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.

43 Responses to "Hillary Clinton is not the man for the job"

  1. nanovirus  December 4, 2006 at 5:18 pm

    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  December 4, 2006 at 5:28 pm

    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  December 4, 2006 at 5:29 pm

    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. Nate  December 4, 2006 at 5:31 pm

    Contrary to popular belief, Hillary Clinton is a woman. I think she’s a good person for the job.

  5. TRUTH 101  December 4, 2006 at 5:59 pm

    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.

  6. Wedjat  December 4, 2006 at 6:05 pm

    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!

  7. Joe Birdsall  December 4, 2006 at 6:15 pm

    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.

  8. bclanton  December 4, 2006 at 6:53 pm

    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

  9. Doubtom  December 4, 2006 at 7:09 pm

    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.

  10. Peggy Dorrell  December 4, 2006 at 7:26 pm

    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.

  11. dadblasted  December 4, 2006 at 7:41 pm

    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.”

  12. Margherite  December 4, 2006 at 8:22 pm

    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)?

  13. peter carew  December 4, 2006 at 8:24 pm

    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

  14. Jim H  December 4, 2006 at 8:32 pm

    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.

  15. South Point Man  December 4, 2006 at 8:34 pm

    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.

  16. Fred  December 4, 2006 at 8:38 pm

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

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

  17. Charles  December 4, 2006 at 9:19 pm

    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…..

  18. Doug Thompson  December 4, 2006 at 9:40 pm

    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

  19. Jim Dolan  December 4, 2006 at 11:12 pm

    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.

  20. Fred  December 4, 2006 at 11:13 pm

    “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.”.

  21. Ruth Benderall  December 4, 2006 at 11:17 pm

    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

  22. pax  December 5, 2006 at 1:42 am

    thanks, man… you are prejudiced
    you just convinced me to vote for a woman president!

  23. Sonja  December 5, 2006 at 3:42 am

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

  24. George  December 5, 2006 at 5:23 am

    I have three words to describe the author. MCP.

  25. thetruthguy  December 5, 2006 at 9:55 am

    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!

  26. South Point Man  December 5, 2006 at 10:58 am

    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.

  27. jpb  December 4, 2006 at 4:12 pm

    Whew! So how do you really feel, Doug?
    Who would you suggest the Dems nominate?
    The Dalai Lama? Mother Teresa? Ghandi?
    Is anyone “pure” enough for the office??

  28. Prentiss  December 4, 2006 at 4:13 pm

    Very good and true commentary about Hillary. I am concerned that she “carries too much baggage”, that she is too polarizing and that she heads for the politically expedient too quickly. Where does she stand?

    There is an “oops” in your piece where you wrote, “against he and her.” You must have been writing late at night. Or can Hillary be blamed for befuddling us all?

  29. John Hanks  December 4, 2006 at 4:28 pm

    Why should Republicans have all the crooks? Money has staying power and money is needed to pay tribute to the media, which really decides who rises and who falls. She is financed largely by Israel and Israel owns the media and therefore the congress. You don’t have to be Anti-semitic to be against an intrusive foreign power. Saudi Arabia is the same, only they back the Bushes.

  30. Steve Horn  December 4, 2006 at 4:30 pm

    Hillary. I believe that the time has come for a woman to occupy the oval office – but I do not feel that Mrs. Clinton is the right woman for the job.
    We’re in a dangerous political situation now – for most people nearly anything would be an improvement over the “leadership” we’ve imposed upon ourselves and the world these past few years – however – replacing a corrupt idiot with a corrupt intellectual isn’t the answer.
    We need a true leader in the oval office, to face the problems created by the current administration, to have the integrity and sense of right needed to rebuild the worlds confidence in our leadership, and that person is not Hillary Clinton.
    I’m not certain who it is – in the current political landscape most of the participants appear to be very much tainted by power and greed.
    Perhaps a new type of candidate will emerge -honest – dedicated to the electorate rather than to his/her own ends, but the cynic in me doubts that.
    I had the unique opportunity to vote FOR a presidential candidate once in my life – and that was for Carter. I’d love for my children to have that same opportunity in their lifetimes – to vote for a candidate of integrity, intellect and consideration.

    However, this little voice in the back of my head says “no freaking way”

    Peace

    Steve

  31. jericho  December 4, 2006 at 4:32 pm

    Who better to run than someone who has had every piece of dirty linen stomped on by the Republicans during the Whitwater investigation-and came out on top. Her opponents will have to find something very new because the public has had it with the old nursery tales that have been told ad nauseam.

  32. Neil Goforth  December 4, 2006 at 4:33 pm

    I dont know about all conservatives being scared of Hillary. I have met a couple that WANT her to run. Cynically they think that america just wont vote a woman in as president, especailly after the gop smear machine is done with her. I hate to say it, but I agree. I would vote for her but I am not sure she would make it.

  33. samNH  December 4, 2006 at 4:39 pm

    Hillary carries too much baggage. We need fresh blood; we need to move beyond the Reagan/Bush/Clinton/Bush Era. It is time for the 21 Century to feel NEW.

  34. Dana  December 4, 2006 at 4:55 pm

    Too much baggage? If Bill Clinton is one of those pieces of baggage, I’d be proud and happy to be her bellman.
    She’s going to get my vote.

  35. Patricia  December 4, 2006 at 5:16 pm

    While I would vote for Mrs. Clinton, I don’t believe that she could win….I live in the South and it is appalling to me the number of women here, who instead of being proud of Hillary’s accomplishments, absolutely despise her. It goes without saying how a a lot of men, North and South feel about her. Surely the talk of her being front runner is some sort of political strategy – the democratic party can’t possibly believe that she could win.

  36. kathryn Bennett  December 5, 2006 at 11:11 am

    Hillary is the woman for the job of President who else is any better??
    Doug i used to like you but i can see your two sided and i don’t like that..There is no one else better qualified than Hillary, We need to take back our USA she can do it…

  37. Charlie Couser  December 5, 2006 at 1:34 pm

    Hell, Doug all campaigners have got baggage! That’s why they’re called “pollutitions”!

    Keep your comments coming, Doug — ’cause we love ‘um!

  38. Mike Hughes  December 5, 2006 at 4:20 pm

    Democrats failed to recognize it, but Obama won the 2008 Democratic nomination during his 2004 campaign for Illinois senator. Besides posessing Reaganesque charisma and clarity of thought, he showed promise of being more than just another political hack. He might even possess some measure of intellectual integrity.

  39. TRUTH 101  December 5, 2006 at 5:01 pm

    UNLESS he is fooling us all which I do not believe he is I think Barak Obama would be an excellent choice for the Democrats to make and for the United States citizen voters to elect to the nations highest office.

    This concept that he is TOO YOUNG or NOT EXPERIENCED enough is pure and simple baloney spread by others who want to be in the job or who KNOW that things will change under an Obama leadership

    The party will be over for Congress many of whom have been on the take for years IN BOTH PARTIES.

    He apparently has no skeletons in his closet or baggage or is beholden to anyone that would affect his get into office strictly on merit.

    Can ANYONE really say let alone believe that George W. Bush was ” qualified” for the presidency and for any reason Obama isn’t ?

    Give me a break

  40. Ted  December 5, 2006 at 9:15 pm

    You’ve got to be kidding that Hillary sends shivers through the Republicans!

    If I were a Republican I would salivate at the thought of Hillary as the Democratic nominee. She offers nothing, stands for nothing, and would be beaten by John McCain, Mitt Romney, or any of a half dozen other Republicans.

    The nomination of either Hillary or John Kerry would send a clear message that the Democrats are comfortable being out of power and happy to subordinate themselves for another 4 years.

  41. TRUTH 101  December 6, 2006 at 1:12 pm

    TED,

    I certainly will agree to your comments reference John Kerry, but NOT Hillary.

    IMO the biggest thing the Republicans fear is an INDEPENDENT thinker in the White House and say whatever you like about Hillary, but she IS THAT for sure. That plus the fact that married with children, friendly or NOT with Bill, he will be around and you already see what they tried to do to him. Sex in the Oval Office or anywhere else in the White House IS NOT an impeachable offense

    Warrantless spying on Americans IS: Taking away other freedoms contained in the so-called “Patriot Act” also is…but making BUBBA a believer is all it took.

    If Hillary is nominated, this whole values act will start again by the christian right. Scaring them even more is OBAMA. If he is nominated he will get attacked for having no experience (as if Bush were qualified and experienced) They will rally the south quietly

    The Republicans will do anything and everything it takes to keep these two off the trail. Edwards will cause them problems. If Kerry were to get the nomination they will all sit back and wait.

    Look Hillary CAN’T BEAT Guliani IMO so they are going to have to wrap that around themselves if the really want the White House. An Obama / Guliani race will come down to experience vs. inexperience and if the Dems are so dumb not to raise Bush as the Republicans claim of the best they had in the experience category, then they deserve what they get.

  42. skyguy  December 9, 2006 at 7:04 pm

    First off, America is still too puritanical to tolerate a female President (let alone a black one such as Obama, who’s real name is probably something like Sam or Andrew.) We Americans love to view ourselves as progressive. But in point of fact, we’re just as uptight and likely to change with the wind as we’ve been since the mid-1700’s. NO, we are NOT ready for a woman President, and Hillary certainly would be chopped to pieces due to her completely sordid background. (Of course, too, she’s quietly leading the charge to have the freedom of the internet silenced because she knows all too well what we bloggers will do to her; Kerry’s losses were a direct result of bloggers input.)

    Do I think a woman will become President this century? Probably. But first, I believe that we Americans NEED to clean up things that have been going on unchecked for far too long. Getting “Our House” in order first is what we should be discussing. Then we can begin to experiment with being progressive.

    Thank you.

  43. rach  February 12, 2007 at 7:52 pm

    If we had such a horable experience with the first Clinton, why would we elect another one????

Comments are closed.