Comments on: “Lucky in her enemies”: why I can’t stop pulling for Hillary

By: Hugo Schwyzer

Hugo Schwyzer — Wed, 20 Feb 2008 16:40:49 +0000

Col Steve, it’s true that the rhetoric around Iraq may not match the realities when the new commander in chief is sworn in.

What will be very interesting to see is how the McCain plan for the century-long occupation plays out!

And thanks, Donna; I’m delighted to hear the nincompoops were identifed and, at the least, publicly excoriated.

By: Col Steve

Col Steve — Wed, 20 Feb 2008 07:19:50 +0000

The real difference to me is that Obama is, best I can tell, more committed to ending the war in Iraq and less prone to start new ones than Sen. Clinton (and obviously the differences with McCain are even starker).

Commitment does not equal ability to implement - note the performance of this Congress.

Just after the 2006 mid-term elections, Rep. Rahm Emanuel, D- Ill., the architect of the Democrats’ takeover of the House stated the war spending bill “is going to be the turning point for a new direction.” Well, if you count tacking on the minimum wage increase as a rider to supplemental war funding, then maybe. Otherwise, this Congress has appropriated even more money for defense and OIF/OEF operations than the last one - without restrictions.

In 2006, Nancy Pelosi stated “I would not want any president — Democrat or Republican — to have the expanded power the administration is claiming in this case,” (interview with The Associated Press on FISA) — Clearly, not enough to block expanded FISA legislation.

Look at either Clinton’s or Obama’s “end the war in Iraq” proposals — very little chance of actually implementing those plans when either of them view the real options as Commander-in-Chief as opposed to basher of the Commander-in-Chief.

By: Donna

Donna — Wed, 20 Feb 2008 06:17:59 +0000

Hugo, I live in NH now and those asses who yelled at Clinton to iron their shirts were plants from a Boston radio station there to manufacture controversy. It’s hard to assess if they said it because they are really believe that women or Clinton in particular should be home ironing shirts or know that sexism against Clinton would make it newsworthy and get them some free advertising for the station…or both. It appears that it may have backfired on them, last I heard they might be suspended or fired from the station, but as of now they are still on the station’s site.

The idiot who was holding the sign at the rally is Aldofo at the bottom of this page:
http://www.wbcn.com/pages/57721.php

On the right hand links there is something about “the agonizing race” with Adolfo and Intern Nick, Intern Nick is the other jackass at the Clinton rally.

By: John Spragge

John Spragge — Sun, 17 Feb 2008 10:32:58 +0000

Sophonisba:
I honestly don’t think names alone have much to do with the case. Hillary Clinton or Hillary Rodham would have the same connections. I believe that letting the idea that only people with connections (by blood or marriage) to certain families can attain political power has real and corrosive effects in a democracy. Making sure that any citizen with talent and drive can hope to attain the highest political office in the land, and that every citizen knows it, may require a sacrifice from otherwise qualified people from time to time, but I believe the advantages outweigh the costs.

By: WestCampus

WestCampus — Sat, 16 Feb 2008 06:52:08 +0000

I can’t remember a time where a Clinton or a Bush wasn’t in the White House

We’ve seen what a disaster a second Bush administration has been. A lot of people are perhaps thinking that a Clinton II administration might be just as bad. Perhaps a given family should have only one shot at the White House?

I’d also say that a lot of people want to move on, not revisit the 1990s. Which is why Obama gets so much support — people want to go into the future.

By: Lee

Lee — Fri, 15 Feb 2008 14:58:32 +0000

I think the analogue between the Bushes and the Clintons breaks down: Bush 43 was more or less explicitly running against his father’s record in some ways (more accurately, he was running as Reagan’s “true heir”). Sen. Clinton, meanwhile, has run at least in part on the promise of a “third” Clinton term, sometimes explicitly. So, the perception that she’s running to some extent on Bill’s coattails isn’t merely unfounded perception.

At the end of the day, though, politicians are far more actors than acted upon. The real difference to me is that Obama is, best I can tell, more committed to ending the war in Iraq and less prone to start new ones than Sen. Clinton (and obviously the differences with McCain are even starker). Granting someone power isn’t an end in itself - it’s all about what he or she will do with that power.

By: Jessica

Jessica — Fri, 15 Feb 2008 09:08:14 +0000

McCain scares me for one major reason: his stance that Roe v. Wade was a bad decision, and generally his entire view on reproductive rights. For me, end of story on whether he’s “progressive” or not. I realize that in the current climate, a pro-life Republican wouldn’t be politically viable–but I don’t care. Unless he’s willing to protect my right to make my own decisions about my body (and for women all over the world to gain even the knowledge about reproductive options), I don’t want him anywhere near the White House. Or any political office, really.

That said, I understand what you mean about the misogynistic attacks directed at Clinton. I myself am a part of that group wavering between Clinton and Obama (I’m a smidgeon towards Obama at the moment, but that could change). So far, the most convincing argument I’ve heard so far as to why the nominee shouldn’t be Clinton (similar but not identical to what other people have noted above) regards the precedent it sets for future female politicians. Not because her last name is ‘Clinton’ rather than ‘Rodham’, not because she did or did not play a major role in his administration, but because then it could be questioned whether she could have gotten the job on her own merits. A woman shouldn’t need a powerful man by her side to help her wield such awesome influence–I don’t want the first female president’s credentials to be able to be questioned as Hillary Clinton’s inevitably will should she win.

By: bmmg39

bmmg39 — Fri, 15 Feb 2008 02:56:43 +0000

It’s insane how the global warming crowd has hijacked environmentalism. Hundreds of scientists question the dogma that human activity is having the slightest impact upon climate change. You can have your doubts that there’s any relation at all between carbon dioxide emissions and the increase in global temperatures and still support lowering pollution, support wind and solar energy, and waste less water.

By: Hugo Schwyzer

Hugo Schwyzer — Fri, 15 Feb 2008 00:23:49 +0000

Sarah, read what the League of Conservation Voters said about McCain:

Republican presidential hopeful John McCain is far and away the GOP candidate most committed to addressing global warming and the nation’s energy challenges, according to the 2008 Presidential Primaries Voter Guide released today by the League of Conservation Voters (LCV).

The Voter Guide, which takes a critical look at candidates’ plans for dealing with global climate change, makes clear that collectively, the Democratic candidates have outlined more comprehensive and aggressive plans than any presidential candidates in history and have made a point of telling primary voters that combating global warming is a top priority. Among Republicans running for president, the guide says, “Sen. McCain holds the distinction of being the only candidate to make global warming a part of his campaign agenda and to regularly address it on the campaign trail.”

While nearly all of the GOP Candidates acknowledge that global warming is a problem, only Sen. McCain has proposed a comprehensive plan for addressing it. In 2003, he introduced the first Senate bill attempting to curb global warming pollution and reintroduced similar legislation in 2005 and 2007. He supports reducing greenhouse gas emissions 65 percent by 2050. None of the other Republican candidates – Mayor Giuliani, Sen. Thompson, Gov. Romney and Rep. Paul – have offered any plan to address global warming. Gov. Huckabee, while also not putting forward a plan, has expressed support of a cap-and-trade system and would mandate a 35-mpg standard for vehicles.

By: Sarah

Sarah — Thu, 14 Feb 2008 21:29:05 +0000

About McCain: Sen. Clinton described a possible McCain presidency as being like “a third Bush administration” last week, and I think that pretty much sums it up. Some right-wingers might not like the guy much, but when I look at his actual voting record I can’t see his nomination as a move to the left for the GOP.