Hillary Clinton - Why the hate?

[Rex Kickass]

I personally disagree with Clinton on health care policy. Any government funded insurance program can be managed well, but must be voluntary to have a shot at being created, let alone succeeding.

 

I disagree with Clinton regarding her vote on Iraq in 2002, but for anyone wanting her to admit that it was a mistake and withholding a vote for that reason is disingenuous. There was plenty of evidence available to her to indicate that the threat was real. A lot of people want to think that public officials should be distrustful of one another. That's bothersome to me, and evident of the kind of partisanship that's made me take a bit of a backseat when it comes to politics lately. Just because George Bush doesn't support the same things that I do doesn't mean that he's necessarily acting in bad faith. So when he asked for this legislation in summer of 2002 and said that his intent was not to use this as a blank check for invasion, it is in the best interest of this country to take a President at his word, unless he proves them otherwise. In this case, given the track record that Bush had in 2002, there was no track record to prove otherwise. There was also plenty of evidence to indicate that the President may have actually been right too. Although I disagree with her vote, and my initial intuition was along the lines borne out, I feel that this was not necessarily a mistake on behalf of Clinton to act in this manner.

 

I, however, disagree with her initial stance on Iran.

 

I feel that she will not adequately provide equal rights for all Americans and would sell out the gay community in a heartbeat if it improved her chances. Unfortunately, so would every other candidate running.

 

Hillary Clinton was not my candidate last night. If she wins the nomination, she will be my candidate in November. The truth is, in the general election, we are voting for a party to guide our country over the next four years.

 

When it comes to civil rights, the Democrats have my back more.

When it comes to reproductive rights issues, the Democrats agree with me.

When it comes to the idea of protecting the weakest among us, the Democrats agree with me.

When it comes to the issue of International Relations, the Democrats are more in line with my views.

 

Hillary Clinton is a Democrat, warts and all. And I will support her in November, if she becomes the nominee.

 

People say that she will change her opinion on a dime if it means getting elected. Although some positions have changed, maybe we should look at John McCain and the soul he'll have to sell for a shot at getting the evangelical base out to vote in November.

[Reddy]

I personally disagree with Clinton on health care policy. Any government funded insurance program can be managed well, but must be voluntary to have a shot at being created, let alone succeeding.

 

I disagree with Clinton regarding her vote on Iraq in 2002, but for anyone wanting her to admit that it was a mistake and withholding a vote for that reason is disingenuous. There was plenty of evidence available to her to indicate that the threat was real. A lot of people want to think that public officials should be distrustful of one another. That's bothersome to me, and evident of the kind of partisanship that's made me take a bit of a backseat when it comes to politics lately. Just because George Bush doesn't support the same things that I do doesn't mean that he's necessarily acting in bad faith. So when he asked for this legislation in summer of 2002 and said that his intent was not to use this as a blank check for invasion, it is in the best interest of this country to take a President at his word, unless he proves them otherwise. In this case, given the track record that Bush had in 2002, there was no track record to prove otherwise. There was also plenty of evidence to indicate that the President may have actually been right too. Although I disagree with her vote, and my initial intuition was along the lines borne out, I feel that this was not necessarily a mistake on behalf of Clinton to act in this manner.

 

I, however, disagree with her initial stance on Iran.

 

I feel that she will not adequately provide equal rights for all Americans and would sell out the gay community in a heartbeat if it improved her chances. Unfortunately, so would every other candidate running.

 

Hillary Clinton was not my candidate last night. If she wins the nomination, she will be my candidate in November. The truth is, in the general election, we are voting for a party to guide our country over the next four years.

 

When it comes to civil rights, the Democrats have my back more.

When it comes to reproductive rights issues, the Democrats agree with me.

When it comes to the idea of protecting the weakest among us, the Democrats agree with me.

When it comes to the issue of International Relations, the Democrats are more in line with my views.

 

Hillary Clinton is a Democrat, warts and all. And I will support her in November, if she becomes the nominee.

 

People say that she will change her opinion on a dime if it means getting elected. Although some positions have changed, maybe we should look at John McCain and the soul he'll have to sell for a shot at getting the evangelical base out to vote in November.

 

well said man. nice to have a rational Dem around here that sees that even a candidate they dont like in Hillary is better than anything the GOP can throw up there.

[Rex Kickass]

It's that kind of attitude that got us George W. Bush in 2000.

 

People said the same thing about Gore/Bush in 2000. And I think we would have seen a radically different 8 years had we voted the other way around. But the truth is, there isn't a huge difference in policy goals between Obama and Clinton. How they get there might be somewhat different.

 

If you don't care about the issues that your candidate does, fine. If you do, saying you won't vote your party because you don't like Hillary is doing a disservice to yourself. The choice would be between someone who offers you almost nothing and someone who offers you 75% of something.

 

The only thing John McCain will change is whether we'll torture people that we hold in captivity. Although that's a great thing, virtually every legitimate candidate in this race will do the same thing. If your vote is about more than that issue, I guess it would matter to vote for the "piece of s***."

[Texsox]

In response to Tex, about ruthlessness...

 

There is a very important difference between being tough and being ruthless. Clinton is ruthless, meaning she is not only aggresive and hard to her enemies, she is that way towards ANYONE who gets in the way of what she wants. That is NOT something I applaud in any candidate, male or female. I want tough, but diplomatic and open-minded. Someone who has the country's best interests in mind - not their own. I think Clinton falls down in that regard.

 

You are using a different meaning of that word than I am. Based on what you wrote, I would make my comments about that she is the toughest candidate out there.

 

Again, I think we are applying two standards here, name a candidate that wasn't looking out for their desire to be President? Gee, I really don't want to be President, but if you really, really want me to. GMAB. You have to have an ego as big as Texas to go through the crap of getting elected.

[NorthSideSox72]

By the way, I deleted a post from here, trying to keep it civil, as requested. But I accidentally also deleted the one before it - sorry Big Sqwert.

 

Here is BS's post that I DIDN'T intend to delete...

 

QUOTE(Reddy @ Feb 6, 2008 -> 03:00 PM)

well said man. nice to have a rational Dem around here that sees that even a candidate they dont like in Hillary is better than anything the GOP can throw up there.

 

I'd rather stay home then pick between two pieces of crap. And neither will get a penny from me in donations.

[Texsox]

Then we don't need Presidential candidates. All we need is supercomputers who can poll every second of everyday, and decide what 50% +1 of the country wants to do.

 

I want to know that the person I am voting to represent me, is indeed going to represent MY interests. The issues that people use as a litmus test are important to them, and they are the reason they vote for certian candidates. If you can't trust that, what is the point of voting at all?

 

And I believe that is how most of America votes, representing their own personal interests, despite, at times, what is best for America. Yet the candidate should be about America's interests and possess none of their own. Something in there does not make sense to me. And with the world changing so rapidly, shouldn't we desire leaders who can change with it?

[BigSqwert]

By the way, I deleted a post from here, trying to keep it civil, as requested. But I accidentally also deleted the one before it - sorry Big Sqwert.

 

Here is BS's post that I DIDN'T intend to delete...

I'd rather stay home then pick between two pieces of crap. And neither will get a penny from me in donations.

I guess this is a perfect example of why she is considered polarizing. She brings out a lot of mean spirit from people including me. I'll stay out of this thread going forward.

[southsider2k5]

And I believe that is how most of America votes, representing their own personal interests, despite, at times, what is best for America. Yet the candidate should be about America's interests and possess none of their own. Something in there does not make sense to me. And with the world changing so rapidly, shouldn't we desire leaders who can change with it?

 

What about the big issues REALLY changes? How much have your convictions and beliefs really changed?

[NorthSideSox72]

I guess this is a perfect example of why she is considered polarizing. She brings out a lot of mean spirit from people including me. I'll stay out of this thread going forward.

I normally would have left your second post in, but, not in here. I want to try to actually have a substantive thread on this. I guess that makes me a communist, but oh well.

 

[Balta1701]

And I believe that is how most of America votes, representing their own personal interests, despite, at times, what is best for America. Yet the candidate should be about America's interests and possess none of their own. Something in there does not make sense to me. And with the world changing so rapidly, shouldn't we desire leaders who can change with it?

I agree with you. But I think it's also totally appropriate to expect that a candidate can then be evaluated on which positions he/she chooses to change positions on and which positions he/she chooses to remain steady and focused on. For example, take the President. He's been focused like a laser on invading Iraq the whole time. In some cases, being unwilling to change positions on an issue could be a good thing, but on this one it's produced an utter disaster.

 

For Hillary, she voted for the war and now wants to end the thing. The latter part, the switch, which quite a few Dems made, is the right one and they can get a little credit for that. But conversely, they were also unwilling to put their necks out on the line to stop the biggest foreign policy blunder in decades, or even to have their voice heard against it.

 

So you're right, it's not a bad thing to change positions sometimes. But it's also not a bad thing to take a stand on something and turn out to be right on it.

[Texsox]

What about the big issues REALLY changes? How much have your convictions and beliefs really changed?

 

Well, based on what we knew at the time, I reluctantly supported the war effort. But based on what is known now, and how rushed and unreliable the data actually was, I'm against it.

 

I thought if we have people here doing jobs, they should be eligible to the same benefits, now I see that is too expensive and favor a guest worker program with limited benefits, but protections for employers, employees, and society at large.

 

I use to think that Republicans were in favor of smaller government and less spending that was balanced with income. Now I see they want to keep spending more and more no matter what the income levels are. I'm not certain what being fiscally conservative means.

 

I use to believe that anyone should be allowed to say whatever they wanted to over public airwaves. Then in twenty five years I've seen just how depraved that speech could be and understand restrictions.

 

I use to believe that unions benefited the majority of workers, now I believe it is the minority of workers.

 

Is this what you mean?

[Texsox]

Does anyone vote for a war and hope it will never end? I'm voting for this war and I never will want it to end? No matter what happens? I would hope that everyone who votes for a war also immediately works to end the war as quickly as possible. I can not believe anyone here thinks otherwise.

[Misplaced_Sox]

Im going to start with a short introduction statement and really really think about...

 

 

The Clintons are anti establishment : Reasoning

A: They are never much supported by the power DC families (Kennedy's, Kerry, Daschele and power brokers et el)

B: They are democrats from Arkansas and through their white house stay they were seen as Hill Billies from the media and the like

C: The establishments pick Of Obama and the funding of him against Clintons

D: The tidal flux of Pro media praise for Obama and light look at his own smear.

 

Now let's talk about Hillary's convictions

She was worked non stop for UHC. During Bill's presidency she was stopped by drug and insurance companies with help from the GOP, Harry and Loiuse campaign anyone. They put fear in men and women that UHC was a step towards communism and that it could not be affordable. She worked trielessly for childrens coverage and she got it. She had been a staunch supporter for poor people and welfare reform which I am a product of. Her ideas and crusade helped mothers like mine be able to go back to college and survive through not looking at being poor as a sickness but a curable condition. This is not anecdotal, she has always been anti poverty, even out of the political spot light. She is not Bill Clinton politically, and does not have his political weight attached to her, yet the Pro Obama media attaches it to him. Why, I cannot understand.

 

Hillary has done more for me when I lived in IL, then when Obama was State legislature and Senator.

 

What about Obama's convictions?

 

He never marched against poverty like Clinton.

Never marched for woman's rights.

Never stood up against poverty in Congress.

 

Yet he abuses Martin Luther King's message and speeches for his own ill will.

 

Obama is not Martin Luther King, because Martin Luther King despite being the father of the Civil Rights Movement, was also a strong opponent of abolishing poverty for every man, every man no matter the color of his skin.

 

Obama is too polarizing, he is telling black audiences that the Clintons pander to them and play the Race Card. But the Clintons have done more for them then Obama ever has, despite invoking a MLK sermon from Alabama.

 

I remember when Obama worked with Rezko, and brokered deals with Daly to buy the land from under the projects to turn into nice new condos and leave the people who lived in those homes, either homeless or transplanted miles away. Obama made some nice profits, got to buy land for his house for a dollar, at the expense of his own race. Is that conviction?

 

Look at what happened to the residents of Cabrini Green, the Robert Taylor Homes, and the other chicago projects, just because you send their blackness somewhere else the reality of it does not go away.

 

Also Obama panders too much

 

When he introduces a bill, say against nuclear leakage in ground water, a nice example Exelon. He panders to special interests, gets a nice campaign contribution, takes the teeth out of the bill, making it ineffective, but it looks good on the stump speech. Looks good on paper.

 

That why is Obama is the paper champion.

 

Sorry for going into Obama but he has more dirty laundry than Clinton. I am making a contrast. I am telling you what the media chooses to smear and what they choose to forget.

 

80% of the World believes what they tell them, either through the media, advertisements, or the news. You need to be able to set out and research for yourself about your candidates. Remove yourself from media bias and feel out your own feelings.

 

There is a reason why poor and older people support Hillary. They remember her and only her. She did a lot for them. Obama has the sermon speech down, it works for kids that dont know better and the 100k earners want the triangulation of the establishment.

 

But look around. You may just see the man behind the curtain.

Edited February 6, 2008 by Misplaced_Sox

[Balta1701]

Does anyone vote for a war and hope it will never end?

John McCain.

[Texsox]

^^^

That may be one of the most heartfelt and honest posts I've read here.

 

Damn Balta for getting in the way. Above Balta's.

Edited February 6, 2008 by Texsox
Balta posted with me

[Misplaced_Sox]

Does anyone vote for a war and hope it will never end? I'm voting for this war and I never will want it to end? No matter what happens? I would hope that everyone who votes for a war also immediately works to end the war as quickly as possible. I can not believe anyone here thinks otherwise.

 

 

Btw on a separate note, I just want to say how much BS the Iraq war resolution was. The Bill which Hillary voted for is archived on the Congress website. You can read it for yourself. It does not give the power to go to war, it gives the ability to choose war if and only if

A. Weapons Inspectors are not allowed back in

B. Nuclear programs must fall under UN guidelines and control

C. Security cameras must be re installed in Nuclear buildings

D. Involvement with Kurdish rebels must cease.

E. Must have the confidence and vote of the UN

 

Bush did not follow these guidelines anyway, he declared war when he made up a story that the Iraqi government was close to getting yellow cake uranium. Circumventing all the rules and using his executive power to call war. That is the story.

 

Every viable candidate for President voted for the Bill. Every top official supported the Bill. The American population favored war on Iraq by 75% of the population at the time.

 

Just because Obama stood up in heavily democratic Chicago during a speech and said I dont support this decision does not mean he would not have voted for the same Bill if he was in Congress.

 

Why does this make him anti war? He has openly voted for Ya for ever Bill extending and funding the war. If he was so anti war, why not filibuster against it like Jack Murtha?

 

It is a big Lie. If you Google Iraq and Obama you will find articles praising the vote, and against the vote, quotes for the war and against the war.

 

He is the definition of cherry picking positions.

[iamshack]

John McCain.

 

Right, I'm sure he wants his son to be there as long as possible, or until he dies.

[Texsox]

For a Dem to like Hillary they have to agree with the GOP pundits and radio talking heads who have been saying for years she is Dem's favorite candidate. No Dem wants to agree with Rush, Hannity, et. al. So Dems hate so not to agree.

[BigSqwert]

The American population favored war on Iraq by 75% of the population at the time.

I was 100% against it as was pretty much everyone I associated with back then.

[knightni]

Don't forget Whitewater and the mystery surrounding Vince Foster's supposed suicide.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whitewater_(controversy)

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Vince_Foster

[iamshack]

Btw on a separate note, I just want to say how much BS the Iraq war resolution was. The Bill which Hillary voted for is archived on the Congress website. You can read it for yourself. It does not give the power to go to war, it gives the ability to choose war if and only if

A. Weapons Inspectors are not allowed back in

B. Nuclear programs must fall under UN guidelines and control

C. Security cameras must be re installed in Nuclear buildings

D. Involvement with Kurdish rebels must cease.

E. Must have the confidence and vote of the UN

 

Bush did not follow these guidelines anyway, he declared war when he made up a story that the Iraqi government was close to getting yellow cake uranium. Circumventing all the rules and using his executive power to call war. That is the story.

 

Every viable candidate for President voted for the Bill. Every top official supported the Bill. The American population favored war on Iraq by 75% of the population at the time.

 

Just because Obama stood up in heavily democratic Chicago during a speech and said I dont support this decision does not mean he would not have voted for the same Bill if he was in Congress.

 

Why does this make him anti war? He has openly voted for Ya for ever Bill extending and funding the war. If he was so anti war, why not filibuster against it like Jack Murtha?

 

It is a big Lie. If you Google Iraq and Obama you will find articles praising the vote, and against the vote, quotes for the war and against the war.

 

He is the definition of cherry picking positions.

 

I think it's ridiculous that whether a candidate voted for the war or not is even a sticking point. Let's face it, Americans were in favor of war, due to 9/11, misinformation, whatever fears we all had that the Bush Administration played upon, etc.

 

I think it's fairly difficult to go back and criticize the decision that was made at the time, or at least it is fairly difficult to go back and not have some understanding of what someone who supported going to war was thinking at the time.

 

But why does it matter now? What's done has been done. Why not look to someone who best wants to learn from our mistakes and make the best of the situation from here on out? Everyone makes mistakes, and we all will continue to make mistakes. What matters is how and why we learn from our mistakes, and move forward.

 

Who is the best candidate to move us forward?

[Misplaced_Sox]

I was 100% against it as was pretty much everyone I associated with back then.

 

It doesnt matter what you think, they dont make laws based on what you and your friends thinks, only the majority of the populace. Go back and google the opinion polls on Iraq after 9/11 into the the Iraq war. You will be surprised.

 

I was also against it, but how is 20% a mandate against war when Vietnam had more detractors.

 

 

[NorthSideSox72]

But look around. You may just see the man behind the curtain.

Thanks for the well thought-out post.

 

Most of it was about Obama, though. The Clinton stuff was very interesting.

 

You are, by the way, the ONLY person I have ever heard say that Obama is the "establishment" candidate in this race, over Clinton. Literally everyone else I've talked with, including Hillary supporters, seem to think the opposite.

 

And by the way, I do agree with you about one important positive from Clinton - she has indeed been fighting a long time for better health care for Americans. I don't really agree with her plans on how to get there, but, the effort is worth fighting for - and she has indeed been doing that.

 

[iamshack]

I was also against it, but how is 20% a mandate against war when Vietnam had more detractors.

 

Because there was no Vietnam before Vietnam...

 

The same cannot be said in this case.

[NorthSideSox72]

It doesnt matter what you think, they dont make laws based on what you and your friends thinks, only the majority of the populace. Go back and google the opinion polls on Iraq after 9/11 into the the Iraq war. You will be surprised.

 

I was also against it, but how is 20% a mandate against war when Vietnam had more detractors.

Your premise about laws only based on the majority is incorrect. Look at the Constitution. In fact, most protections of individuals as noted in the Constitution and the law, if that is their purpose, are specifically designed to protect the minority. This is for the simple fact that the majority doesn't require protecting in those scenarios.

 

And a case to go to war should only involve the will of the popular opinion to a limited extent anyway.