Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Parsing the Polls: Hillary and Women

How do women voters view the presidential candidacy of Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton? It is a tricky question to answer.

For the most part, women's groups have lined up quickly and vocally behind Clinton's campaign. The president of the abortion rights group EMILY's List, Ellen Malcolm, is one of Clinton's key surrogates and was on site in South Carolina for the first presidential debate.

Clinton has put her gender front and center in the campaign. In her stump speech she asks the (rhetorical) question: Is America ready for a woman in the Oval Office? "We'll never know until we try," she says, usually to loud applause.

And yet whispers remain that Clinton's support among women is broad but not deep. Political strategists trade anecdotes about their mothers or sisters or daughters who simply refuse to vote for Clinton.

Do the numbers bear these anecdotes out? Or are they just the unsubstantiated yammerings of the political class? Let's Parse the Polls!

It's tough to use any single national poll to try and understand the nature of Clinton's relationship with women. The sample sizes are just too small to properly slice and dice the numbers.

So, instead of one poll, we looked at two. With the help of the Washington Post's assistant polling director Jennifer Agiesta, we combined the results of The Post's February and April national surveys. Combined, the two polls tested more than 2,200 people on Feb. 22-25 and April 12-15.

A look at the numbers shows a definite gender gap -- with Clinton receiving more support from women than from men. On the hypothetical primary ballot, Clinton scored 40 percent among women, 32 percent among men.

Among the various age subgroups, Clinton's gender gap is most apparent among men and women aged 40-49. Thirty-eight percent of women in their forties backed Clinton, while just 17 percent of men in the same age group supported her. The smallest gender gap was among those 65 and older; Clinton received 37 percent support from women and 36 percent from men among that age group.

Women of different ages clearly view Clinton through different lenses.

Clinton runs weakest among her contemporaries -- women between 50 and 64 years old (Clinton is currently 59 years old; she turns 60 on Oct. 26). In that subgroup Clinton takes 31 percent of the women's vote compared with 25 percent for Sen. Barack Obama (Ill.), 18 percent for former Vice President Al Gore and 12 percent for former Sen. John Edwards (N.C.).

Her strongest demographic subgroup is women between the ages of 18 and 39. Clinton takes 45 percent among that demographic to 22 percent for Obama, 12 percent for Gore and 10 percent for Edwards. (Interestingly, Clinton also runs strongest among men aged 18-39; she polled 40 percent in that group.)

What explains Clinton's strong standing among young women and comparative struggles among women her own age? There's no one obvious right answer, but here's our guess. Young women tend to see Clinton as an iconic figure, a pioneer who has overcome a series of personal challenges to now be in contention to be the first woman ever elected president.

Clinton's contemporaries, on the other hand, don't appear to place her on the same pedestal. Why? It's almost impossible to find an answer in the available data. Perhaps it has to do with questions over her motives for seeking political office. Or her handling of the revelations surrounding the Monica Lewinsky affair. It may well be a different combination of issues or events for each woman.

The Clinton campaign is clearly aware of the need to maximize her support among women across all age and demographic groups -- an acknowledgment made in both obvious and subtle ways. Her campaign Web site touts "Hillary for President" not "Clinton for President" -- an emphasis on her as a person not her as a politician. On the policy front, Clinton has rolled out her plan to provide pre-kindergarten education to all American children, a proposal sure to play well among women.

The Fix has long believed that Clinton's main advantage in this nomination fight was not her last name, her fundraising or her organization. It was (and is) the fact that she is the only woman in a crowded field. And to her credit, Clinton has moved to maximize that advantage in a number of ways. But as the above polling shows, women are not a monolithic voting bloc. Women have widely divergent images of Clinton and what electing a woman means. In short, courting the women's vote is far more complicated and complex than many in politics seem to believe. Clinton must find a way to maintain her sterling image among young women while working to reintroduce herself as a mother, wife and daughter to women closer to her own age.

The Fix wants to hear from you about Hillary and the women's vote. Sound off in the comments section below.

By Chris Cillizza  |  May 23, 2007; 5:00 AM ET
Categories:  Eye on 2008  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Edwards Expands Ad Buy
Next: KY-Gov Results

Comments

FROM CARL BERNSTEIN TO THE BROADDRICK RAPE: Connecting the Dots
Hillary calls new books 'cash for rehash.' (Not so fast, missus clinton.)

by Mia T, 6.04.07

"There's not a sex act mentioned in the book. What is important is Hillary savaging the women." (Carl Bernstein)

Howard Wolfson doth protest too little.

Yawn in tow--or is it a smirk?--the clinton flack is making the rounds trying to convince us that the two new hillary books about to hit the stores, "A Woman in Charge," by Carl Bernstein of 'Woodward and'/Watergate fame, and "Her Way," by former New York Times reporter Jeff Gerth and current one Don Van Natta Jr., are nothing new.

But Wolfson's claim--and his yawn--are belied by his tactic: That is, if these books are simply warmed over calumny, why the redundancy of clinton schemes trying to kill them, (and kill them preemptively, no less)?

Listen to clinton operatives Wolfson, Philippe Reines et al. Their oh-so-carefully-crafted sound bites--"rehash for cash" and "Is it possible to be quoted yawning?'--reveal real concern in the clinton camp about the books.

'OLD NEWS'

The clinton machine wants us to think the books are about the clinton marriage and so-called adultery and, as such, are 'old news.'

What is 'old news' is that tired clinton turn of phrase. Concocted to cause us to dismiss clinton crimes, abuses and failures, it is a non sequitur that insults us all. In clinton-machine scandal-mitigation parlance, the implied premise of 'old news' is that there is a statute of limitations on 'venal' and 'inept.' (ASIDE: 9/11 shot that one down, didn't it?)

'ADULTERY'

Falsely portraying the clinton marital deal as 'adultery' has enabled missus clinton for decades to play the victim, which in turn enabled the clintons to win elections and avoid the slammer (though not always in that order). (HEAR SUSAN ESTRICH: hillary plays 'the victim' for votes)

But the marital 'arrangement' detailed by these two books vitiates the 'adultery' charge.

Worse, it supports the Juanita Broaddrick allegations of rape by bill clinton and threat by hillary clinton two weeks after the rape.

As Carl Bernstein himself put it last week ('Today'): "There's not a sex act mentioned in the book. What is important is Hillary savaging the women."

Don't fall for the clintons' own rehash for cash and power. The clinton story is no soap opera. It is a horror story about abuse of women, abuse of power and willful utter failure to confront terrorism.

The clinton story is about the clintons' fundamental unfitness to be out kids' babysitters, much less senator or--heaven forbid--president... again.

As missus clinton cynically targets us, abuses us, yet one more time, we women, especially, must open our eyes. We will not survive another clinton. (We may yet not survive the first.)

"The power of the harasser, the abuser, the rapist depends above all on the silence of women." (Ursula K. LeGuin)

VOTE SMART: A WARNING TO ALL WOMEN ABOUT HILLARY CLINTON (on YouTube)

Posted by: Mia T | June 5, 2007 10:18 AM | Report abuse

Sorry about the duplicate posts. (The comments weren't appearing.)

Listen to Howard Wolfson, Philippe Reines and the rest of the clinton operatives. Their carefully crafted sound bites describing the Bernstein and Gerth/Van Natta books--"rehash for cash" and "Is it possible to be quoted yawning?'--reveal a real concern in camp clinton.

The clinton machine is trying to make us think the two new hillary books are about the clinton marriage and so-called adultery and, as such, are 'old news.' (That tired clinton turn of phrase engineered to turn us away from clinton crimes, abuses and failures is what is 'old news.' It is a non sequitur that insults us all.)

Portraying the marital deal as 'adultery' has enabled missus clinton to play the victim for decades in order to win elections and avoid the slammer. (Google: 'HEAR SUSAN ESTRICH: hillary plays 'the victim' for votes.")

But the marital 'arrangement' detailed by these two books vitiates the 'adultery' charge.

As Carl Bernstein, himself, put it this past week (Today): "There's not a sex act mentioned in the book. What is important is Hillary savaging the women that he was with."

Don't fall for clintons' own 'rehash for cash' and power. The clinton story is no soap opera. It is a horror story.

It is about is the clintons' abuse of women, abuse of power and willful utter failure to confront terrorism.

It is about the clintons' fundamental unfitness to be out kids' babysitters, much less senator or--heaven forbid--president redux.

Posted by: Mia T | June 4, 2007 8:24 AM | Report abuse

test

Posted by: joe g | June 3, 2007 10:52 AM | Report abuse

test

Posted by: Mia T | June 3, 2007 10:50 AM | Report abuse

Carl Bernstein on "Today": "There's not a sex act mentioned in the book. What is important is Hillary savaging the women that he was with."

Posted by: miat | June 3, 2007 10:49 AM | Report abuse

re my post, above:

Carl Bernstein on "Today": "There's not a sex act mentioned in the book. What is important is Hillary savaging the women that he was with."

Posted by: Mia T | June 3, 2007 10:42 AM | Report abuse

Do not miscontrue the Bernstein and Gerth/Van Atta books as being about hillary clinton's marriage. They are about hillary clinton's fatal defects.--Mia T (for context, see above)

Carl Bernstein on "Today": "There's not a sex act mentioned in the book. What is important is Hillary savaging the women that he was with."

Posted by: Mia T | June 3, 2007 10:40 AM | Report abuse

Read Carl Bernstein and Gerth/Van Atta on this. They support by way of analogy Juanita Broaddrick's allegation that hillary clinton threatened her two weeks after bill clinton raped her. Do not miscontrue the Bernstein and Gerth/Van Atta books as being about hillary clinton's marriage. They are about hillary clinton's fatal defects.--Mia T

Carl Bernstein on "Today": "There's not a sex act mentioned in the book. What is important is Hillary savaging the women that he was with."

Posted by: Mia T | June 3, 2007 10:37 AM | Report abuse

Read Carl Bernstein and Gerth/Van Atta on this. They support by way of analogy Juanita Broaddrick's allegation that hillary clinton threatened her two weeks after bill clinton raped her. Do not miscontrue the Bernstein and Gerth/Van Atta books as being about hillary clinton's marriage. They are about hillary clinton's fatal defects. (You can see the Broaddrick interviews--the Dateline NBC clinton rape interview by Lisa Myers and the interview in which Broaddrick details the threat by hillary clinton 2 weeks after the rape--at deletehillary, rape page.)--Mia T

Carl Bernstein on "Today": "There's not a sex act mentioned in the book. What is important is Hillary savaging the women that he was with."

Posted by: Mia T | June 3, 2007 10:35 AM | Report abuse

isafakir:

As for relative intelligence, I happen to think the professional pol is a self-selected subgroup of Homo sapiens that is mediocre, power-hungry and corrupt or corruptible by definition.

That said, Bush's SATs were higher than Kerry's, Bush earned an MBA from Harvard while Gore flunked out of divinity school, dropped out of law school and hillary clinton flunked the DC Bar, which had a 60% pass rate. (She did, however, manage to pass the Arkansas Bar, with a ~90% pass rate... and the rest is history--albeit revisionist.)

"Gore's undergraduate transcript from Harvard is riddled with C's, including a C-minus in introductory economics, a D in one science course, and a C-plus in another. 'In his sophomore year at Harvard,' the Post reported, 'Gore's grades were lower than any semester recorded on Bush's transcript from Yale.'

Moreover, Gore's graduate school record - consistently glossed over by the press - is nothing short of shameful. In 1971, Gore enrolled in Vanderbilt Divinity School where, according to Bill Turque, author of 'Inventing Al Gore,' he received F's in five of the eight classes he took over the course of three semesters. Not surprisingly, Gore did not receive a degree from the divinity school. Nor did Gore graduate from Vanderbilt Law School, where he enrolled for a brief time and received his fair share of C's."

All while Bush went on to earn an MBA from Harvard....

You really must try to think critically, resist the clinton agitprop and goto original sources.

Posted by: Anonymous | June 2, 2007 1:37 AM | Report abuse

It is a mystery why any woman would vote for hillary clinton. She is not simply married to an abuser of women. She is an abuser of women in her own right.
 
Read Carl Bernstein and Gerth/Van Atta on this. They support by way of analogy Juanita Broaddrick's allegation that hillary clinton threatened her two weeks after bill clinton raped her. Do not miscontrue the Bernstein and Gerth/Van Atta books as being about hillary clinton's marriage. They are about hillary clinton's fatal defects. (You can see the Broaddrick interviews--the Dateline NBC clinton rape interview by Lisa Myers and the interview in which Broaddrick details the threat by hillary clinton 2 weeks after the rape--at deletehillary, rape page.)
 
hillary clinton is also an abuser of power.

See 'The Barrett report,' Jan. 31, 2007, by Mark Goodman, a registered Democrat and avowed liberal. Note, especially, Goodman's warning in the final paragraph:
"Now that the senator from New York has announced 'I'm in to win,' voters should demand that their representatives release the mystery pages so that they may examine Mrs. Clinton red in tooth. Otherwise, Americans run the risk of going to the polls in 2008 seeking the rebirth of a nation only to discover that they have merely traded the devil for a witch."

(The Barrett report documents the clintons' massive abuse of power, which includes the routine siccing of the IRS--Soviet-style--on the clinton critics. And do not miss the irony here: the evidence documenting this massive clinton abuse of power was redacted by massive clinton abuse of power.)
 
Also read Democrat Jerry Zeifman, who was her boss during the Nixon impeachment proceedings; he alerts us to hillary rodham's fundamental lack of ethics, why he could never recommend her for 'any position of public or private trust.'
 
And hillary clinton is inept.

clinton administration veteran and Berkeley economist Brad Delong warns:
"My 2 cents' worth and I think it is the 2 cents' worth of everybody who worked for the Clinton Administration health care reform effort of 1993-1994 is that Hillary Rodham Clinton needs to be kept very far away from the White House for the rest of her life. Heading up health-care reform was the only major administrative job she has ever tried to do + she was a complete flop at it. She had neither the grasp of policy substance, the managerial skills, nor the political smarts to do the job she was then given. And she wasn't smart enough to realize that she was in over her head and had to get out of the Health Care Czar role quickly. There is no reason to think she would be anything but an abysmal president "
 
Also note that this self-described brilliant woman flunked the DC Bar, which had a 60% pass rate. (See the Bernstein book on this. Indeed, see her own turgid tome. (Not the audio version, however. Perhaps the clinton-machine thinking is that literacy and gullibility are inversely related.)) She did, however, pass the Arkansas Bar, (80-90% pass rate) and the rest is history, albeit revisionist.
 
If 9/11 taught us anything, it is that presidential character and moral authority count, and count most.(bill clinton, who, for self-serving reasons ignored terrorism for his entire tenure, (see YouTube, 'Virtual Kill,' see deletehillary, terrorism page), was rated by 90 historians and presidential scholars in the C-SPAN poll dead last in moral authority--lower than Nixon. If the variables are properly weighted, bill clinton will always come out dead last. That is, unless Americans are dumb enough to make the same mistake twice.
 
"The power of the harasser, the abuser, the rapist depends above all on the silence of women." (Ursula K. LeGuin)
 
See my YouTube video, 'VOTE SMART: A WARNING TO ALL WOMEN ABOUT HILLARY CLINTON,' which was mentioned by this paper. ('A Brave New World of Political Skulduggery? Anti-Clinton Video Shows Ease of Attack In the Computer Age,' By Howard Kurtz and Jose Antonio Vargas.)

Posted by: Mia T | June 2, 2007 12:25 AM | Report abuse

US President Tim Kalemkarian, US Senate Tim Kalemkarian, US House Tim Kalemkarian: best major candidate.

Posted by: anonoymous | May 28, 2007 4:44 AM | Report abuse

i can't think of a single Dem candidate who would not make a dynamite president and Hillary, Clinton, Mrs Clinton and Senator Clinton are all among the best of them. Gore, Richardson, Obama, even Kucinich, all of them, are people of integrity, honor, decency, and American in all the best sense of that word. It is amazing to see so many good people in the same party, and as amazing to see just how sadly the other parties rank in comparison. I wouldn't vote for any of them for the school board, much less president. Can you imagine another 4 years of people who don't know enough science to do a high school biology for shop students experiment.

Posted by: isafakir | May 24, 2007 9:48 PM | Report abuse

I think that one of Hillary's best aspects is that she is cold and calculating. Nice people were NOT meant for politics, and the only people who can get anything done are those that are opportunistic and calculating. This is why Hillary could take on the job.

Posted by: 18 | May 24, 2007 4:48 PM | Report abuse

Rita! Saw you at the Condi lovefest with Tina. Will you be at Nina's "CondiRama" on Saturday? Because Lisa and Corita and Sabrina and I are all going. We all LOOOOVE Condi, and hope she can overcome her spotty record at State - or else, get people to forget about it because she's so awesome hee hee - and run for president. Oh - I have a phone call, it must be Nissa at 'Fond-i-of-Condi,' so I better take it.

Wait - we're all the same person, aren't we?

Time for more meds.

Posted by: Gina | May 24, 2007 3:31 PM | Report abuse

Broadly many more supporters and voters would vote for Condoleeza Rice. They like her politics and her qualifications and her seriousness without attitude first of all.

Not as many entirely like Hillary's politics,nor believe being the wife of a president should qualify her to be president, regardless how ambitious and ideological, and over-confident she has always been. Being pickle faced is not a qualification either, and does not necessarily indicate gravitas or real seriousness.

Hillary is eaten with ambition alone. Period.

Posted by: Rita | May 24, 2007 3:23 PM | Report abuse

Kara has mentioned the best ticket for our country [first] and for the Democratic party [second], which is RICHARDSON--OBAMA!

There are millions of us voters who are AOK with the idea of a female president, but NOT with Hillary. Let New York keep her as their Senator, if those living in the state are so happy with her.

And let everyone argue--and vote--with their brains, and not with their genitals, skin, or spleen.

Posted by: Radical Patriot | May 24, 2007 1:27 PM | Report abuse

The women I have talked to single, married and widowed support Hillary. They like her position on issues like health care and education. One of them who has met her found she was likeable, as well. Two of them have daughters and believe things will be better for them if Hillary becomes President. None of them believe there is another woman in the wings who could make a similar bid for our nations highest office in the forseeable future, although a couple could be vice presidential candidates in the next few years, but they felt that was a step back. Obviously, there were no hard core Hillary Haters in my sampling, nor strong supporters for the other candidates whose view would differ. If I may add a personal thought to all this, I hope the electorate is smart enough this time around to not get too carried away with this likeability thing, because that is what got us into the mess we are now in to begin with. We elected a drinking buddy, not a qualified candidate, and the results in all areas speak for themselves. Thanks for listening.

Posted by: william boe | May 24, 2007 10:25 AM | Report abuse

Kyu: I see the "Hillary Haters" jumped on you right off, that is to be expected. I was alone for a time as a Hillary supporter and know full well how vicious these "Haters" can be. I kinda enjoy getting them a tad riled from time to time.

Posted by: lylepink | May 24, 2007 8:16 AM | Report abuse

My twenty nine year old daughter said that the very thought of Hillary Clinton being President of the United States makes her ill.

It's Hillary's politics of opportunism on one hand and her standing by her philandering husband on the other.

If Hillary had confidence in herself she would never have stayed with a man who betrayed her at every turn.

Posted by: Jan | May 24, 2007 7:27 AM | Report abuse

I am hopelessly distressed at the field of democratic contenders. I am finding it extremely difficult to support either one of the Democrats currently enjoing this two top spots.

I don't trust Hillary. As someone mentioned above, I think she's a shark swimming to a pool of goldfish. She's constantly changing her slant on things and seems to flutter on the fickle winds of public opinion. She doesn't fill me with a warm fuzzy feeling and I can't see myself supporting her at all.

Obama is a different story. I can't run with him either. From what I have seen he is a little man stomper seemily willing to stomp the stuffings out of anyone he wants if it suites his goals at the time. He strikes me as a GOP-lite contender.

To my dismay, the only canidate I find myself comfortable of supporting is John Edwards. But his position in the early polls is not encouraging.

Moreover, if we wind up with either Clinton or Obama at the helm after the primaries, I am going to be in a bad way. For the first time in my life I may have to seriously look at the GOP contender if he is centrist enough, and press all of my hopes into filling the House and Senate with Democratic seats.

The future of the '08 hope is looking glum indeed.

Posted by: JoeH-SWOhio | May 24, 2007 4:32 AM | Report abuse

Dear Kyu,

Please dear, by all means support and vote for the Hillary Clinton that you hold so near and dear to your heart, but don't come crying to those of us who've tried to tell you that Hillary Clinton's a crass, lying, grasping politician who'll do anything to get elected. You see, Hillary's reason for living is to have POWER. Hillary will lie, cheat and steal (and literally climb over the dead bodies of Barak Obama, John Edwards and any other presidential candidate who gets in her way) to get back into the White House.

The closer we get the primaries in 2008, the gloves will come off and Hillary will go on the offensive as the "Clinton Machine" shifts into high gear. If there's any dirt that can be found to sling at Obama, Edwards, et al, the Clinton Machine and Hillary's attack dogs will find it and they'll sling it with ease.

Oh, how I wish that I could remove the scales from you blind eyes and unstop your deaf ears so that you would see and hear the truth about your beloved Hillary.

Someone who has known Hillary up close and personally for over twenty years is a man named Dick Morris. In 1977, Dick Morris was Bill Clintons first consultant. He's written a book titled "REWRITING HISTORY". I highly recommend that you read his book "REWRITING HISTORY" so that you may gain insight and understanding into Hillary's true, unvarnished character.

Hillary Clinton is irresponsible with power. She really has some serious ethical problems. She plays fast and loose with the truth and she's not worthy of becoming the next president of the USA.

HILL NO! SHE'S GOT TO GO! TM

www.hillnoshesgottogo.com


Posted by: hillnoshesgottogo | May 24, 2007 3:25 AM | Report abuse

Every candidate has some good side, but Hillary has many great sides. Are you going to have the president who is qualified only half? There's no reason to have inexperienced president, if you do we will have the same situation like now. I read Hillary's book "Living History" four times, all of her books and several books which were wrote by others. Hillary is grown up as a leader of children(boys and girls), Church, College, Lawyers and Women. she helped people anywhere she was. Anti-Hillary women and men, wake up, your narrow mind and jealousy can't stop Hillary's supporters who were highly educated and erudite. I am a female Asian American, I have voted our President 5 times, my 6th vote will be Hillary Clinton,
our next President of United States of America. I love America, The Clintons and HILLARY CLINTON. She will lead our Country
wisely, respectfully, strongly and peacefully. America will be back to the Top of the World when Hillary Clinton moves to the White House.

Posted by: Kyu Reisch | May 24, 2007 2:40 AM | Report abuse

Lyle, looks like "The Hidden Vote" is lying low this evening, huh?

I have to tell you, no offense, but I REALLY don't want her to win. Let's get some new blood in there - we haven't been doing so well with the older stuff thus far.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 23, 2007 11:06 PM | Report abuse

Let's face facts folks. East is East and West is West. I'm doing all that I can to spread the word that Senator Hillary Clinton just has to go because she's not worthy of becoming the next president of the USA and either you agree with me or you don't.

It's my hope that we can agree to disagree ... agreeably.

HILL NO! SHE'S GOT TO GO! TM

www.hillnoshesgottogo.com


Posted by: hillnoshesgottogo | May 23, 2007 10:11 PM | Report abuse

I often wonder how the comments are put together in almost the same way when "The Hillary Haters" crawl out from under their rocks. I can go to any of the "Nut or Wacko" cites and find the same thing, although they use different names, it is easy to see the source is the same.

Posted by: lylepink | May 23, 2007 8:58 PM | Report abuse

I am a 70-year old female who will not vote for Hillary. Reasons: She is a female version of Joe Lieberman, representing the DLC in all its corporate glory. She will never take a stand on any issue, and will constantly blur her positions so voters will never know what she really thinks about any issue (the Iraq war is an apt example). She will cave to the Reps anytime she thinks it advantageous to be viewed as a centrist. My thoughts would be somewhat different if she was a female Governor with an actual record, but she is not. The Presidency is an executive job - what has she ever governed? Far as I am concerned, she is just another one-term Senator, still wet behind the ears.

Posted by: Carol | May 23, 2007 8:46 PM | Report abuse

I wish I could vote for a woman, but I will not vote for Hillary. I am looking for a president who is not driven by testosterone, not one who is trying to show that she has as much testosterone as any man. I was ready to forgive her for her pro-war vote until she answered "retaliate" in the first debate. My vote is going to an anti-war, get 'em out of Iraq candidate. I would like that to be a woman, but maybe next time.

Posted by: Carol | May 23, 2007 8:39 PM | Report abuse

Hillary is your classic "weak woman." Strong women don't have profanity laced tirades with Secret Service, state troopers, White House staff and Bill who Hillary makes a sport of ridiculing.

A strong woman would not wrap her arms around the ankles of a rapist and sexual predator for 36 years.

A strong woman would not go to war on Bill's sex victims and girlfriends with a secret police, criminal intimidation tactics and slander campaigns.

A strong woman would tell the truth like saying she actually fired the White House Travel office, not blame others. A strong woman would say that she hired Craig Livingstone and not lie and say she did not know him or anything about the 900 FBI files she ordered up.

Posted by: Robert Morrow | May 23, 2007 8:32 PM | Report abuse

I'm a woman who won't vote for Hillary -- and I'm a feminist and generally Dem-leaning. I think it's repugnant to vote for someone because of their sex -- and I'm not going to let the fact that she's a woman force me to vote for a candidate I dislike. I'm endlessly irritated by the assumption that women would support her just because she's a woman -- it's insulting to imply we can't look beyond that. (As a side note, I would rather our first woman president be someone who won the office on her own merits, not because of who her husband is. That's not driving my opposition to Hillary but is something I wonder why no one talks about.)

Posted by: Alison | May 23, 2007 8:08 PM | Report abuse

I'm a woman who won't vote for Hillary -- and I'm a feminist and generally Dem-leaning. I think it's repugnant to vote for someone because of their sex -- and I'm not going to let the fact that she's a woman force me to vote for a candidate I dislike. I'm endlessly irritated by the assumption that women would support her just because she's a woman -- it's insulting to imply we can't look beyond that. (As a side note, I would rather our first woman president be someone who won the office on her own merits, not because of who her husband. That's not driving my opposition to Hillary but is something I wonder why no one talks about.)

Posted by: Alison | May 23, 2007 8:07 PM | Report abuse

As an Australian, I am obviously not a potential voter, but there have always been a few things about Hillary that have worried me.
My main problem centres around the nature of her marriage. Perhaps this is a cultural thing, but why on earth did she stay married? If it was because she is a forgiving woman, then maybe we missed that over here in Oz. I appreciate that political ambition was probably the motivator, and acknowledge that such ambition is a necessary prerequisite for the job, but I thought these days that women could stand up for themselves a little better and, more importantly ,stand alone.

Posted by: Sue Johnston | May 23, 2007 7:38 PM | Report abuse

As an Australian, I am obviously not a potential voter, but there have always been a few things about Hillary that have worried me.
My main problem centres around the nature of her marriage. Perhaps this is a cultural thing, but why on earth did she stay married? If it was because she is a forgiving woman, then maybe we missed that over here in Oz. I appreciate that political ambition was probably the motivator, and acknowledge that such ambition is a necessary prerequisite for the job, but I thought these days that women could stand up for themselves a little better and, more importantly ,stand alone.

Posted by: sydney sue | May 23, 2007 7:37 PM | Report abuse

As an Australian, I am obviously not a potential voter, but there have always been a few things about Hillary that have worried me.
My main problem centres around the nature of her marriage. Perhaps this is a cultural thing, but why on earth did she stay married? If it was because she is a forgiving woman, then maybe we missed that over here in Oz. I appreciate that political ambition was probably the motivator, and acknowledge that such ambition is a necessary prerequisite for the job, but I thought these days that women could stand up for themselves a little better and, more importantly ,stand alone.

Posted by: sydney sue | May 23, 2007 7:37 PM | Report abuse

who is this Zook person, he is mental defective?

Posted by: Ivan | May 23, 2007 6:27 PM | Report abuse

I'm sorry, "actual convictions," I was daydreaming about the days when we were paying down the national debt and still producing world-leading medical and other scientific research; also when 3300 American soldiers now dead were still alive, and the US was treated with respect in more than 2 or 3 foreign capitals. It seems so long ago now...

There I go again. I'm sorry, what were you saying? Was it something about Mark Foley? or the Vice President shooting people in the face? Wait, I know... was it the glaciers melting? Help em out here.

Posted by: memories | May 23, 2007 6:24 PM | Report abuse

Criminals: All these people have served prison sentences for illegal activity in a Clinton scandal. They either were convicted or pled guilty. There are over 15 convictions/guilty pleas from Starr's investigation plus several others from other scandal investigations.

Whitewater:
AK Gov. Jim Guy Tucker - fraud felony convictions - 3 counts (Tucker resigned facing impeachment)
Jim McDougal - fraud and conspiracy felony convictions - 18 counts
Susan McDougal - felony - 4 counts (pardoned during Clinton's last minute pardongate payoffs)
William J. Marks Sr - conspiracy
Stephen Smith - conspiracy
Larry Kuca - Fraud
Neal Ainley - 2 misdemeanors for embezzlement
David Hale - guilty plea - conspiracy
Chris Wade - felony - Whitewater real-estate investor
John Haley - recent! 1998 on fraud
Robert Palmer - felony for conspiracy
Charles Matthews - guilty plea for bribery
Eugene Fitzhugh - Whitewater - bribery
Webster Hubbell - #2 ranking Justice Dept. Official - felony for embezzlement and fraud
John Latham - CEO of Madison Bank - bank fraud
Campaign Finance:
Johnny Chung - Clinton cronie - felony guilty plea - funneling money from China
Gene Lum - convicted - felony for money laundering for the DNC
Nora Lum - convicted - felony for money laundering for the DNC
Howard Glicken - guilty plea - 2 midemeanors - funneling foreign donations
Yah Lin "Charlie" Trie - guilty plea - illegal Clinton campaign donations
John Huang - Clinton cronie - felony guilty plea - funneling money from China
Paula Jonesgate:
William Jefferson Clinton - found guilty - civil contempt of court - lying under oath about material facts. The Office of the Independent Council further presented Clinton with an agreement that had him disbarred from practicing law for 5 years and made him signed statement admitting to his deception

Sandy Burgler - hiding clinton terror weakness by destroying documents

compare this to partisan allegations and policy differences and consider a vote for Hillary in that context. you Soviets used to be good at rewriting history, but the Internet never forgets.

Posted by: actual convictions | May 23, 2007 6:10 PM | Report abuse

In other words, anything - a policy, an idea, an argument, that disagrees with your extremely narrow world view is considered a scandal. Any criminal activity conducted by Democrats is to be ignored. you see Dems have two sets of standards, one for Repubs and none for themselves. Just look at the covering for Murtha last night.

honest people can disagree on policy and other actions. Very few will honestly defend the clinton scandels which resulted in so many convictions in an actual court of law, not in some flaky Liberals twisted mind.

Posted by: power drunk Dems | May 23, 2007 6:06 PM | Report abuse

I would guess that if Hillary does not get the nomination, there would be a lot of interest in a female VP - my guess would be Governor Katherine Sibelius of Kansas.

One dark horse might be Congressman Joe Sestak of Pennsylvania - he is a retired three star admiral. He commanded Navy battle groups in support of both the Iraq and Afghanistan conficts. He is also telegenic and articulate.

Posted by: JimD in FL | May 23, 2007 6:03 PM | Report abuse

Well, "actual scandals," if you can't see the difference between the Enquirer-esque garbage you list (which include rumors and accusations never proven, as well as some embarrassing but relatively unimportant episodes inflated by the GOP) and the national / international emergencies I listed, I guess I can't make you see it.

To all readers still on the Planet Earth, I should add:

-the loss of prestige, goodwill, and influence around the world due to short-sighted, ham-handed "diplomacy"
-the failure to do ANYTHING to stop a North Korean nuclear weapons test
-the willful disregard of advice coming from the 09.11 commission, the Baker/Hamilton commission, Colin Powell, Richard Nixon, HIS OWN FATHER, and others
-the depletion of National Guard reserves at home, now fighting in Iraq (some for the 2nd or 3rd time)
-the inadequate supply of body armor, Arabic translators, and some medicines to soldiers on the ground
-the "re-assignment" (dismissal) of the 1st general to tell him honestly that he did not have sufficient troops to achieve stability
-Haditha
-excusing the slaughter of Iraqi civilians in a recent raid
-"The Bush administration's two top appointees in charge of the Endangered Species Act have asserted that 1) there is no extinction crisis, 2) species should be allowed to go extinct, 3) most species facing extinction should not be put on the endangered species list, 4) placing species on the endangered list is not an administration priority, and 5) the 260 imperiled species on the current federal waiting list do not need to be put on the endangered list"
-culturally deaf enough (initially) to refer to invasion of Iraq as a "crusade"

And I've still got more, but my fingers are getting tired. I feel sorry for you, "actual scandals" (zouk), if your critical thinking skills are really such that you don't see how much more important these are.

Posted by: Bokonon | May 23, 2007 5:54 PM | Report abuse

these are not the "fake, Dem" variety as listed above in bokonon

Whitewater
Cattlegate
Nannygate
Helicoptergate
Travelgate
Gennifer Flowersgate
Filegate
Vince Fostergate
I wonder where those Whitewater billing records came fromgate
Paula Jonesgate
Federal Building campaign phone callgate
Lincoln bedroomgate
White House coffeegate
Donations from convicted drug and weapons dealersgate
Buddhist Templegate
Web Hubbell hush moneygate
Lippogate
Chinese commiegate - Clinton was practically endorsed by red China Update!
Let's blame Kenneth Starrgate
Zippergate/interngate - the Lewinsky affair itself
Perjury and jobs for Lewinskygate - the aftermath
Willeygate
Web Hubbell prison phone callgate
Selling Military Technology to the Chinese Commiesgate
Coverup for our Russian Comrades as Wellgate
Wag-the-Dog-gate
Jaunita Broaddrick gate
PBS-gate
Email-gate
Vandalgate
Lootergate
Pardongate

http://members.tripod.com/~GOPcapitalist/clinton-scandals.html

Posted by: actual scandals | May 23, 2007 5:25 PM | Report abuse

JimD, who else do you see on the short list for VP (for the Democrats)? I would guess Mark Warner, Bill Richardson (if he's not nominated), Evan Bayh.... who else?

Posted by: Bokonon | May 23, 2007 5:25 PM | Report abuse

Information about Hillary's support by women's votes can't be true. How could majority of women, mothers, wifes and sweethearts, of senselessly killed in Iraq soldiers vote for her. She, as the former first lady, PERFECTLY knew the situation, and she still voted PRO Iraqi war. That alone is enough for women to support and to vote for someone else.

Posted by: aepelbaum | May 23, 2007 5:16 PM | Report abuse

Jennifer:

in re: "Do we really want all that trouble and scandal again in our lives, please!"

In no particular order:

-U.S. attorneys fired for partisan reasons
-Abu Ghraib
-Gonzales visiting Ascroft in the hospital to make it possible for the White House to tap your phone
-multi-billion $$ no-bid contract awarded to Halliburton (Cheney's former employer); same company pulls out of Iraq a year later with the job still undone
-HURRICANE KATRINA hits while Bush is playing guitar in California. He remains in California for an additional 2 days. Serious federal help still "on its way." (as of 2007!)
-invades Iraq on shifting pretexts, with a new one adopted when the old one(s) are proven exaggerated, irrelevant, and/or just plain wrong. 3300 American lives and 1/2 TRILLION dollars later, Iraq is a mess, Iran is gaining influence, and Al Qaeda recruiting is at an all-time high.
-July 2001 president's daily brief reads "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S." - and mentions airplanes - no reaction from the White House
-December 2001 - Osama bin Laden has been cornered in the mountains of Afghanistan, but is allowed to escape. 5 1/2 years later, he is still at large and his movement is once again gaining strength.
-Bush "sees into Putin's soul" in 2001 and decides to trust him; Putin currently busy reconstituting Soviet power and influence
-Bush pulls out of Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty in order to test "Star Wars" missile defense; it still doesn't work, and several more countries have or are on the verge of acquiring nuclear weapons
-Expresses skepticism of Darwin as several states consider rejecting science, or, at the least, giving superstition an equal hearing in the name of "fair play."
-Bush shrugs at global warming, even as UN, EU, and several US states and corporations attempt to address it. (including California's "Terminator")
-Bush attempts to pack the Supreme Court with righty justices, who obediently call habeas corpus (only a founding US legal principle) into question
-Lies to the nation - repeatedly - about supposed "connection" beteen 09.11 and Iraq, even after being told that no such connection existed

Oh, and
-cuts the taxes of those who least need cuts and slashes social services for those who most need social services. 6 years later, the cuts have NOT "paid for themselves" and the deficit is at record levels.

So, what were you saying about Clinton again? I forget... was it the peace? the budget surpluses? Remind me...

Posted by: Bokonon | May 23, 2007 5:14 PM | Report abuse

There is no need to resort to personal attacks on Ms. Clinton. It is quite enough o say that she would continue the same foreign policy mistakes, the same economic fiasco, the same policial scorched earth policies as her predicessor. She is "Bush in drag" and you'd have to be an idiot to vote for her. There are, evidently, a lot of female idiots out there.

Posted by: MikeB | May 23, 2007 4:55 PM | Report abuse

Harvey Cogswell, I'm with you man! I'm doing everything that I can to spread the word that Hillary Clinton just has to go!

HILL NO! SHE'S GOT TO GO! TM - HILL NO!'s web site: www.hillnoshesgottogo.com

Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton's a snake-in-the- grass chameleon who speaks with forked tongue.

Hillary's irresponsible with power, she's unethical and please, people, look at her resume` before you make your decision to support and/or vote for her. What has she really done? She had her gig as First Lady where she was Bill's UNELECTED co-president where she constantly had to cover for her sex addicted, women abusing, rapist husband! She's hired PI's and has a private police force to keep Bill's "bimbos" under control and out of the news (well, except for a few...Gennifer, Monica and the sexually abused women Paula and Juanita...most of us remember the tabloid headline news about all of them.) But there are hundreds more... .

And what about the Clinton's abuse of power? Has anyone read Barbara Olson's book "THE FINAL DAYS -- The Last, Desperate Abuses of Power by the Clinton White House"? Do you really want common thieves living in the White House again? The Clintons stole china and furniture belonging to the White House and the citizens of the USA when they moved out of the White House!

And what about CHARACTER? Doesn't a persons character count anymore? Qualities like honesty, truth, fairness, trustworthiness, committment to honoring ones' word, you know, old fashioned virtures that used to mean something to the citizen's of the USA.

Our elementary school kids know a phony when they see one. Senator Hillary Clinton is about as phony as they come. The author, R Emmett Tyrrell, Jr., has dubbed her "Madame Hillary". I think that I'd be more inclined to associate "Madame Hillary" with Comrade Lenin than I would with freedom loving Americans! I personally don't want to participate in Hillary's Liberal Left Democrat hidden agenda or with her social engineering plans for the USA!

With Hillary serving as President and "Commanderess-in-Chief" of the USA, I'm sure that I'd feel safer (tongue-in-cheek) knowing that Hillary's Democrat agenda will be to tax me to the hilt and quite possibly dispense with the military. She'd probably host a summit of all the terrorist loving Islamic Jihadist leaders and offer them Heartland America in exchange for peace! I have a sneaking suspicion that Hillary would follow her mentor Saul Alinsky's "Rules for Radicals" ideology to the "L"! After all, Hillary's background as a radical Liberal Left Democrat is well documented from her Wellesely College and Yale Law School days. Does a leopard change its spots?

Please read Gary Aldrich's book "UNLIMITED ACCESS -- AN FBI AGENT INSIDE THE CLINTON WHITE HOUSE" for the facts on Hillary the radical.

I'm a "single-again" woman, I'm a nurse and I work full time, I'm a mother and a grandmother and I'm here to tell you that Hillary Clinton does not represent me in any way, shape or form!

For most of us, being married to a man like Bill Clinton would give us enough ammo to sink her ship! You'd have to be a codependent pathological sociopath to stay married to that guy! Hillary's life-long lust for power is what's kept her hitched to Bill the sex addict, rapist. Knowing what I know about Bill Clinton and his sexual addiction and abuse of women...YIKES!...he makes my skin crawl! In my opinion, Hill and Bill Clinton are both misogynists and they both belong in prison!

If I could shout it from the housetops so that every man, woman and child in America could hear me, I'd tell everybody to vote for anybody but Hillary!

HILL NO! SHE'S GOT TO GO! TM

Dayna Meserve, Naples, FL

Posted by: hillnoshesgototogo | May 23, 2007 4:45 PM | Report abuse

I am supporting Hillary Clinton 100%.I am also listening to those people who say "I can't stand her!" And as calmly as possible, I ask them to explain what they find so offensive. Other than mouthing what they have heard from the "Talking Heads" they have no real understanding of who she is and why we need her in the White House. I then explain as quickly and clearly as possible the following points:
- She is brilliant-some say more so than her husband
- She is the one candidate who not only knows where the "bodies are buried",she will be the only one able to withstand the "Slash & Burn" tactics of the republican operatives who have hounded her since her husband was a candidate. No mean trick and yet she won the overwhelming support of upstate New Yorkers as well as the city people in her re-election as Senator.
- She is acquainted with and respected by heads of state all over the world.
- We do not have time at this moment in the history of our country to have a President who needs to learn on the job. She can get to work on the first day without being shown where the Family Quarters are and meeting the staff.
-I am in the 65 plus group of women & am a member of the Majority Council of EMILY'S LIST. I will, of course, vote for any Democratic who is nominated. That is crucial.

Posted by: Buff Brazy Given | May 23, 2007 4:10 PM | Report abuse

Amy,
"The name "Clinton" is now synonymous with "Peace and Prosperity." Really? To me it's synonymous with liar, adulterer, FOB, sleaze, scandal, Rich pardon and of course, cigar.

HRC, to her credit, is a great politician as is her husband. She has used the same triangulation theory based on polling data that Bill used and was so successful with. That said, Bill has the better personality. The women in my life would not vote for Clinton, for a variety of reasons - none of which is because she is a woman. My wife won't vote for her because she is cold and does not trust her. My Mother, sisters-in-law won't vote for her because of her politics (HRC is too liberal for them) or they have had enough of Clintons in general. These opinions are similar for the males in my family. Now granted, most of my family leans towards conservatives, but the liberals support Obama. I won't vote for her because of her politics and because i couldn't count on her to bake me any cookies. Plus i can't reconcile in my brain the "I'm not no Tammy Wynette stand by your man..." with the staying with Bill. I think that that says a lot about the type of person she is.

Posted by: Dave! | May 23, 2007 3:44 PM | Report abuse

Jennifer - I was in a hurry, I am sorry for mispelling your name - I do not know why it double posted.

Posted by: JimD in FL | May 23, 2007 3:36 PM | Report abuse

"Do we really want all that trouble and scandal again in our lives, please! If Democrats take over the White House our country will be lost!"

That is actually a very ironic statement considering all the scandals that we are dealing with right now with this administration. The current scandals in the papers are only the tip of the iceberg with Bush and his cronies. A travel office scandal or some hanky panky in the Oval Office would be welcomed right now. At least no one would be dying, losing their jobs, or being tortured. When are Rs gonna learn that war, corruption, cronyism, etc. etc. are far worse than personal travails. Ask God, I am sure he'd agree.

Posted by: VA-dem | May 23, 2007 3:35 PM | Report abuse

Jeffifer,

In view of your opinion on the Clintons, how do you feel about Giuliani? For whom would you vote in a Giuliani-Clinton contest?

Posted by: JimD in FL | May 23, 2007 3:34 PM | Report abuse

Jeffifer,

In view of your opinion on the Clintons, how do you feel about Giuliani? For whom would you vote in a Giuliani-Clinton contest?

Posted by: JimD in FL | May 23, 2007 3:33 PM | Report abuse

I think it is disgraceful that a woman is running for Presidency, nonetheless, Hillary Clinton. I would think that people learned their lesson when her cheating husband was in the White House. Do we really want all that trouble and scandal again in our lives, please! If Democrats take over the White House our country will be lost!

Posted by: Jennifer | May 23, 2007 3:21 PM | Report abuse

CC (the Fix) said "What explains Clinton's strong standing among young women and comparative struggles among women her own age?"

Well, early polls are mostly about name recognition. Young people tend to be particularly underinformed about politics. Isn't there a pretty good chance that Hillary Clinton's strong performance with young people is explained by the fact that everyone has heard of her, whereas fewer people -- especially young people -- have heard of Barack Obama, John Edwards, or the rest of the crew?

That's a pretty obvious explanation.

Posted by: Chris M. | May 23, 2007 3:12 PM | Report abuse

One more thing - I was really thinking of places like the North Carolina, Colorado, New Hampshire, and suburban Pennsylvania districts that switched from Republican to Democrat in 2006. Some districts, like Delay's and Mark Foley's, are probably going back to Republican no matter what but that would become a certainty with Senator Clinton at the head of the ticket.

Personally, I was hoping that Wes Clark would have entered the race. I am sure he will be on all the Dems short list for VP.

Posted by: JimD in FL | May 23, 2007 3:10 PM | Report abuse

Mark,

I wonder what the women who are so incensed about the Clintons' marriage think about Giuliani? Or Fred T, I understand he has a 30 or so years younger second wife.

Posted by: JimD in FL | May 23, 2007 3:05 PM | Report abuse

I just finished lunch over my laptop and am fascinated by the posts since this morning.

I appreciate the response to my "coattails" post - and I can see the Rs wrapping any local D candidate's neck with Sen. Clinton as the albatross in Texas. However, we generally have "safe" districts, here, thanks to DeLay, so I suspect the result would be more skewed in FL than here, Jim D. I also see that you ranked the Dems in the same order I did...and if I had not been making a point about gratuitous invidious comparisons, I would have placed Sen. Clinton exactly where you did.

BSimon, I wonder how close we are to becoming the color and gender blind nation all four of my adult children actually believe in.

And I am surprised that the tabloid state of a woman's marriage seems to mean more than the state of a man's - according to many women who posted. "Who woulda thunk it?"

Posted by: Mark in Austin | May 23, 2007 2:56 PM | Report abuse

Clinton's strong support in the 18 to 39 population is probably still in large part a result of name recognition. My generation (I'm 27.) is relatively disinterested in politics, and therefore still know very little about Obama. Hopefully, this will change as the generation ages. Regardless, I expect that, as the primaries near and younger voters learn about other candidates (eventually), they will increasingly support Obama, Edwards, and any so-called "2nd-tier candidates" that are still in the running. BILL RICHARDSON IN '08!

Posted by: Josh | May 23, 2007 2:28 PM | Report abuse

By reading the comments carefully, I find the "Envy/Jealous" factor in quite a few of them. A "Strong" woman is poisen to these folks. Any time a reference is given as "Fact" to support your way of thinking is where I draw the line. I should hope anyone that is not up to making an informed decision on their own will get much attention on this site.

Posted by: lylepink | May 23, 2007 1:59 PM | Report abuse

I am 47 years old, and so I know a lot of women in my age group. Those who are Republicans are more traditional and generally hate Hillary with a passion that I personally find puzzling. The women I know who aren't crazy about Hillary but fall in the Independent or Democratic camp, are less venomous and thus are not strongly supportive. Their reasons are usually banal -- she stayed with Bill, she's opportunistic (what politician isn't?), she's too ambitious (geez!), "something about her..."

Those of us in our 40s who love Hillary tend to relate to her -- she's smart, she has successfully juggled career and childrearing, her marriage is clearly an equal partnership which is why it can withstand the storms -- to name a few. From our point of view, as a first lady, she represented the generations of women who would have their own careers rather than just relying on their husbands. And her husband obviously thought she was his equal or he wouldn't have made the "two for one" statement. While many had a problem with this, to those of us who are now staunch supporters, the Clintons represented modern-day couples who genuinely have an equal relationship.

Those still hanging on to the notion of electability are, in my opinion, simply thinking on an emotional level. The only other Democratic candidates equally qualified are Joe Biden and Bill Richardson. But in my mind, while I like both men, given that neither is perfect, I'm supporting Hillary. She is, right now, the only hope that a woman can end up in the White House during my lifetime. And that I want to see.

Posted by: Nick in SF | May 23, 2007 1:50 PM | Report abuse

I think that for the best broad-stroke polling to look at when considering Sen. Clinton's "electability" in 2008, you can't ask who people will vote for right now. There's too much time between now and the primary season for minds to be changed.

What I look at is favorable/unfavorable polling.

Four major favorable/unfavorable polls show Sen. Clinton's unfavorables either outpacing her favorables, or at least tied within the margin. There is one outlier, the Diageo/Hotline Poll, which seems to waver back and forth a little.

Most importantly, though, is the fact that most of these polls have few undecideds. The general consensus of these polls is that the vast majority has made its mind up about her.

Her chief rival, Sen. Obama, has favorables at or approaching 50%, with large numbers of undecideds. He still has room to make an impression.

I think these numbers are more of a concern for the general election rather than the primaries, but electability will play a role in many people's decisions. Sen. Clinton has much less of a chance to pull moderate Republicans into her camp than Sen. Obama, especially if Michael Bloomberg launches a third-party bid.

Posted by: JamesCH | May 23, 2007 1:45 PM | Report abuse

Here are 2 good links on Bill's LONG history of rape and sexual assault:
http://chblue.com/Feb1999/022599/clintonwomen022599.htm

www.papillonsartpalace.com/janedoe.htm

and Hillary rapes them again with her goon squads if they are about to go public (Juanita Broaddrick - raped 1978, Liz Ward Gracen - raped 1982; Kathleen Willey groped 1993, Paula Jones humiliated 1991): Hillary's harassment goons on ALL of them (except maybe Paula, although Carville did call her trailer trash)
... many other examples [I left out Eileen Wellstone, raped by Bill at Oxford in 1969 while Eileen Wellstone was a 19 year old coed]

Posted by: Robert Morrow | May 23, 2007 1:43 PM | Report abuse

Would you want Nurse Ratched, aka Hillary, as your mother, sister or daughter? I would not. That woman is severely morally compromised as well as mean and nasty. Bill rapes and sexually assaults; Hillary hires the secret police. Hillary treats people like dirt for 36 years and she wonders why she is "controversial."

Check out my anti-Hillary web page:
www.1984ArkansasMotherOfTheYear.com

Posted by: Robert Morrow | May 23, 2007 1:37 PM | Report abuse

Sheldon - perhaps if you want to hawk your new book, you might go to a different blog and leave the politcal commentary for those of us with something to say, not to sell.

Your salacious views are somewhat suspect, imo, seeing as how you took up photography of the female figure in the aftermath of 9/11, while living in New York City.

"The attack on the World Trade Center was a singularly ugly manifestation," Filger explained. "My response to the ugliness of 9/11 was to immerse myself in beauty, by creating photographic art inspired by the unique beauty of the bodies of women," .

Posted by: Anonymous | May 23, 2007 1:30 PM | Report abuse

Hillary Clinton's mixed support among women reflect the suspicion of her motives and expedient politcal behavior. Skepticism as to what a second Clinton presidency would means transcends genedr solidarity, as explored in the nuew book on Hillary Clinton, fond at the website
http://www.hillary-clinton-nude.com. Also, it is clear that the Clinton name remains imperative to Hillary's campaign plans.

Posted by: Sheldon | May 23, 2007 1:18 PM | Report abuse

Hillary Clinton's mixed support among women reflect the suspicion of her motives and expedient politcal behavior. Skepticism as to what a second Clinton presidency would means transcends genedr solidarity, as explored in the nuew book on Hillary Clinton, fond at the website
http://www.hillary-clinton-nude.com. Also, it is clear that the Clinton name remains imperative to Hillary's campaign plans.

Posted by: Sheldon | May 23, 2007 1:18 PM | Report abuse

Hillary Clinton's mixed support among women reflect the suspicion of her motives and expedient politcal behavior. Skepticism as to what a second Clonton presidency would means transcends genedr solidarity, as explored in the nuew book on Hillary Clinton, fond at the website
http://www.hillary-clinton-nude.com. Also, it is clear that the Clinton name remains imperative to Hillary's campaign plans.

Posted by: Sheldon | May 23, 2007 1:18 PM | Report abuse

Yes, because of an orchestrated campaign by Hillary and her supporters to discredit Klein--not because it's not true.

Posted by: RM | May 23, 2007 1:15 PM | Report abuse

I would support Elizabeth Edwards as president. I would be thrilled to see Michele Obama up there after a decade if her husband captures it; or even try her hand if he falls short.

I'm thrilled we are at the point where Hillary Clinton has an honest to goodness shot at the Presidency.

But I won't vote for her unless she becomes the democratic nominee. Hillary Clinton simply grates me. She feels phoney and she doesn't have that it factor that made me really like her husband. I agree with most of her polocies and her polotics and the centrist Clinton ideal. But I don't want her to be president of the united States.

I'm voting for Obama and if not him would love Richardson. I think they'd make a great ticket.

I'm a 27 year old woman if that makes a difference.

Posted by: Kara | May 23, 2007 1:13 PM | Report abuse

All you Dems out there who say you won't vote for Hilary because of her Iraq War vote in support, I ask you - are you saying you won't vote for her in the D primary or in the general election?

Because if given the choice between Rudy, McCain or any of the Rs (who all wholeheartedly support Bush's idiotic war) or Hilary, who is now critical of the war to some degree, I will surely choose Hilary because of ALL THE OTHER ISSUES out there. Saying your vote depends on the Iraq war alone is idiotic at best. How is that any different than single issue voters who only vote based on a candidate being pro-life. Use some common sense here folks.

Posted by: VA-dem | May 23, 2007 1:10 PM | Report abuse

I agree with many of the other females posting on this blog--I'm 24, I consider myself to be a Democrat, and I am not voting for Hillary. It's not that she is too cold or calculating, or because she is seen as "steely." It's not because I didn't like her husband--I did--and it's not because of the dynastic element to her candidacy.

I'm not voting for Hillary because I don't like her politics. I think she is too entrenched in the Washington elite to be effective, and I disagree with her support of big business and the wealthy class. I mean, come on, she used to be on the board of Wal-Mart!

I think Obama is the answer, because he has the heart of a reformer, and because he has focused on running a pragmatic, people-centered campaign.

Posted by: JMM | May 23, 2007 1:07 PM | Report abuse

Your answer to Janet begs a response. Richardson, Clinton, Dodd, and Biden ARE part of the globalization/free trade crowd that will likely wreck this country before the upcoming election. I know, there are all sorts of posters who blather on and on about free trade being inevitable, u that is simply their parroting the nonsense that corporations have brainwashed them with. The U.S. dollar is at a historic low and is still falling. The consequence that the international bond market has been pegged to the Euro and their is a move to peg the price of oil and other raw materials to the Euro. What do you think the result of this is going to be? Foreign money, investments and government and private bonds that support our national debt and private credit is exiting! The result is going to be a credit crash, unemployment and inflation like this country has never witnessed before. The resulting politcial and social instability, coinciding with the lunacy of legalizing 12 million or so illegals, adding them to the above ground workforce, is going to cripple wages, leave millions of workers without medical benefits, and result in a wave of loan defaults that will ripple through the economy for years. We have exported every bit of our most critical technologies. Intel is building their latest wafer plants in China and India, Apple, Dell, IBM, and other computer manufacturers have moved their R&D and manufacturing offshore, GM is essentially bankrupt and only awaits being looted, it's bones picked clean, by the corporate raders who just acquired it, and our best and brightest college students are/have been avoiding engineering and science majors at our universities becasue they have witnessed their fathers jobs being outsourced or their being replaced by a H1B guest worker. We have lost the tools to recover from the looming disater. And the Clinton's were the original authors of this free trade train wreck' Biden, Richardson, and Dodd and Rangel and Reid and Kennedy and Bush and the whole of the Republican Party have been it's chearleaders. Ms. Clinton would preside over the extinction of this country and our culture becasue, in her own way, she is as trapped in the self destructive necon ideology as is George Bush and Dick Cheney. There are a very few candidates that see this looming disaster and are willing to remove themselves from the corporate provided slop trough of money and privilege. John Edwards is one of them. Mr. Obama appears to be waking up to that fact, too. So does Ms. Poloski. Free Trade and it's evil twins globalization and multinational corporations are the worst threat this country has ever faced and the people are our leaders are just now waking up to that fact. I think, however, it is too late.

Posted by: MikeB | May 23, 2007 12:59 PM | Report abuse

I am 63 years of age and female. I came of age during the civil rights era after an upbringing during the gender-stratified 1950s. I might well have gone the route of many of my peers and lived a conventional gender-defined life, but I was able, as the feminist movement gathered momentum in the 1960s, to shed the expectations that had governed my life and aspire on my own terms.

Many American women (and men) could not do that. For them, any powerful woman with significant status and/or accomplishments is a threat, and they react by recoiling one way or another. They tend to vote against strong women politicians.

My daughter's generation has been lucky enough to grow up with far less limited expectations and fewer gender barriers, although the barriers they do face differ from those of my generation and are something of a throwback in unexpected ways, puzzling many of the older generation. Nevertheless, when push comes to shove, younger Americans demonstrate that their much longer exposure to women in power and the removal of gender-based barriers has freed them to vote more for the politician per se than for any politician's gender, a long-overdue and refreshing change.

Posted by: Dory in New York | May 23, 2007 12:51 PM | Report abuse

I would say the GOP must be shivering in their respective boots about now, at the thought of Hillary as President.

Shiver away!!

We've had enough Republican "rule" to last a lifetime. Go get 'em Hillary.

Posted by: Michael Castellani | May 23, 2007 12:50 PM | Report abuse

CC says "Clinton must [try to] reintroduce herself as a mother, wife and daughter.."

No wonder; her record as a Senator is so weak she has nothing else to stand on but these absurd generalizations.

In five years as the most influential Democrat in the Senate, Hillary has managed to get the following laws and resolutions enacted:

• Establish the Kate Mullany National Historic Site

• Support the goals and ideals of Better Hearing and Speech Month

• Recognize the Ellis Island Medal of Honor

• Name courthouse after Thurgood Marshall

• Name courthouse after James L. Watson

• Name post office after John A. O'Shea

• Designate August 7, 2003, as National Purple Heart Recognition Day

• Support the goals and ideals of National Purple Heart Recognition Day

• Honor the life and legacy of Alexander Hamilton on the bicentennial of his death

• Congratulate the Syracuse University Orange Men's Lacrosse Team on winning the championship.

• Congratulate the Le Moyne College Dolphins Men's Lacrosse Team on winning the championship

• Establish the 225th Anniversary of the American Revolution Commemorative Program

• Name post office after Sergeant Riayan A. Tejeda

• Honor Shirley Chisholm for her service to the nation and express condolences on her death

• Honor John J. Downing, Brian Fahey, and Harry Ford, firefighters who lost their lives on duty.

Only five of Clinton's bills are substantive:

• Extend period of unemployment assistance to victims of 9/11

• Pay for city projects in response to 9/11

• Assist landmine victims in other countries

• Assist family caregivers in accessing affordable respite care

• Designate part of the National Forest System in Puerto Rico as protected in the Wilderness Preservation System

Combined this with her legacy as the "2-for-the-price-of-one" First Lady where she was tasked with two things in her husband's administration - the selection of the nation's first female Attorney General and the design and adoption of a comprehensive program of health care reform, and was successful at neither.

Her efforts to designate an Attorney General hamstrung the new Administration for months as two nominees, in succession, had to withdraw their names from consideration. Finally, at the eleventh hour, she urged her husband to appoint Florida's Janet Reno, a selection Bill Clinton would come to describe as "my worst mistake."

In the bargain, she suggested the appointment of Lani Guanier as head of the civil rights division, a job she was shortly forced to relinquish when her radical views became known, another embarrassment for the new Administration.

Her other selections for the Justice Department, the White House staff and the Treasury were her three law partners: Web Hubbell, Vince Foster, and William Kennedy, appointments which culminated in one imprisonment, one suicide, and one forced resignation.

Her other assignment, health care reform, collapsed in such a debacle that it cost her party control of both houses of Congress, a fate from which it took twelve years to recover.

And, contrary to what lylepink says, the Clintons are now trying to distance themselves from the 2-for-the-price-of-1 image.

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | May 23, 2007 12:46 PM | Report abuse

Ed Klein's book about Hillary has been scoffed at, laughed at and denounced by 90 percent of those who have read it.

In fact, it was a joke that actually ended up causing Klein a great deal of embarrassment.

The Kleins of the world cannot hurt Hillary Clinton.

Posted by: Monica Ratner | May 23, 2007 12:45 PM | Report abuse

22 year old male with a college degree here. Hillary's my only choice. This country and the world will benefit with an extremely bright and gifted woman as President of the U.S.

A huge step forward for women everywhere - a tremendous opportunity to fix all the damage caused by G.W. Bush and his administration.

Go Hillary!

Posted by: P.T. Avanti | May 23, 2007 12:43 PM | Report abuse

Have any of you read The Truth About Hillary by Ed Klein? He paints a picture of a woman who would do anything (including staying with her skirt-chasing husband) in order to get elected. And once elected to the Senate, she threw some of her supporters (including a group advocating children's issues) under the bus. This is written by the editor of New York Times magazine, not some right-wing nut job, by the way.

Posted by: RM | May 23, 2007 12:42 PM | Report abuse

I am 42 and my mom is 71 and we are both planning to vote for Hillary Clinton. We have studied her background, her list of accomplishments and we see a level of confidence in her campaign that only comes from solid experience.

We do love that she may be America's first female President, of course, but that is not our reason for supporting her. Her work on behalf of women the world over, however, is very much a reason we are supporting her.

She has also done so much to help our war veterans, more than any other Senator has done.

Posted by: Elizabeth and Rebecca LeMoyne | May 23, 2007 12:38 PM | Report abuse

If we aren't allowed to surrender to Al queda, we will be forced to accept a capitulation to bush. At least we got to surrender to someone.

Love Generalissimo Pelosi

Posted by: party of broken promises | May 23, 2007 12:36 PM | Report abuse

janet,

I would not put Obama and Edwards anywhere near the same class as Richardson, Dodd, Biden and Clinton on experience and credentials.

Posted by: JimD in FL | May 23, 2007 12:34 PM | Report abuse

Tuesday night House Democrats refused to reprimand Rep. John Murtha (D.-Pa.) for threatening a Republican colleague in a manner that violates newly installed, Democrat-crafted ethics rules.


Speaker Pelosi defended Murtha on the May 20 edition of ABC's This Week. "Congressman Murtha enjoys an excellent reputation in the Congress on both sides of the aisle," she said.

no mention of the bribe.

Posted by: our rules don't apply to us | May 23, 2007 12:23 PM | Report abuse

Mark in Austin,
thanks for listing the remarkable experiences and qualifications of Gov. Richardson, Senators Biden, Obama, and John Edwards. I am disgusted that the media and others always talk of H. Clinton's experience and qualifications, but rarely mention the resumes of the other candidates. I think both Richardson and Biden are vastly more experienced and talented than Hillary Clinton, but sadly neither Richardson or Biden will likely be nominated. Its a shame that this country no longer seems to prefer the most qualified and intellegent presidential candidates.

Posted by: janet | May 23, 2007 12:16 PM | Report abuse

Mark in Austin,
thanks for listing the remarkable experiences and qualifications of Gov. Richardson, Senators Biden, Obama, and John Edwards. I am disgusted that the media and others always talk of H. Clinton's experience and qualifications, but rarely mention the resumes of the other candidates. I think both Richardson and Biden are vastly more experienced and talented than Hillary Clinton, but sadly neither Richardson or Biden will likely be nominated. Its a shame that this country no longer seems to prefer the most qualified and intellegent presidential candidates.

Posted by: janet | May 23, 2007 12:16 PM | Report abuse

I am a sixty-eight-year-old woman, a life=long Democrat, and I will not vote for Senator Clinton in the primaries. I don't give a hoot about gender, race or ethnicity of the candidates; I care about their stances on issues and their policy formations. Although I respect Senator Clinton's work on behalf of children, I do not agree with her foreign or economic policies. I also distrust her motives for running, and I don't appreciate her assumption that she will be the Democratic candidate. Let the Republicans suffer from the consequences of their arrogance -- I don't want to see that arrogance in a Democratic candidate, and Hillary Clinton is just plain arrogant.

Posted by: Em | May 23, 2007 12:14 PM | Report abuse

I am a sixty-eight-year-old woman, a life=long Democrat, and I will not vote for Senator Clinton in the primaries. I don't give a hoot about gender, race or ethnicity of the candidates; I care about their stances on issues and their policy formations. Although I respect Senator Clinton's work on behalf of children, I do not agree with her foreign or economic policies. I also distrust her motives for running, and I don't appreciate her assumption that she will be the Democratic candidate. Let the Republicans suffer from the consequences of their arrogance -- I don't want to see that arrogance in a Democratic candidate, and Hillary Clinton is just plain arrogant.

Posted by: Em | May 23, 2007 12:14 PM | Report abuse

Carter: Interest rate, 21%. Inflation, 13.5%. Unemployment, 7%. The so-called "Misery Index," which Carter used to great effect in his 1976 campaign to win election, 20.5%.

• Reagan's last year: Interest rate, 9%. Inflation, 4.1%. Unemployment, 5.5%. Misery Index, 9.6%.

• Bush today: Interest rate, 8%. Inflation, 2.6%. Unemployment, 4.5%. Misery Index, 7.1%.

Posted by: misery likes company | May 23, 2007 12:13 PM | Report abuse

Gary Masters - Hillary supported Bush in his rush to go to war with Iraq... for various different reasons, justified by various pieces of intelligence which have since been proven to be wrong. Are you saying he may actually have been right to do so? Wake up, son, and smell the 2007.

Posted by: Bokonon | May 23, 2007 12:11 PM | Report abuse

Sorry - the computer continued to tell me that my message failed.

Posted by: GaryMasters | May 23, 2007 12:10 PM | Report abuse

Cilizza - Duh - maybe it's harder to fool older women than young ones. So Clinton polls poorly among more experienced women...

Posted by: SC Dem | May 23, 2007 12:10 PM | Report abuse

"and apologized to America for her vote,"

What if her vote were right? Can you vote for anyone who does not agree with you on every issue? Do they have to be perfect? You could be wrong, you know.

Posted by: GaryMasters | May 23, 2007 12:09 PM | Report abuse

"and apologized to America for her vote,"

What if her vote were right? Can you vote for anyone who does not agree with you on every issue? Do they have to be perfect? You could be wrong, you know.

Posted by: Gary E. Masters | May 23, 2007 12:08 PM | Report abuse

It's noontime. Be on the lookout for a lurking Zouk.

Posted by: Warning! | May 23, 2007 12:08 PM | Report abuse

"and apologized to America for her vote,"

What if her vote were right? Can you vote for anyone who does not agree with you on every issue? Do they have to be perfect? You could be wrong, you know.

Posted by: Gary E. Masters | May 23, 2007 12:07 PM | Report abuse

"and apologized to America for her vote,"

What if her vote were right? Can you vote for anyone who does not agree with you on every issue? Do they have to be perfect? You could be wrong, you know.

Posted by: Gary E. Masters | May 23, 2007 12:07 PM | Report abuse

I'm sorry, Sue, but as voters who are trying to make an informed decision, it is not only our right but our RESPONSIBILITY to criticize Senator Clinton for her vote. Many of us have spoken out and written to newspapers (and to our representatives in Congress) regarding our opposition to US policy in Iraq for several years now. I was not in a position (obviously) to affect the outcome of that vote (and neither were you! or ANYONE other than our elected representatives), but disagreed with it at the time, and was skeptical of the case for war made by the Administration. As more facts have come out, the skepticism has hardened into cynicism and disgust.
Granted, much of what we know now was kept from us in the early days of the invasion, in order to build public support. However, Sen. Clinton had access to more intelligence information and to more policy experts than did the average citizen, and given her precise phrasing - "NOT a vote to go to war, but..." - you have to suspect that she had some idea that Bush wasn't entirely on the level. Yet she still OK'd it, for reasons of ambition, PR, I don't know. It does not say great things about the judgment of someone who would be president.

Posted by: the Rev. Dr. Gould | May 23, 2007 12:05 PM | Report abuse

OPEN NOTE:

Chris:

I really thought this was a serious discussion and not a propaganda work. However, you say "But, it does not appear as though President Bush has any plans to alter his course in Iraq."

The President seems to think the "surge" is a change and the Post sees another change on the way:
New Strategy for War Stresses Iraqi Politics
U.S. Aims to Oust Sectarians From Key Roles

By Ann Scott Tyson
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, May 23, 2007; Page A01

And you do not see any changes. I guess it is your opinion, but what are your facts to support it?

Posted by: Gary Masters | May 23, 2007 12:04 PM | Report abuse

I cannot wait to get the Clintons back in the WH.

This country has gone completely downhill since they left office.

~

Posted by: DickeyFuller | May 23, 2007 12:03 PM | Report abuse

pertaining to war vote: If one does his best to vote with the information given to him-Why should that person appoligize?
I for one admire Hillary for taking responsibility for her vote. At least she was there doing her job. Anyone who wasnt there to vote has no right to critisize.

Posted by: sue | May 23, 2007 11:54 AM | Report abuse

Lylepink, thank you for your response. I have visited the site and agree with you when you say "The position Hillary takes on issues ... does not differ to any great extent with the other dems." I suspect that as the campaign progresses, and people - hopefully! - begin to discuss policy proposals (i.e. get away from the 'popularity contest'), some differences will emerge, particularly on health care and energy. You're right, though - at this point they are within the same ballpark.
I have to tell you, that does not give me a reason to support Hillary over the others, and being Bill's wife is not enough. Whether or not he is offered a position by any winning Democrat (which I'm sure he would accept), I have no doubt that his will be a voice that is listened to. That brings the difference back to the candidate him or herself, and I think at the moment, the candidates who have impressed me the most are Obama and Richardson. I'll keep listening, though.

Posted by: Bokonon | May 23, 2007 11:50 AM | Report abuse

very simply, because she has not backed away from her vote for the war and apologized to America for her vote, she very well may not get my vote. It has nothing to do with being a woman or what kind of a woman or Bill or Monica. It has to do with the IRAQ VOTE.

Posted by: firstcoast | May 23, 2007 11:44 AM | Report abuse

Mark

The "coattails" effect is largely due to the turnout over and above normal turnout based on how excited certain groups get over a given candidate (either positively or negatively). It is reasonable to assume that some percentage of Republicans who generally but not always vote might be inclined to sit on their hands in 2008. I say this because none of the candidates seem to really excite most Republicans and the travails of the Bush administration are discouraging to many Republicans. However, Hillary Clinton is so despised by so many Republicans that she will inspire a huge turnout from the base. These people are certainly going to vote for other Republicans. Also, given Hillary's unpopularity among certain swing voters in more conservative areas where Democrats made some inroads in 2006, you can be sure the airwaves wil be innundated with attack ads tying the local Democratic candidates to her. There were a number of ads in the Florida gubenatorial campaign last year showing Senator Clinton attending a fundraiser for the Democratic candidate.

Posted by: JimD in FL | May 23, 2007 11:42 AM | Report abuse

If Hillary is the Dem nominee, unless the GOP nominates someone like Rudy G (doubtful, of course), she will lose very few votes because of her name or sex, because the gap in politics will be too great.

Anyone who claims "I'm a Dem and I'd vote for [Huckabee or other rightwingnut] before voting for Hillary" is a liar.

Posted by: Loudoun Voter | May 23, 2007 11:36 AM | Report abuse

bsimon, there is a qualitative difference between the ethnic backgrounds of Obama and Richardson and Romney's religious faith. Only in Romney's case it is a voluntary association. Bear in mind that although his church is not mine (at all), I respect his right under our vaunted freedom of religion to worship as he sees fit. Having said that, some of what I do know about Mormonism makes me uneasy to think that a practitioner aspires to the Oval Office. From the much-discussed "special underwear," mandatory tithing and missionary work, and somewhat nutty beliefs (although nutty beliefs, to one extent or another, are characteristic of every organized religion) - God appears in upstate New York in the 19th Century to mandate polygamy, the Native Americans are a lost tribe of Israel, and so on - to more sinister ties between the church and almost EVERY FINANCIAL INSTITUTION IN UTAH (and a great many private businesses), I do not feel that this is a man to be trusted with the reins of power.

Posted by: the Rev. Dr. Gould | May 23, 2007 11:33 AM | Report abuse

Bokonon: The position Hillary takes on issues can be found at HillaryClinton.com and HillaryHub among others and I would suggest you take a quick look yourself, for I would not like to make a mistake on something that important. Hillary does not differ to any great extent with the other dems, and to re-state and try to figure out differences would not serve any useful purpose. Your other question about her following GW gives me more reason to support her in that she has the knowledge and support of Bubba, who was one of the best POTUS in our history to advise her.

Posted by: lylepink | May 23, 2007 11:29 AM | Report abuse

Hillary has had my vote since before she announced her candidacy. Most of my friends feel the same way because they see her as well educated, gutsy, and highly moral. My friends and I are between 50 and 70.
The ones who don't like Hillary, in general, have never listened to her platforms very carefully and have never seen her in person.
Hillary is warm and has a terrific sense of humor. To say she is conniving, could be translated to she thinks hard about her goals and how to get them. Being strongly goal oriented is just what we want in a president. As the campaign goes on, my friends are coming more and more to Hillary.
Yes, I would vote for Al Gore in a heartbeat, but he isn't running. And I think he isn't running because there is something fragile in him, that was deeply hurt in the last election.
Hillary has no such problem. She is tough enough to walk through the political fires and come out the other end, proud and ready to move on. What could be more important in a president?
I actually like most of the Democratic candidates and could vote for any of them, but if I get a chance, my vote will go to Hillary, one cool woman.

Posted by: Southern Girl | May 23, 2007 11:23 AM | Report abuse

I am a woman and a Democrat who will not be voting for Hilary under any circumstance. Not because of her last name or her personality, but because she is still an Iraq war supporter. She has stated repeatedly that she will not withdraw all the troops from Iraq EVER. She is also a corporatist who cares only for the working class votes, not their issues.

Posted by: fingersfly | May 23, 2007 11:22 AM | Report abuse

Hopefully women are not one issue voters- with the new pill to stop periods- women shouldn't need abortions so that should rule out that issue. She is a hypocrite- when her husband was for going into Iraq because Saddam was a threat, so was she- she changes with the polls- she has no true convictions other than socialism- and having the state spend your money since she knows better than you do what you need and want. I sometimes am ashamed to be a woman when I see how women think- or should I say- don't think!

Posted by: Nancy Naus | May 23, 2007 11:21 AM | Report abuse

Oh yeah, and Romney's church. Throw that in there too.

Posted by: bsimon | May 23, 2007 11:13 AM | Report abuse

Voting for a candidate based on their gender is equally irrational as voting based on the color of their skin, or the name of their church. The media continues to do a disservice to the American people by focusing on Hillary's gender, Obama's skin color and Richardson's heritage. What are their positions on the issues? There ARE issues that people care about, aren't there?

Posted by: bsimon | May 23, 2007 11:11 AM | Report abuse

Why keep calling Hillary staying with Bill 'political opportunism'?

Confronted with a spouse's infidelity, she chose to stay & try to work on saving the marriage. It might not be a popular choice, but numerous men & women around the globe make the same choice everyday.

If Hillary really is that cold & calculating, she could have divorced Bill, and still run as senator, capitalising on the groundswell of sympathy.

Hillary's 'savaged' for staying with Bill (& you can bet the Right would still have savaged her for leaving him)

Bill & Hillary have been together almost 35 yrs, they appear to understand & respect each other's abilities, they've raised a smart capable daughter, they've weathered storms; emotional, political etc

Saying it would be difficult to vote for her because of the 'state of her marriage' is sheer nonsense. No-one looking in from the outside really knows what the state of anyone's marriage is.


Posted by: eye | May 23, 2007 10:46 AM | Report abuse

I'm a 33 y.o. woman and I would vote for Obama first, then McCain if Hillary unfortunately wins the primary, and Hillary only if she is up against Guiliani or one of the other ones.

The most important quality to me is DECENCY and I see Obama and McCain as having way more DECENCY than Hillary. Plus she is seriously irritating and not a good face of America to the world.

Posted by: juno | May 23, 2007 10:45 AM | Report abuse

I guess I fit into the demographics. I'm 62 and I do not support Senator Clinton. I am still troubled by Senator Clinton's vote for the Iraq War Resolution. Interestingly, all the 2008 candidates who were in the Senate at the time of that vote also voted "yes". That includes Biden, Dodd, and Edwards.
I called their offices at the time to ask for a "no" vote because it was clear that Bush intended to launch a "preventive" war. Those who enabled it had a responsibility to American soldiers, innocent Iraqis, American taxpayers and to the principles of our democracy including the rule of law.
That vote was in part an effort to show toughness, but it was political capitulation and had terrible consequences. These Senators failed to show leadership and I have not been able to get past that. As Wes Clark said in his recent watershed speech:
http://securingamerica.com/node/2425
"But you cannot see the invasion of Iraq as simply a botched execution. It's not enough to label it as a monumental strategic blunder. It's both of those, but neither is strong enough.

It has been a deep and near-fatal wound to America's legitimacy of aims and purposes in the world. It's undercut us in the Middle East and elsewhere. It's undercut trust in our intelligence system and what we say to persuade others to go along with us in the world. It's undercut the administration's complete national security doctrine, which was build around a concept of preventive war. It's undercut the ability of academicians, diplomats, businessmen elsewhere to cite America as an exceptional power, which acts not from self-interest, but from higher principles."

To his credit Wes Clark testified before a Congressional Cttee in Sept 2002 against the war and has spoken out and written op-eds against it since then.
He has not declared for president in part because he doesn't want his efforts along with other retired military officers to stop Bush from launching war on Iran to be tainted by political overtones.
But I sure hope he runs and I hope the voters have an opportunity to see that in politics there is room for a person of principle who will stand up for what's right.

Posted by: eve | May 23, 2007 10:41 AM | Report abuse

It doesn't surprise me that women in Hillary's age group don't support her as much as younger women. Have you ever worked with women in Hillary's age group. Many of those in strong leadership roles had to fight long and hard to get there and they didn't have the groups like men did to help them along. They were used to fighting for their jobs on their own and often saw other women as the enemy.

Remember the issue of being called a feminist when Gloria Steinem, Bella Abzug and others held the first women's conference in Houston. They were pilloried by many women of their generation for being to strident, to strong. Well Hillary is the next generation down from them. She was criticized when she said she would rather work than stay home and bake cookies. Her generation of women was dividid over whether to work of stay home. Hillary went to work and was critized for being too strong. She bought into the feminist movement themes and many women her age just couldn't.

Today, thanks to Hillary and others young women have real choices. They see her as a leader and a strong woman and that doesn't bother them and they have no jealousy over that as some other women in her generation do.

What bothers me when I talk to professional women who oppose Hillary is not that they oppose her but why they do. They bring up Monica Lewinsky and her comment about not being a Tammy Wynette and just standing by her man. They bring up her remarks on baking cookies. These same women who complain about being paid less then men, who can't get through the glass ceiling at work, can't see the forest for the trees.

If Hillary were to break the strongest glass ceiling in the world and become the next US President, it would benefit every woman.

These women should get beyond their petty jealousies and move forward, if not for themselves then for their daughters and grand daughters.

If you don't agree with Hillary on substantive issues, if you are a rock rib Republican, then state that and vote against her.

But the other women should move beyond side issues of cookies and Tammy Wynette to policy issues and if they agree with Hillary on policy, providing child care, universal pre-K, women's rights and the right to live full and productive lives anyway they see fit- green issues and ending the war- balancing our budget and pay as you go, protecting US jobs and union jobs, Universal Health Care, etc. then get over the jealousy and vote for a woman. It's about time!!!

Posted by: peter dc | May 23, 2007 10:39 AM | Report abuse

I am a 54 year old feminist, pro-life, democratic woman. My husband grew up in Park Ridge, IL, and went to Maine South 5 years after Hillary. I read her book and was impressed with what I read. My problem with her is she can't give anyone a straight answer. I remember the first time I heard her avoid answering a question, when she was running for Senate. Instead of answering the question, she started with "Listen, Tim," and then took the discussion in a slightly different direction. I also have a problem with her support of the war, and then changing her mind, without being willing to say, "I've thought more about this, and now I realize..." I'm afraid she speaks in spin, not in a straightforward way. I don't know what the heck she will do as president. I don't think I will vote for her unless she ends up the democratic candidate.

Posted by: vadwyers | May 23, 2007 10:36 AM | Report abuse

I think the equal showing in the youngest age group is due to that group being less sexist. They grew up being treated as equals and will think less about race or sex in this election and more about experience. They also came of age under her husband's tenure. They would naturally feel nostalgic for their pre-9/11 childhood sense of security.

The name "Clinton" is now synonymous with "Peace and Prosperity."

Posted by: Amy | May 23, 2007 10:30 AM | Report abuse

Che - I appreciate and applaud your informative post. But with regard to your discussion of her position on Social Security, I highly recommend that you read "Running on Empty: How the Democratic and Republican Parties are Bankrupting our Future and What Americans Can Do About It" by Peter G. Peterson, former Secretary of Commerce and Chairman of the Council for Foreign Relations. Your fears about reforming entitlement programs like Social Security are fiscally irresponsible. These programs are bankrupting our country, and one of the few things I like about Clinton is that she is willing to face that (at least so far). Many of the posters discussed that she is "not liberal enough" for them, but her support for policies like overhauling Social Security should not be viewed as liberal or conservative. We all need to seriously reexamine this problem, for the sake of our children and generations to follow. How many posters on this blog actually count on Social Security to support them when they retire? I doubt more than a few. I certainly don't - and I am not wealthy by any means - but fully fund my 401k and utilize other retirement planning options. I would be willing to be the first in line to opt out of the program so that the people who actually need the funding get it.

As for Hillary, I agree that she doesn't have the likeability factor that is so crucial in this country, for better or worse, to be elected president.

Posted by: Lori | May 23, 2007 10:22 AM | Report abuse

Hillary will have to overcome the unfair politics of the great right-wing hate machine, with people such as "Harvey Cogswell" (see below) trying to distort her record and play themselves off as Dems. Reminds me of being an intern in a liberal New Englanders office, and taking calls from a bunch of "constituents" whose accents were unmistakenably from the Deep South.

Harvey, nobody with your bad grammar could make it to law school!

Posted by: Mark | May 23, 2007 10:22 AM | Report abuse

'HOUSTON -- Sen. John McCain challenged other Republican presidential candidates Tuesday to propose their own immigration legislation or stop criticizing the plan he's co-sponsoring.

Rival Mitt Romney, the former Massachusetts governor, kept up his criticism of the proposal, which could allow the legalization of most of the nation's 12 million illegal immigrants while increasing border security.

"I think it's a matter of national security," McCain said, "and to do nothing _ to leave the status quo _ would be an abrogation of our responsibilities to the American people."

McCain, speaking amid a series of fundraisers in Houston, added, "If they've got another proposal that will pass the Congress of the United States, then let's hear that."

Speak up, Mitty Hairboy

Posted by: Anonymous | May 23, 2007 10:21 AM | Report abuse

The video is shaky, but the brutality is clear.

A slender, black-haired girl is dragged in a headlock through a braying mob of men. Within seconds, she is on the ground in a fetal position, covering her head in her arms in a futile attempt to fend off a shower of stones.

Someone slams a concrete block onto the back of her head. A river of blood oozes from beneath her long, tangled hair. The girl stops moving, but the kicks and the rocks keep coming, as do the victorious shouts of the men delivering them.

In the eyes of many in her community in northern Iraq, 17-year-old Duaa Khalil Aswad's crime was to love a boy from another religion. She was a Yazidi, an insular religious sect. He was a Sunni Muslim. To Aswad's uncle and cousins, that was reason enough to put her to death last month in the village of Bashiqa.

Women's groups say the video shows Iraq's backward slide as religious and ethnic intolerance takes hold.

"There is a new Taliban controlling the lives of women in Iraq," said Hanaa Edwar, a women's activist with the Iraqi Al-Amal Association a non-governmental group in Baghdad.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 23, 2007 10:18 AM | Report abuse

While Bill Clinton literary had no clothes, Hlllary figuratively has no clothes! Excluding certain rabid feminists, I have yet to talk to one well-informed woman who does not think that Hillary is a vacuous opportunist who has repeatedly disgraced herself because of her personal ambition. That said, Hillary's so-called successful campaign is not about substance, but a well orchestrated American Idol facsimile to appeal to ill-informed and self-absorbed Americans which sadly constitute a majority of the electorate!
David G. Ward

Posted by: David G. Ward | May 23, 2007 10:05 AM | Report abuse

Anecdotes don't equal actual women voters abandoning Hillary. I think she'll remain very strong in that regard, forcing Obama to push hard for some scraps.

http://www.political-buzz.com/

Posted by: matt | May 23, 2007 10:02 AM | Report abuse

Do you take the risk of hurricanes into account when booking a summer or fall cruise in the Caribbean? If so, the news today isn't good: Government forecasters say there's a 75% chance of a heavier than normal hurricane season this year.

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration forecast calls for 13 to 17 tropical storms in the Atlantic, up from just 10 named storms last year. Of those, seven to 10 will become hurricanes.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 23, 2007 9:54 AM | Report abuse


Mark,

Mea culpa... I wrote my response to Meuphys before I read your post. I agree, I was way too dismissive and thought of Gov. Richardson the moment I hit "submit". Hmmm, let me see if I can respond to your post...

I don't think Sen. Clinton is a no-brainer, reasonable people can differ. From my point of view, I believe she is the most qualified and I think her overall experience sets her apart (well, slightly). As for that pejorative 'second tier', well, most folks who run for President has some leadership experience/qualities on the ol' resume.

Gov. Richardson--absolutely agree, he deserves more consideration from the electorate. I'd like to hear more of what he has to say. He's got the experience "thing" and is an able executive and well regarded by people across the political spectrum. He's also from the West, a place Democrats need to win. (Can anyone say 'short list' veep candidate?)

Sen. Biden--his "yes" response to keeping his mouth shut on the world's stage was well played. However, and this is a personal tick, the guy is a plagiarist and I can't deal with that. I also find him to be something of a windbag. Sorry, in my mind he does belong in the second tier despite his noteworthy accomplishments.

Sen. Dodd--I really don't know much about him. What little I've read makes me think he has a place in the field and those folks I've known from CT hold him in high regard. The country could use someone with serious banking/finance experience as the President. I'll give him a better look.

Sen. Edwards--Sorry, I stand by what I said. All too often he is a deer in headlights when asked a question he hasn't pondered (but probably should have). This tendancy makes me even more nervous when I consider he was a highly successful trial attorney and I'd think that experience would have made him good at a) being thoroughly prepared and/or b) winging it with finesse when things when awry. I do think he is a good man and might consider voting for him for, say Senate, but I remember his debate with Cheney in 04 and he got creamed.

Kucinch (sp?)--Way too liberal for me.

Others--sorry to leave out the rest. I am sure I'll step on someone's toes...

Thanks for making me think Mark, I am not a frequent poster at all. I really shouldn't have been dismissive of the other folks running....

Posted by: Sean | May 23, 2007 9:52 AM | Report abuse

Hillary knew what she was voting for when voted for war with Iraq. She had 8 years of secret intelligence while Bill was in office. She was worried about Saddam.

She can't really say she was sorry for her vote, because that would be review mirror driving. True leaders do not apologize for their true beliefs.

Posted by: jdcw | May 23, 2007 9:52 AM | Report abuse

Chris I think misses the point. The reason women are more supportive of HRC than men, is because women were more supportive of her husband. It's pretty obvious to all but the whackjob extremists that HRC is mostly a proxy for a third term by Bill, and women who were charmed by him the first time around still have stars in their eyes. Therefore, they need to vote in HRC to get their crush back in.

Before you start telling me how great HRC has been on her own, how much she's accomplished, etc., ask yourself - would she be where she is if she wasn't married to Bill? And yes, I realize you could make the same argument for W and his last name. But that doesn't invalidate the point.

Posted by: JD | May 23, 2007 9:52 AM | Report abuse

Speaking of personal anecdotes, neither one of my grandmother's will vote for Hillary. They still remember the '92 campaign when she suggested that she's not 'just' a housewife who stays home and bakes cookies. Hillary's 'contemporaries' don't like her b/c many of them consider being mothers the most fulfilling part thing in their lives.

Posted by: Zach | May 23, 2007 9:51 AM | Report abuse

General polls are useless at this stage of the game. It's too early for average Americans to have familiarized themselves with the candidates, and 1000-person samples are simply too small to get an accurate pulse of how the country is leaning. Using a 1000-person sample means that only 20 people on average are contacted from each state- hardly representative of that state's intentions. For example, if you only contact 20 people from Texas, there's a good chance you're going to get, say, 15 Democrats- a total misrepresentation of that state's political perspective. The only polls I'm paying attention to at this point are state polls.

But this poll is a little interesting because of the gender demographics. So if indeed there is a generational split between female voters on Clinton, here's my theory as to why that might be:

1) Members of the 50-64 demographic are typically more conservative on "values" issues- it makes sense that they would have been less comfortable or dismissive of the Lewinsky scandal than the younger generation, who are typically more cosmopolitan on values issues. We might be seeing this discomfort lingering today among that older generation.

2) At the time of the Lewinsky affair, most members of the younger demographic weren't married. Perhaps the issue meant less to them because they did not relate to it on a personal level (infidelity not being a major concern for them at the time)?

I don't believe that the older generation of women is less inspired by the prospect of a female president. If anything, they are more energized by female empowerment than the younger generation (they grew up, after all, through the various women's lib movements of the 60's and 70's).

Instead, i think these generations viewed the Lewinsky affair through different lenses: older women viewed it through a more conservative lens with a personal concern for issues of marital fidelity; younger generations saw it through a more cosmopolitan lens and without the same personal concern for marital issues.

Posted by: DCGeek | May 23, 2007 9:49 AM | Report abuse

A final before work post for me:

Sean, thanks for the acknowledgement of the field.

Jim D - I always wonder about "coattail" effect too, but I am often surprised after the fact.

Any R will carry TX - that is a foregone conclusion. Can any affect turnout? We only can assume Giuliani will keep some social conservatives at home; beyond that we cannot even guess.

Any D will lose TX - but the TexMex vote could be higher if Gov. Richardson is on the ticket. I suspect he is the only D who would have a "coat tail" here. Beyond that, we cannot even guess.

I'll ck in later to see if you have a guess about FL.

Posted by: Mark in Austin | May 23, 2007 9:49 AM | Report abuse

No national Republicans attended Tuesday's funeral, including none of the GOP presidential candidates. All said they were 'too busy.'


Posted by: evangelical influence waning | May 23, 2007 9:48 AM | Report abuse

Why does every article about Hillary Clinton start with the assumption that women will vote, or not vote, for her based on her gender? I won't vote for her because she's not liberal enough for me.

Posted by: lpaul | May 23, 2007 9:46 AM | Report abuse


LONDON -- Israeli soldiers and Jewish settlers committed "serious human rights abuses" against the Palestinians in 2006, mostly with impunity, Amnesty International said Wednesday in its annual report.

Civilians bore the brunt of rising violence last year between Israelis and Palestinians with a threefold jump in the number of Palestinians killed, although the number of Israelis killed fell by half, it said.

During the 34-day Lebanon conflict last summer "both Hezbollah and Israel committed serious violations of international humanitarian law, including war crimes," said the report.

The London-based rights group said that during the war: "In particular Israeli forces carried out indiscriminate and disproportionate attacks on a large scale.

"Israeli forces also appear to have carried out direct attacks on civilian infrastructure intended to inflict a form of collective punishment on Lebanon's people."

"Its attacks also violated other rules of international humanitarian law, including the prohibition on reprisal attacks on the civilian population."

In the Palestinian territories, Israeli air and artillery strikes killed some 650 people, half of them unarmed civilians and including some 120 children, which Amnesty said was a threefold increase over 2005.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 23, 2007 9:46 AM | Report abuse

As a woman in the young group that is apparently her strongest she is far from my preferred candidate. There are a couple of dems and at least one rep that I prefer over her. I know the only way I'd ever vote for her is as a lesser of two evils candidate. And then I'd get a nice strong drink.

Posted by: bluemeanies | May 23, 2007 9:45 AM | Report abuse

To those who say that Hillary is the most qualified (or experienced), I suggest you put her CV and Bill Richardson's side-by-side.

I also have a HUGE problem with the dynasty issue. It goes against everything we are supposed to stand for. Haven't we had enough of that over the past several years?

I can't vote for a Republican at this point (and I used to be one), but it will be VERY hard for me to vote for Hillary.

Posted by: Jill | May 23, 2007 9:44 AM | Report abuse

Women wouldn't vote for Hillary because of the 'state of her marriage'? [you DC pundits sure have an unhealthy obssession with the subject] -- then I guess you should ask if men won't vote for Rudy because of the 'states' of his assorted marriages...

Posted by: Mel | May 23, 2007 9:43 AM | Report abuse

Iraq agreed to increase oil exports directly to Iran via a new pipeline in the south, though export capacity in the north remains stuck.

Iraq oil minister Hussein Al Shahristani and Hasan Kazemi Qomi, the Iranian ambassador to Iraq, struck the deal, according to a top ministry spokesman.

"The two agreed to lay the oil pipeline from southern Iraq to Abadan region in Iran in order to export more than 200,000 barrels per day [bpd] of Iraqi crude oil to Iran according to crude oil international prices," Issam Jihad told reporters.

The Voices of Iraq news agency reports that the oil will be used in Iran's refineries.

While Iraq has 115 billion barrels of proven reserves, the third-most in the world, production is struggling at 2 million bpd and exports at 1.6 million bpd. This is caused not by a lack of export capacity, at least in the south, but by old, misused, and often attacked infrastructure.

Tens of billions of dollars are needed to fix the system, which has suffered under the current occupation and its fighting.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 23, 2007 9:36 AM | Report abuse

Meuphys,

I have to be honest; I haven't been completely on top of Obama's policy proposals. I take anything that comes out of a campaign machine with a grain of salt (Clinton's included--while I'll vote for her, I'll concede a certain ruthlessness to her campaign). That being said, I might be subconsciously buying into some propaganda. I read Sen. Obama's first book shortly after his election to the Senate and came away deeply impressed. If the Bush team hadn't caused so much damage to the country and our standing around the world, I'd be tempted to overlook his lack of experience. At this particular time, however, Clinton's experience trumps Obama's vast potential. If he is the Dem's candidate I'll happily support him in the general election unless Bronwnback wins the Repubs' nomination (kidding). Oh, I also shouldn't have been as dismissive as the pejoratively named "second tier" of candidates.

The dynasty thing... that was tough to overcome. I swore for awhile I wouldn't support Clinton because of that issue. Over time I came to (parsing a phrase from Al Gore) see her as her own person. I came to believe that her innate talent, drive, and intelligence would have gotten her to the position she is in today (with the big exception being her inheritance of Bill's campaign tools/funds) if she wasn't first lady. I had to separate GW Bush's experience (who never would have even been governor of Texas let alone President) from Sen. Clinton. The dynasty thing still makes me woozy, if only because it might prod the Republicans to push Jeb into the next run. I also agree that dynasties are almost always bad things (the quality of the Kennedys has declined precipitously). I guess I am willing to make an exception for Sen. Clinton and I believe she'll be a better President than Bill. I also came to think that our political system does, sort of, encourage a form of dynasties--the Veep nearly always wants to run for President. In that case, you are supporting policies over people but there is still a dynastic flavor to that form of succession.

You bring up Gore... hmmm... I dunno. I was an enthusiastic Gore supporter during the 2000 run. I think if Gore gets involved the Democrats will have an embarrassment of riches. I might re-think my support for Sen. Clinton if Gore gets involved especially as experience is very important to me.

Posted by: Sean | May 23, 2007 9:28 AM | Report abuse

The news came as the military announced that nine more American soldiers had been killed across Iraq in a single day, bringing to 85 the number of servicemen killed in one of the most violent months of the war so far.

All nine of the US soldiers and marines were killed Tuesday in a series of incidents, some of them in an area where the troops were searching for three of their comrades captured in a deadly raid last week.

http://www.metimes.com/storyview.php?StoryID=20070523-083707-8841r

Posted by: Anonymous | May 23, 2007 9:27 AM | Report abuse

As a minority woman, I am on the fence. I also find it interesting that pollsters or the media do not poll minority women about their preference for Hillary or Obama.

I admire Hillary's ability to play the political game. As a law student and someone who works in politics, these two fields are still quite male dominated. It's nice and kind of inspiring to see a woman like Hill who has the balls to play with the best of them (or worse depending on your opinion). The biggest reason as to why I would not vote for Hillary yet is that she continues to take nuanced positions, especially when it comes to the war. Taking such nuanced positions makes her look wishy-washy and thus untrustworthy as if she'll keep her word.

The reason I would vote for Obama over Hillary is because he seems to isnpire people not typically motivated to vote. He also seems to be able to bridge the difference b/t various constituencies and bring groups like women, blacks and other minorities together.

If Hillary's people let her be herself at times, I think she could also be seen as a bridge builder rather than a divisive figure.

I am overall glad to feel pulled b/t three qualified candidates.


Posted by: M.W. | May 23, 2007 9:27 AM | Report abuse

As a minority woman, I am on the fence. I also find it interesting that pollsters or the media do not poll minority women about their preference for Hillary or Obama.

I admire Hillary's ability to play the political game. As a law student and someone who works in politics, these two fields are still quite male dominated. It's nice and kind of inspiring to see a woman like Hill who has the balls to play with the best of them (or worse depending on your opinion). The biggest reason as to why I would not vote for Hillary yet is that she continues to take nuanced positions, especially when it comes to the war. Taking such nuanced positions makes her look wishy-washy and thus untrustworthy as if she'll keep her word.

The reason I would vote for Obama over Hillary is because he seems to isnpire people not typically motivated to vote. He also seems to be able to bridge the difference b/t various constituencies and bring groups like women, blacks and other minorities together.

If Hillary's people let her be herself at times, I think she could also be seen as a bridge builder rather than a divisive figure.

I am overall glad to feel pulled b/t three qualified candidates.


Posted by: M.E. | May 23, 2007 9:26 AM | Report abuse

Emily's List an 'abortion rights group' ?-- jeez Chris, you really demonstrate your pollitical illiteracy, ignorance, and republican bias with that remark.

Where do you get your information, the scumbag guttersnipe Drudge?

Posted by: Ellen | May 23, 2007 9:22 AM | Report abuse

I'm a 46 y.o. social liberal, feminist, mother of 2. At this point in the campaign, I wouldn't rule out a vote for Hillary although I'll have to see who's actually running at the end.

A couple more thoughts......

I'm not going to condemn her for her vote on Iraq - she was laboring under the same misconceptions as everyone else in Congress at the time. I would also trust her to handle a withdrawl from the region more than I would trust other, less-seasoned candidates.

I have to say, I'd really rather vote for Al Gore at this point - but he currently has the luxury of not serving in an elected office so he can be more forthright in his speech.

The idea that women wouldn't vote for her because of the state of her marriage is extremely backward. Should we scrutinize every male candidate using the marriage test? Didn't we get over this when Ronald Reagan was in the White House? Not only was he divorced, but - at the time - some of his kids didn't even like him very much. Those two facts didn't seem to affect how the country viewed his ability to lead. (I certainly don't think he was a particularly good President - but most of America did.)

Posted by: VA woman | May 23, 2007 9:22 AM | Report abuse

Sean,

Sen. Clinton is certainly not head and shoulders over the Democratic field who are definitely not "scarcely worth notice." Do your research.

One Dem has actually been nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize FOUR times, been Ambassador to the UN, been Energy Secretary, negotiated prisoner releases of Americans around the world, and been an almost outrageously successful governor.

Another Dem has been the ranking Dem or Chair of the Sen Foreign Relations Committee
since before there was a Clinton in Washington.

Another Dem is Chair of Banking and Finance in the Senate, and another was a constitutional law professor at a top ten law school before he entered politics.

Still another has parlayed a career as a successful plaintiff's attorney into a pubic service career that includes having funded a statewide initiative for finding talented poor students and offering them college scholarships.

You may like her better, and you may be able to argue her career and character convincingly, but you will lose credibility with attempted invidious comparisons.

Lylepink is a strong supporter of Sen. Clinton's who posts regularly, but I do not see her as calling the relatively distinguished field (compared to 2003) beneath notice.

Posted by: Mark in Austin | May 23, 2007 9:20 AM | Report abuse

I have often expressed my doubts here about Senator Clinton's electability. Many of the posters have harped on her image as a cold, calculating politician with no moral center. I think the effect of her somewhat less than ebullient personality is heightened by comparison to her husband - certainly the most naturally talented politician of the last 20 years.

She is viewed by people who do not follow politics very closely as an extreme liberal. The real hard core liberals depise her for her deviations from liberal orthodoxy. Because of her image, many people, when learning of her actual political positions, believe that she has changed her positions out of political calculation. How many times did news stories about policy struggles between liberals and moderates in the Clinton administration cast Hillary as the foremost spokesperson for the liberal position?

In any event, she has been prominent on the national scene for almost 20 years and it will be hard to change many people's opinion of her. She might win the general election in what is shaping up to be a good political year for the Democrats. Her presence at the head of the ticket could spell doom for a lot of Democratic candidates in areas where Democrats are just starting to make inroads.

Posted by: JimD in FL | May 23, 2007 9:17 AM | Report abuse

I am a 35 year old woman, and though I wish Hillary were a tad less corporate, I will vote for her because I think she is smart and capable, and far better equipped to be president than any of the hasbeens and clowns in the R party.

But CC, aren't you doing like the same column over and over?

Posted by: Shel | May 23, 2007 9:17 AM | Report abuse

EMILY's List is not an abortion rights group. They raise and provide funding for candidates who show a strong committment to gender equality.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 23, 2007 9:13 AM | Report abuse

With regard to Hillary. It will be shameful should voters select her based only on the discrimination of her sex. Also, you perpetuate the myth of "pols" having accuracy, yet you yourself continue to cite them. Of course you'd have nothing but your own opinion to talk about if you didn't. so it goes 'see the dog consumitself by the tail' seven acts of vaudeville, the next show starts in five minutes...plenty of seats.

Posted by: Newark | May 23, 2007 9:12 AM | Report abuse

With regard to Hillary. It will be shameful should voters select her based only on the discrimination of her sex. Also, you perpetuate the myth of "pols" having accuracy, yet you yourself continue to cite them. Of course you'd have nothing but your own opinion to talk about if you didn't. so it goes 'see the dog consumitself by the tail' seven acts of vaudeville, the next show starts in five minutes...plenty of seats.

Posted by: Newark | May 23, 2007 9:12 AM | Report abuse

"many African American women who will not vote for her for many reasons, one of them being what she and Bill Clinton did to the brilliant legal scholar Lani Guinier"

Posted by: When 'many' = few | May 23, 2007 9:07 AM | Report abuse

'ABC News' Steven Portnoy Reports: Republican presidential campaigns raced to express their candidates' sympathies for the death of Rev. Jerry Falwell a week ago Tuesday, but not one could fit Falwell's funeral into their candidate's schedule.'

throwing the evangelicals under the bus...

Posted by: LOL | May 23, 2007 9:07 AM | Report abuse

I will not vote for Hillary Clinton if she is on the Democratic ticket and do not like her for the following reasons:

1. Her vote supporting Bush's plan to start the war in Iraq and her excuse now for doing so.

2. She is too calculating, shrill and abrasive (not the likeable candidate her managers are trying to project)

3. She goes to her focus group on every issue before making a statement or opinion

4. Her behavior during the Monica affair and her husband's womenizing (I would respect her more if she would have given Bill the boot and went out on her own--then she could truly be labeled as independent)

Posted by: janet | May 23, 2007 9:06 AM | Report abuse

While I am in the 18-39 range, and female, and I would vote for Hillary, I know many females my age that wouldn't.. and most of the females I know are democrats. First Those that are "Dean" democrats... super far left.. won't vote for Hillary because she's not liberal enough. Some just don't like her... women are petty... and that plays into politics just like every day life. But none of my friends have ever described her as "iconic." Sure, we grew up with her and Bill in the White House, but that doesn't mean we idolize her for that. I plan on voting for Hillary, should the opportunity arise, becuase I personally think she is the best candidate for the job.

Also, I think it helps that my generation could care less about the whole Bill-Monica thing. And we could care less that Hillary decided to stay with Bill for political game. That's just intelligent politics to us. We were a generation who grew up with cheating, lies and divorce all around us - even if it wasn't within our own families - and thus, its not such a big stigma. I know lots of people who's parents stayed together for dumb reasons, and whatever, it worked out for them. In general, our generation is much less judgmental than older generations in such areas.

Posted by: 18-39 | May 23, 2007 9:05 AM | Report abuse

sean, obama is as you say intelligent, but i have seen and heard of several detailed policy proposals he has outlined... i believe that the "feel good, no substance" description is one put forward by rival campaigns, hillary's being the chief culprit. i believe that obama is the best of an above average field - although i would have to re-evaluate if gore were to enter the race - and i am confident that as the campaign progresses and more people become acquainted with the proposals he has made, he will be increasingly seen as the most substantial candidate in an admittedly above-average field.
yes, i will vote for hillary, but only if i have to. she has not distinguished herself through her relatively run-of-the-mill policy proposals, and i cannot get rid of the "dynasty" issue you mention. how were you able to do it? i.e. reconcile support for bill's wife with the ideals of democracy? and do you not think that this represents the most recent (not the first) step on a slippery slope?

Posted by: meuphys | May 23, 2007 9:01 AM | Report abuse

EMILY's List is not an abortion rights organization. Its goal is to get pro-choice women elected. Yes, it is pro-choice, but labeling it an "abortion rights group" suggests that it is NARAL, which is a little different. Chris, I've never thought you were particularly partisan. However, with your inability to point out the hypocrisy of Fred Thompson hiring an Altria executive the other day and with today's incorrect labeling, I just don't know what to say.

Please fix your column to label EMILY's List properly.

Posted by: Ryan | May 23, 2007 8:56 AM | Report abuse

I do not expect it to be too long before lylepink shows up to discuss Hillary and her chances of becoming "POTUS."

Lyle, I renew my invitation to you to discuss her policy proposals in detail, and how in your opinion they place her above the other candidates.

I also ask you again to explain why you do not have a problem with the former First Lady succeeding the son of a former president, and how you can reconcile that with the democratic ideal.

Please do not ignore this request. I genuinely want to discuss these topics, and promise to do so respectfully.

Posted by: Bokonon | May 23, 2007 8:51 AM | Report abuse

Sue: I get the same opinions from everyone I talk to about Hillary, except some that will not say so in public for reasons given by those that oppose her because she is woman. I often refer to this as "The Hidden Vote", and everyone I have talked with, repub and dem, are planning to vote for Hillary. Many reasons are given and the main one is that those who does research, find her life story as the most important. From childhood, she has always tried to help those in need.

Posted by: lylepink | May 23, 2007 8:50 AM | Report abuse

While it took me some time to overcome my concerns about a presidential dynasty, I believe Sen. Clinton is qualified to be President and, if elected, will do a fantastic job. I am one of those males in the 18-39 zone and was impressed with Sen. Clinton when Bill first ran for President in the early 90's. She seems smart, confident, intellectually curious, and well versed in the policy details that President Bush seems to gloss over. While she may be rather calculating and project a somewhat cold image, I am not voting for "best friend" but rather President. I actually think those traits will serve her well when she meets with foreign leaders (compared to GW's looking into Putin's soul to gauge the man). Others in the democratic field are simply too inexperienced (Edwards is a dear in headlights and Obama, while deeply intelligent, seems to be all airy pronouncements and full of feel goodness rather than concrete proposals... the others are scarcely worth notice). We need a tough and intelligent leader to fix the disaster that has been the Bush presidency.

Posted by: Sean | May 23, 2007 8:48 AM | Report abuse

I am Senator Clinton' contemporary in age and experience (an Ivy grad, have always worked, raised a kid, a long marriage). Two things bother me. Her support for the war and the the fact that restorations always turn out badly. If I (depending only on a degree in history and reading) knew the War in Iraq was an absurd idea why didn't she? Dynasties offend my deeply democratic sense.

Posted by: AnnS | May 23, 2007 8:45 AM | Report abuse

I am Senator Clinton' contemporary in age and experience (an Ivy grad, have always worked, raised a kid, a long marriage). Two things bother me. Her support for the war and the the fact that restorations always turn out badly. If I (depending only on a degree in history and reading) knew the War in Iraq was an absurd idea why didn't she? Dynasties offend my deeply democratic sense.

Posted by: AnnS | May 23, 2007 8:45 AM | Report abuse

I am Senator Clinton' contemporary in age and experience (an Ivy grad, have always worked, raised a kid, a long marriage). Two things bother me. Her support for the war and the the fact that restorations always turn out badly. If I (depending only on a degree in history and reading) knew the War in Iraq was an absurd idea why didn't she? Dynasties offend my deeply democratic sense.

Posted by: AnnS | May 23, 2007 8:45 AM | Report abuse

Clinton's gender should not serve as a basis for whether or not voters elect her. I find her to be a smart and competent politician, but I am not confident in her ability to run the entire country. I don't want any woman or any man in the Oval Office, I want the best individual for the job and I don't find HRC to be it.

Posted by: Arlington, VA | May 23, 2007 8:43 AM | Report abuse

Hillary Clinton is hardly an "iconic figure." She is a calculating politician who has been planning this run since 1992. Yes, she is intelligent. No, she doesn't seem to have many scruples which she is unable to bend if politically necessary.

Chris' first point is my biggest problem with her candidacy, however. The "Bush-Clinton" two-step is not the dance we need to be doing as a nation anymore. (In fact, it should DEFINITELY have ended in 2000.)
My point is, it is commonly said that "in America, ANYONE can grow up to be president." This is a commonly-held belief, but in this day and age, it is not true. Only those with either the backing of a party machine or (more commonly) LOTS of money can hope to mount a credible candidacy, and now it even seems that their surname must be one with which America is familiar. Maybe it's not exactly dynastic succession, but it sure ain't democracy.

Posted by: Bokonon | May 23, 2007 8:42 AM | Report abuse

First, a message to everyone off topic:
At least learn to do a frigging link!
We don't need you to cut and paste for us the parts of the newspaper you found interesting this morning.


I am 58 and will definitely be voting for Senator Clinton. My mom is 84; she will definitely be voting for Senator Clinton. My sister-in-law, married to Loyal Bushie, will be voting for Senator Clinton.
Why?
We are excited about a female candidate.
We think she is unbelievably intelligent.
We think she has given a lot of thought to the issues.
We think her experience in the White House is a plus.

By the way, I teach at a local college.
As far as how young people will be voting...
Yes, I think both Bill AND Hillary Clinton are iconic figures to them. They DO feel we were better off under the leadership of President Clinton.
Between that reality and Bush's war in Iraq, I think the Republican Party is toast for at least a generation.

Posted by: Jan | May 23, 2007 8:23 AM | Report abuse

According to

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/polls/postpoll_041607.html

the polling data CC cites is from persons who "lean Dem", NOT likely primary voters.

The Post also has general polling that reflects high negatives for Senators Clinton and McCain as well as Mr. Giuliani.

This all seems so premature - do people really make up their minds without benefit of the campaigns or research? That was not the case in the past, why should we think it is true, now? As recently as 2003-4, the Dean - Gebhardt pre-primary battle "disappeared" and was replaced by a Kerry - Edwards battle in the actual vote.

Of course, to this independent, Gephardt seemed far more qualified than Dean or Kerry or Edwards or Pres. Bush, and Sen. McCain seemed more qualified than anyone in 2000, so my opinion about early polling and late decision making is arguably useless.

Posted by: Mark in Austin | May 23, 2007 8:13 AM | Report abuse

I am a 47 year old lawyer and mother who has never been a SAHM and I won't vote for Hilary Clinton until she has the backbone and the guts to renounce her vote for the war and to denounce the "don't ask, don't tell" military policies.

Posted by: Jayne | May 23, 2007 8:12 AM | Report abuse

I have concerns about her electability and we cannot have another Republican President. That said, I think she would be a good President and will vote for her if she wins the nomination.

Posted by: steve | May 23, 2007 8:12 AM | Report abuse

The answer to Hillary's question, "Is America ready for a woman in the Oval office?", "Been there and done that. Her name was Monica."

Posted by: DQuixote1 | May 23, 2007 8:09 AM | Report abuse

' White House official told ABC News Tuesday evening that the President is often asked how the administration can say that Al Qaeda wants to use Iraq as a base to launch attacks.'

How?... because he is a psychotic, pathological liar, just like the Dick.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 23, 2007 8:01 AM | Report abuse

ABOARD USS JOHN C. STENNIS (Reuters) -- Nine U.S. military ships entered the Persian Gulf on Wednesday for a rare daylight assembly off Iran's coast in what naval officials said was the largest such move since the 2003 Iraq war.

U.S. Navy officials said Iran had not been notified of plans to sail the vessels, which include two aircraft carriers, through the Straits of Hormuz, a narrow channel in international waters off Iran's coast and a major artery for global oil shipments.

Most U.S. ships pass through the straits at night so as not to attract attention, and rarely move in such large numbers.

Navy officials said the decision to send a second aircraft carrier was made at the last minute, without giving a reason.'

hope all you gopies are prepared to serve your country, because once we go to war with Iran, there will have to be a military draft, because the military is currently depleted. but i'm sure it would be good for you, you're so patriotic after all.

Posted by: 'get ready for endless war | May 23, 2007 7:58 AM | Report abuse

As an African American Democract in law school who have worked in the last two presidential campaigns, I rather vote for a Republican than Hillary Clinton. Clinton is opportunistic, untrustworthy, lies about her position and is a person who would sleep with a rattlesnake to become president. I know many African American women who will not vote for her for many reasons, one of them being what she and Bill Clinton did to the brilliant legal scholar Lani Guinier who now teaches at Harvard Law School when she was up for Deputy Attorney General for Civil Rights during Clinton's administration. How they gave Guinier to the Republican wolves is at best insensitive, at worst it was.....you put in the word. I will do whatever I can to make sure she does not get elected as this country would be in terrible hands.

Posted by: Harvey Cogswell | May 23, 2007 7:51 AM | Report abuse

'WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Bush on Tuesday declassified intelligence showing in 2005 Osama bin Laden planned to use Iraq as a base from which to launch attacks in the United States, according to White House spokesman Gordon Johndroe.'

...and how, pray tell, was he going to use Iraq as a base when he an Islamist, and Saddam Hussein, a secularist, didn't exactly get on? Was he going to overthrown Hussein, and pacify he country, when the whole US army can't?

What tripe -- what utter baseless propaganda and BS. How stupid do they think we are? But of course, I'm sure some simple-minded gopies will fall for it. They always do.

But in any guess al-queda has a stronger grip on Iraq, Pakistan and Afghanistan than they ever have, so I guess he must be pretty grateful to bush for all he's done for him.

Posted by: yeah, right | May 23, 2007 7:44 AM | Report abuse

I'm a 31 year old woman and I don't plan on voting for Hillary, not because she's a woman but because I don't agree with her politics.

Posted by: Cubeland | May 23, 2007 7:32 AM | Report abuse

I hear three big reasons that Democratic or dem leaning women my age, mid-fifties, don't like Senator Clinton as a Presidential candidate.

One is what I call the dynasty issue. Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton just does not sit well with a lot of people.

Two- is the state of her marriage.

Three- the public and older women seem to recoil from a women who shows strength and iron in dealing with national security issues.

Thatcher was able to offset it somewhat with her pink taffeta- iron lady speech.

Merkel appears to be dealing with it by a display of cool competence.

Gandhi deals with it through surrogates.

Clinton's performance as a calm, collected, steely protector in the first debate will redound to her credit, but it takes awhile for the public to shift its image of the commander-in-chief from Bush on ground zero to Clinton in the White House situation room commanding a US military response to an attack.

Since the Democrats have such a great field of competitors to Clinton, people will not rush to her in desperation.

However, the same holds true for Clinton's competitors, none of them is taking the party by storm, either.

Whoever the Democratic candidate is, that person will need the time between March and the convention in August to unite the party and move us together into the general election campaign.

Robert Chapman
Lansing, NY

Posted by: robert chapman | May 23, 2007 7:31 AM | Report abuse

people i'm in contact with, work, friends, etc. find Hillary very likeable.
Her being cool& calculating is just a myth that a few say over & over hoping others will believe it. Dont think public is that gullible. They'll vote for her experience,leadership, and brilliance.We could use that in a president.

Posted by: Sue | May 23, 2007 7:22 AM | Report abuse

I think the only way a lot of us women think that this country can ever be straightened out is with a women President. We have ran houses, families, and companies for years with very good results. There have been some wonderful men that ran this country as President. However, many women feel as I do, that this President has done our country a grave injustice. Our sons and daughters have fought, died and been wounded for a war that should have never been waged. We are further in debt as a country than we have ever been. The image of America around the world is tarnished as never before. It's going to take a lot of work to fix. And when it comes to problem solving of this magnitude, it's going to take a smart woman, and that's Hillary.

Posted by: Martha | May 23, 2007 7:04 AM | Report abuse

LYNCHBURG, Virginia (CNN) -- A first-year Liberty University student was arrested in what police said was a plot to detonate explosive devices Tuesday, the day of the Rev. Jerry Falwell's funeral.

Mark David Uhl's intended target is unknown, authorities said.

ABC News reported the youth told authorities he had made the bombs -- which were found in his car -- to stop protesters from disrupting Falwell's funeral.

Posted by: figures | May 23, 2007 7:00 AM | Report abuse

For uncensored news please bookmark:

www.wsws.org
www.takingaimradio.info
otherside123.blogspot.com
www.onlinejournal.com
www.globalresearch.ca

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2006/apr2006/clin-a19.shtml

The economics of militarism
Hillary Clinton outlines Democrats' big business agenda

By Bill Van Auken, SEP candidate for US Senate, New York
19 April 2006


New York's Democratic Senator Hillary Clinton delivered a speech last week to the Economic Club of Chicago that served as an introduction to the right-wing economic platform upon which she and her party intend to run in the 2006 US midterm elections, as well as her own agenda in an expected bid for the Democratic presidential nomination in 2008.

It is a program that begins with the needs of big business and the defense of the wealth of the top 1 percent of the population, to which she and her major backers belong. It reveals, moreover, the economic foundation of the support provided by Clinton and the Democratic leadership for the ongoing war in Iraq and the threat of new wars against Iran and other countries--acts of aggression that are bound up with a policy of global militarism conducted in the interests of America's ruling elite.

Couched in the empty boosterism and sanctimonious phraseology that is the stock-in-trade of such affairs, Clinton's April 11 remarks were directed at making it clear to the assembled Chicago businessmen that she is indeed one of them--not merely as a native daughter of a Chicago Republican textile supply merchant, but also in terms of fundamental social interests and outlook.

While before some audiences Clinton still engages in hollow rhetoric about the social needs of average working people, in Chicago the subtext was, "What is good for business is good for America."

The object of undeserved and obsessive vilification by the Republican right, who consider her an icon of Democratic liberalism, Hillary Clinton has gone to comical lengths to prove her conservative credentials--her crusades against video games and flag-burning being two recent examples.

The Chicago speech was along similar lines: She not only reverentially quoted Ronald Reagan at length, but also invoked the views of Lawrence Lindsey, Bush's former top economic advisor and architect of the massive tax cuts for the rich. As part of this right-wing name-dropping, she boasted of her recent political collaboration with former House Republican leader Newt Gingrich, who led the drive to impeach her husband, as well as with the current Republican leader of the Senate, Bill Frist, on health legislation tailored to the needs of big business.

The main substance of her remarks--amid rhetoric about the need to "strengthen the middle class"--centered on the question of how to "deal with globalization and the competitive threat that it poses." Her prescription, coupled with the assurance that she is not talking about "throwing money" at social problems, is a slightly greater government role in "incentivising" investment in research and manufacturing.

Support for manufacturing, she affirmed, provides jobs. She then made it clear that even more important is the fact that it "provides us with strategic security."

"Do we really want the production of high-tech components of our satellites, our missiles, our planes to be completely out of our hands?" she asked her audience.

Clinton continued by invoking the growing budget deficits and America's emergence as the world's greatest debtor nation. "I'm concerned that countries like China have so much control over our financial future," she said.

Her solution: A return to "fiscal discipline" and a "pay as you go" regime of economic austerity. "I think a return to fiscal discipline, living within our means, is essential for our long-term health," Clinton declared. "It is also critical to whether or not we control our destiny as a nation."

This theme was coupled with rather tepid warnings that the continued unrestrained growth of profits at the expense of wages could threaten the interests of the American ruling elite itself, among whom Hillary Clinton clearly includes herself. "With all due respect to many of us in this room tonight, America did not build the greatest economy in the world because we had rich people," she said, adding that the real foundation was the "American middle class."

Lamenting the increasing costs of education, health care, transportation and other necessities, she said, "We should not in a globalized world face a choice between profits and pensions." She hastened to add, however, "I understand that the world has changed and what used to work 50 years ago doesn't work today. But that's why we need to rethink our industrial age bargain and come up with a new one that really keeps faith with the American middle class."

This remark constitutes a tacit endorsement not only of the drive by corporate America to liberate itself from all pension obligations to its workers, but also of sweeping counter-reforms to the existing Social Security system. This is precisely what Senator Clinton's allies in the Democratic Party are preparing. A group of them, including investment banker Robert Rubin, treasury secretary in the administration of Bill Clinton, announced earlier this month the creation of the "Hamilton Project," dedicated to confronting fiscal imbalances and the mounting budget deficit. The group advocates "entitlement reform," a euphemism for taking a meat cleaver to fundamental social programs like Social Security and Medicare.

Significantly, in the course of her remarks, Clinton cited Corning, Inc. of upstate New York as an example of the "'can do' spirit that really is the fuel for the free enterprise economy." Since Clinton took office as a senator from New York five years ago, Corning has embarked on a brutal campaign of plant closings and mass layoffs that has cut its workforce nearly in half, costing over 20,000 jobs.

During this same period, the company cemented close ties with the state's new senator, donating close to $140,000 to her campaign fund since she first ran in 2000. The New York Times recently noted that the company had "supported Republican candidates for so long that its chairman once joked that it had not raised money for a Democrat since 1812."

It is donations like these--given because Hillary Clinton defends the interests of the corporations at the expense of working people no less than the Republicans--that have helped swell her campaign fund to some $20 million, the highest amount amassed by any Democratic politician.

While extolling the virtues of this ruthless corporate policy of destroying tens of thousands of jobs, Clinton tipped her hat briefly to the working poor, declaring, "I want to send the signal to every one of the people who served us tonight in this hotel ... we want them to be successful, as well." So much for the "party of the people" and "reform."

There was nothing new in Clinton's speech. It merely exposed the Democratic Party once again as the partner of the Bush administration and the Republicans in defending the global and domestic interests of the US corporate and financial ruling elite. To the extent that Clinton articulated any differences with the Bush administration's policies, they were purely of a tactical nature, centering on how best to uphold the interests of the financial oligarchy that rules America. Like others within this ruling layer, her concern is that the policies of the administration are turning the country into a social and political powder keg with potentially revolutionary implications.

But, because she--like the Republicans--represents the same class of corporate executives and the super-rich that made up much of her audience in Chicago, she is incapable of advancing any genuine alternative. As with the war in Iraq, which she voted to authorize and continues to support, she criticizes the Bush administration for mismanaging economic policy, not for defending a system that systematically subordinates the needs of the people to the profit interests of big business.

The element of economic nationalism in her speech, by which US manufacturing policy is presented as a matter of "strategic security" bound up with confronting "globalization and its competitive threats," contains within in it the real motive force for the war in Iraq and the threat of even greater wars to come. Clinton shares the consensus policy of the US ruling elite of utilizing American military power to offset relative economic decline through the seizure of markets and raw materials--particularly oil--at the expense of American capitalism's rivals.

Clinton's Chicago speech is just one more demonstration of the real social interests she and her party defend. Between her and whomever the Republicans nominate as their candidate for the Senate, New York voters will have nothing to choose from, whether it concerns the ongoing war in Iraq or the class war that is being conducted at home to enrich the wealthiest social layers at the expense of the working population.

The Socialist Equality Party is intervening in the 2006 election and has nominated me as its candidate for US senator from New York to provide a genuine alternative for working people. Against Clinton's support for the war in Iraq, the SEP demands immediate and unconditional withdrawal of all US troops and holding accountable all those responsible for dragging the American people, by means of conspiracy and lies, into this illegal aggression.

We reject the claim that globalization requires that US workers compete with lower-wage workers in other countries by accepting wage cuts and the destruction of past social gains. That is a lie. The global integration of production creates the conditions for a vast improvement in living standards all over the world. The problem is that these internationally integrated productive forces are subordinated to the profit interests of a narrow ruling elite, which pits workers against each other to further its own interests.

Against the divide-and-conquer strategy of the transnational corporations and international banks, the SEP advances an internationalist program for politically uniting American workers with working people throughout the world in a common struggle to reorganize the economy on socialist foundations--that is, on the basis of social need rather than profit, to eliminate poverty and foster social equality.

My party advances a program of concrete measures to achieve these aims, including the demand that tax policy be radically transformed, through the repeal of two decades worth of tax cuts for the wealthy and a sharp increase in taxes on corporations and the super-rich, combined with a substantial reduction in the tax burden for the great majority. To reorganize economic life along rational, egalitarian and socially constructive lines, we call for the transformation of major corporations into public utilities under the democratic control of the working population.

The first step in fighting for these goals is to break with the Democrats and begin building a mass socialist party of the working class. That is the goal pursued by the Socialist Equality Party in its intervention in the 2006 election.

I urge all those who support these aims to seriously study our program and join in the fight to place the Socialist Equality Party on the ballot in New York, California, Michigan and the other regions where the SEP is running candidates.

Posted by: che | May 23, 2007 6:52 AM | Report abuse

Is it not possible that Hillary does well among younger women voters simply because they came of age when she was the First Lady? Simple familiarity, hence, could play a role in the number she attracts.

Posted by: Joseph Connolly | May 23, 2007 6:46 AM | Report abuse

I'm 76yrs. old with many friends & family in same age bracket, all rooting for Hillary regardless of all the nays.Read all positive articles about her and pass them on. Go Hillary!!

Posted by: kay | May 23, 2007 6:37 AM | Report abuse

Hilary's problem with women is really the same as it is for men: people don't really like her. They may or may not agree with her politics; they respect and admire her; but she does not inspire warmth or affection. She is perceived as chilly and calculating -- deadly sins, especially (unfortunately) for a woman. The bottom line, for her as for any politician, is her likeability -- or lack thereof.

Posted by: Mike | May 23, 2007 6:06 AM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company