Hillary Clinton is not the man for the job

Hillary.

Mere mention of her name sends fear into the hearts of Republicans and turns Democrats giddy.

Hillary.

She’s become a politician identified by first name only.

Hillary: The woman who wants to be the next President of the United States.

While Illinois Senator Barack Obama may have rock star status within the Democratic Party, Hillary Clinton is the pre-emptive front runner for the party’s Presidential nomination in 2008, the one to beat, the candidate with the biggest campaign war chest and the best organization on the ground.

So concentrated is the attention on Hillary Clinton that news she is "now considering" running for President is enough for news networks to call it "breaking news."

When news broke Sunday that Clinton has approached New York Democratic leaders for support of a "potential" Presidential bid, the cable news networks treated it like a formal announcement for President.

The Associated Press plugged the story on its "breaking news" wire. So did Reuters. The word spread through political blogs and bulletin boards. Hillary’s running. Ohmigod!

She hasn’t said yet she is running but she took a step closer and several polls say she would win if the election were held today.

But that’s the rub. The election ain’t today or anytime in the near future and there’s a lot of ground to cover even before the caucuses in Iowa or the primary in New Hampshire in early 2008.

Political history has a nasty habit of taking down early frontrunners. Just ask Howard Dean, Ed Muskie, Gary Hart, et al.

Dean melted down after losing Iowa; Muskie broke down under dirty tricks from the opposition and Hart fell down on his petard after challenging the press to catch him messing around on his wife and they did. Once a candidate becomes the pre-emptive frontrunner, the harsh light of public scrutiny heads for the closet to look for skeletons.

And Hillary’s closets overflow with bones from past political mistakes, scandals and missteps.

Let’s not forget that this is the same Hillary Clinton who stood by her man, the President who dallied with interns in the Oval Office, calling questions about his infidelities part of a "vast right wing conspiracy" against both of them.

This is the same Hillary Clinton who found herself hip deep in the Whitewater scandal, who misplaced subpoenaed files inside the White House, only to "discover" them later on an end table in the private residence.

And she is the same Hillary Clinton who, along with her husband, entered the White House in 1992 virtually broke, only to emerge a millionaire eight years later even though she and her husband faced millions of dollars in legal bills that remain unpaid.

Like her husband, Hillary Clinton is corrupt. Like her husband, she lies for political convenience. And like too many other Democrats, she voted to allow George W. Bush’s failed invasion of Iraq.

If the Democrats want to capture the White House in 2008, they will need to prove they can be better than the corrupt, scandal-ridden, criminally-insane administration of George W. Bush.

Hillary Clinton is not the man for the job.

Comments

  1. The spectre of Senator Clinton running for president is a right-wing wet dream. I don’t care how big her campaign war chest is: rank-and-file democrats will never give her the nod in the primaries because of her support for Bush’s Iraq War.

  2. Cheri Henderson

    I say, Clinton was extremely popular despite his philandering. And Hillary didn’t philander! She’s great – her only problem is obviously her sex. Because none of you supposed liberaly minded guys would be saying ‘watch it’ if she were a he.
    Poo on you.
    BTW, we spent how many millions of dollars investigating the White Water scandal to find what? a dirty blue dress!

  3. Wobba

    You say of Hillary, “Mere mention of her name sends fear into the hearts of Republicans and turns Democrats giddy.” In my experience, the opposite is true.

    Middle America hates anything with the name “Clinton,” and they hate ambitious, unapologetic women like Hillary even more. Rove has said in the past he wants Hillary to run because he knows she would lose. She can’t win a national election.

    I’d love to see and Edwards/Obama ticket in ’08, but it’s wishful thinking, I’m sure…

  4. TRUTH 101

    OK, OK here is my three cents for today.

    IMO Hillary would be just fine for the job and what political savvy she doesn’t have or can’t muster Bill can. Electing hillary gives us basically two for the price of one..

    No don’t for a minuter think that I think that Bill will be running the show and Hillary will be in the news. NO WAY: Hillary is perfectly capable all on her own. I don’t want to hear about BUSH’s failed Iraq war as a reason she can’t get the democratic nod. That’s baloney for lack of a better word. If that were the case we’d be down to a ONE PARTY SYSTEM.

    Everyone was totally misled, lied to and taken for a ride by an administration that was hell bent on doing whatever they wanted…AND STILL IS if they think they can get away with it. This was Cheney’s, Wolfowitz’s and Bush’s LIES, not Hillary’s. and everyone was lied to….not just her

    Hillary as President and Bill as “First Man” would give us two for the price of one. And these two can actually form an opinion without any help.

    Make no mistake about it Hillary would be President, but she would have Bill to rely on as well

    The PROBLEM is that I believed several months ago and still do that Hillary as the Democratic niominee in a race with Rudy Guliani cannot beat him. I believe that with either one of them we would get a winner.

    I think if the Democrats want a President, this time they probably should go for the Rock star…OBAMA and Hillary as a running mate. Then we get three for one.

    It’s about time there was a “BRAIN” in the Oval Office

    Otherwise Guliani is just fine.

  5. Wedjat

    There are a lot of beliefs about Hilary…but there is one that no one can deny…she IS very polarizing!

    She might even do a terrific job, but it would NOT stop the tremendous pulling apart factor. She really needs to re-think this.

    If she really cares about her party and the country she will (probably would have) realized this very fast.

    She’s good right where she is!

  6. Joe Birdsall

    Bill Clinton came into office in 1992. Hillary and her left-leaning bunch are going to have to work very hard to convince the American people that we need another Clinton in the White House. I think Obama is the man for the job.

  7. bclanton

    I do not have any affiliation to any party I vote for the individual regardless of their party affilliation, in my opinion the democrats have not had anyone worth voting for since 1970,Barack Obama has my vote, unless he chooses an inappropriate running mate

  8. Doubtom

    Hillary’s defining moment, which passed largely unnoticed by the body politic was when, as a fledgeling politician, she had the temerity to call for fair treatment for the Palestinian people. The furor which ensued led her to conclude correctly that the real power in American politics lay in siding with the many Israeli lobbyists. And since that fateful day, she has been a superb ambassador for Israeli interests at the expense of our own national interests.
    The same can be said for Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid. Pelosi sees an “unbreakable bond” existing between Israel and the United States, while Reid collects Israeli bonds and sees Israel’s interests as indistinguishable from our own.
    This troika of Hillary, Pelosi and Reid, assisted by Chuck Schumer in the Senate, guarantees that we’ll continue to be joined at the hip with that rogue state and continue as well with the annual donation of our tax money which has been ongoing since 1948.

    Face it, with this team in office we not only have adopted Israel, we have put her in charge of our government. Forget foreign influence in our government; they (Israelis) have essentially taken over.

    Should there exist any doubt, check all of their voting records dealing with Israeli interests and find one vote in opposition to Israeli interests.
    None of these people was sent to Washington to represent Israel but a check of their voting record will reveal that they are more concerned with Israel than with their own constituencies. Check it out!
    It is not in our national interests to support Israel and some would argue that it never was.

    The entire world knows that the base of the problems in the Middle East is the Israeli/Palestinian issue and we’ve signed on to share in this on-going violence that justifiably is aimed at Israel.

    If Hillary is succesful in her bid for the presidency, it will be through the efforts of the same lobby which guaranteed Lieberman’s re-election despite the lack of support from his own party. Lieberman’s victory should have opened many eyes to the seat of real power in our game of politics. How does anyone get elected to office without the support of either political party? There must be a third party–there is and it’s not the Independent party either. It’s called AIPAC et all and it doesn’t care which party you belong to, as long as you support Israel.

  9. Peggy Dorrell

    I would like to see a woman president before I kick the bucket. Hillary has real standing in the rest of the world due to her work as first lady. Only in America is she ridiculed because of desiring to put together a health care system for everyone. IMO only a single payer system would work. She has ideas and if the sick folks who are currently running this country would end up in prison as they should, then she would at least have a chance to succeed. And, she might get help from that slick feller.

  10. dadblasted

    I agree with all who believe that Hillary is a losing candidate because she is too polarizing. The comments already posted bear out this argument.

    Rock star Obama is the man who has the potential of restoring pride to the electorate and the nation. If, as a nation, we can overcome our racism and bring this messenger of hope into the country’s highest office, perhaps we can begin a new era of reconstruction. We have been enmeshed in a civil war of moralities that needs to be neutralized, as no side is or will be a victor but merely a destroyer, as our incumbent president has proven.

    Barack Obama ‘s faith in the promise of America needs to be instilled once again in us all. If experience is a criterion for leadership, then the experience of a campaign for the White House will certainly render Sen. Obama a “Man of Steel.”

  11. Margherite

    Hopefully, we will get a choice in this primary. Hillary is a terrible sellout of the American Dream. If her treatment of the tech industry in New York is any indication, this country is in for a rude awakening when India floods the entire country’s job market, not just New York, with cheap labor, inflated and bogus educational credentials, and private deals with Tata. Who do you THINK is paying her way?

    Strong women of Presidential stature who are not in bed with the cheap labor conservatives are available. Both parties have pro-American-middle-class candidates they can groom for the presidency. Why don’t they (rhetorical question)?

  12. peter carew

    Doug

    now that you have spoken your mind about Hillary,
    Lets do a piece on the real phoney up in New york.
    Mayor Rudy Guiliano, this guy should be tossed overboard, when they disect his years in office and what he did to his wife and family while living in Gracie mansion. let the real truth be told about this scumbag.
    Pete
    southampton NY

  13. Jim H

    Really interesting to see the “Hillary is divisive” crapola. Look at what she does. Look at her positions on things. Look at the cautious, often Republican lite, way she proceeds. What’s “divisive” about her? Bush is the most divisive president in my memory, because Rove’s campaigns intentionally divided the country in two and got half, or a little more than half the country, to vote for Bush. Or vote AGAINST Michael Moore, or the “French” John Kerry, the war hero who was “lying” about his war record, or the Dixie Chicks. If Hillary gets the nomination, just watch her campaign. She will tack so heavily to the middle, even moderate right, that anybody saying she’s being “divisive” is just falling for 8 years of loathsome propaganda. She will do everything in her power to be an actual uniter, not a divider. But because somebody remembers some idiotic story from the ’90s about how she murdered her friend, or how she was having an affair with him, or was it that she’s a lesbian, or how she had a direct line to Castro and China — whatever paranoid nonsense universe the GOP was living in during the ’90s — then HILLARY’S divisive. No, she’s not. She goes to the moderate left and center, and doesn’t use hateful propaganda against her opponents. What’s divisive here was the continuous lies told about her by the increasingly radical GOP of the ’90s.

    By the way, there was a vast right-wing conspiracy against the Clintons. Read The Hunting of the President. If there wasn’t a conspiracy, why did the original Paula Jones lawyers suggest that she take the settlement she was offered, and the second batch, advised by none other than Ted Olson, decide to proceed? They were going for entrapment and impeachment from the beginning.

  14. South Point Man

    She gives me the creeps.

    This is not a situation where I would say, “You go, gal!”

    The less I hear about the Clintons, the better I like it.

  15. Fred

    “Hillary Clinton is not the man for the job.”

    This is inaccurate, it should be:
    “Hillary Clinton is not the woman for the job.”

  16. Charles

    On November 1 of this year Hillary Clinton gave a speech to the Council on Foreign Relations cementing her position to progress their globalization agenda should she be elected President. With this kind of “power” backing she stands a excellent chance of being “instilled” into the White House. We can also expect a further erosion of American’s middle class by the implementation of even more
    Free Trade Agreements…..

  17. Fred writes:

    “Hillary Clinton is not the man for the job.”

    This is inaccurate, it should be:

    “Hillary Clinton is not the woman for the job.”

    And what part of the concept of sarcasm do you not understand? No wonder some of these people get elected. Sheeesh!

    Doug

  18. Jim Dolan

    My god, you are a biased fool. Hillary is no saint, but then nobody in public life is either. Real question is who is most qualified to deal with the job, not who passes some litmus test.

  19. Fred

    “And what part of the concept of sarcasm do you not understand? No wonder some of these people get elected. Sheeesh!”

    I apologize for not making my statement clearer; I was attempting to be brief, but apparently I failed to convey my meaning.

    Yes, I realized that this was attempt at a joke. Personally, I fail to find it humorous, largely because there are surprisingly large percentages of people (i.e. well over the margin of error) that won’t vote for a female for president, according to polls such as these:

    http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/02/03/opinion/polls/main1281319.shtml

    http://www.usatoday.com/life/2005-10-10-woman-president_x.htm

    Frankly, I don’t care if you slam Hillary Clinton; there are plenty of reasons I can come up with that you didn’t bother to list. I am concerned, however, that you were also (if perhaps accidentally) slamming the idea of a female as president by using the phrase “Hillary Clinton is not the man for the job.”.

  20. Ruth Benderall

    Hi, Doug Thompson,

    we do not need “politicians” to “lead” this, or any other country.

    ALL politicans are corrupt, and are only in whichever (elected, or not) office to full their own deep pockets.

    We, the people. can very well lead ourselves. Thank you.
    In case we still think that we should have another “president” (or “white-house-resident”, rather) I suggest that you contact a friend of mine, who has 3 beautiful border-collies. These canines are full of wisdom, sweetness; are intuitive, and have gentle souls.
    She also has a cat, who shows more intelligence than I have ever seen from politicians (regardless in which office, or from which country, they may be).

    If canines nor felines are acceptable for the “job” of (p)resident, then I suggest to look for an enlightened human soul; someone who does not give a damn about acquiring obscene amounts of money (and unnecessary things), somebody who KNOWS that all of us are ONE and acts accordingly.
    In other words: a human being who allocates the wealth of the nation(s)not for war (=death), but for life.

    Thank you.
    Ruth Benderall

  21. Sonja

    I’d vote for Hilary…if I were American. Some in “middle america” actually hate “self serving ambitious women” Wow! Thats Hilarious

  22. thetruthguy

    Hillary is smart, loyal, hardworking. Like all men and women, she has had missteps in her career. Who hasn’t? She is uniquely qualified. She is the best man for the job – republican or democrat!

  23. South Point Man

    Being a politician is just a job. And if one enjoys doing that kind of job, why not do it with flourish and style and do the job correctly like any job needs to be done correctly?

    Clinton probably will not be all that an enthusiastic supporter and upholder of our Constitution as she certainly so far hasn’t proved that she is. Where was her voice screaming bloody murder when the republicans were turning our country into a fascist dictatorship, complete with haliburton-built extermination camps? What? She wasn’t screaming bloody murder? That said all about her character that needed to be said. No further words are necessary. Representative McKinney had a lot more moxy and validity than Clinton ever did. The republican cabal of evilness didn’t like McKinney too much as she was such a pain to them. She was their enemy and they knew it. She made damn sure they knew it. And what was Clinton doing in the meantime? Collaborating like there’s no tomorrow?

    What News Collecting and Disseminating Personage Thompson seemed to be trying to say is that the corruption of evilness is the corruption of evilness no matter what body form it currently wears. And that it’s just so stupid ass because effect always must manifest from whatever cause made and if the cause of the corruption of evilness is made, then everything will go swirling down the crapper because there is no other option for things to happen in any other way.

    If goodness is wanted as the effect, then goodness must be made as the cause. Something we feel very uncertain about Clinton doing.