handling of the health-care financing debacle in 1993-94. The second was her vote in favor of the Authorization to Use Military Force on Iraq in 2002.
<
p>
She talks purty, but that’s about it.