Progressives Don't Buy Hillary

*ha...that'd be funny,...if she wasn't even voted into senate position. She probably will, but I doubt her run for president will be as well.


http://www.freemarketnews.com/WorldNews.asp?nid=19831

Don't look now, but apparently not even all the progressives are backing Hillary Clinton - for Senate re-election, let alone her 2008 White House dreams. A CounterPunch commentary by National Security Whistleblowers Coalition founder Sibel Edmonds and board member William Weaver calls the New York Senator "a Fool's Vessel," and urges Empire State voters to reject her bid for re-election this fall.

It goes on to cite Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton as "an elected senator who has served six years in her seat, never taking a strong stand in support of her constituents on any serious or controversial issue; ... an elected official who has no record of conducting investigations into cases that are matters of great concern to her constituents and to our nation; a senator who has consistently stood quietly on the sidelines when the issues at hand demand public hearings ­waiting to determine the direction of each blowing wind; a politician who has spent all her focus and energy on a campaign of shallow publicity glitz and her PR empire behind it."

It follows with specific examples on each charge, then concludes with, "We have confidence in the sophistication of our New Yorkers. We believe they'll say: 'Ms. Clinton, fool us once, shame on you; fool us twice shame on us.'" - ST

 

Hilary Clinton, like her husband, believes in nothing. I believe the both of them are nothing more than political operatives at the worst.

I can debate someone with firm rightist convictions any day. I have no use for someone who only cares the next election.

 

So I'm assume you have left-views, you just don't approve of certain political people?

 

I have what some would call left views, on some issues, and right views, on other issues. I try to think deeply on things, and have no use, generally, for dogma.

I also have no use for people who cravenly seek the populace, irrespective of personal conviction - and the Clintons are among the worst.

 

if she isn't re-elected to the senate (this year, right?), it almost certainly precludes a run at the presidency.

 

That makes you a Centralist then, someone who takes a more moderate approach to things and doesnt believe in just one camp, like the Liberals and Republicans do?

 

No, not really. I consider a "centralist" just another "ist." I just take one issue at a time, and try to look at it deeply. My views are not categorically moderate; they don't happen to fall into a "general camp" that places me as squarely left or right. I am suspicious of any general tilt.

For instance, I oppose the death penalty as inherently uncivilized - yet I wouldn't hesitate to personally kill any son of a bitch that attempted to do lethal to harm me or mine. I admire Jewish culture and achievement, deeply, and support the State of Israel's right to exist, while I condemn how ignorantly we remain in the dark regarding the rest of the Middle East world. I believe the nation-state is a constructed "imagined community" while I hold the men and women that fight and die in its defense in the highest regard. And so on.

I loathe, above all else, religion in all its forms - and that includes a political armor that cannot be pierced by reason, that lacks the courage to search for the truth, even if it brings one to abandon one's position on any given issue. I struggle with it myself, every day.