Monday, January 28, 2008

Why we think Hillary Clinton should not be president: A Roundup

Only fifteen days from now Virginians will go to the polls to help select the Democratic nominee for the presidency. Until quite recently, there has been too much of a tendency to give Hillary Clinton a free pass, to let her record go by unexamined out of regard for her husband or because of sympathy towards her for being a target of Republican attacks. Democrats have a responsibility to look closely at all the candidates for our nomination, and that includes the record, the character, and the behavior of Hillary Rodham Clinton. The following is a roundup of Virginia blogposts that look at various different reasons why Hillary Clinton is unsuited to be President of the United States.

1. Commander Jeff Huber, U.S. Navy (Retired) examines Hillary Clinton's potential as a commander in chief and finds her lacking in "Who wants to be a Commander in Chief?" As Huber puts it:
One can only conclude that Hillary is a closet neocon or that she's so afraid of being cast as weak on security that she'll give them whatever they want to keep them from calling her a girly girl on AM radio and Fox News.
2. Raising Kaine contributor The Grey Havens takes on the Clintons flirtation with racism and racism-based election tactics in "Putting Decency to the Test." The Grey Havens poses a stark question to Democrats:
The question now arises: will Democratic racism give Hillary the nomination?

Apparently, the Clintons are still listening to Dick Morris, because their campaign has been pushing hard to have Obama labeled "the Black candidate", and Bill himself seems to be racing towards the gutter.
3. From the Mosquito Blog, the Mosquito questions whether Hillary Clinton has the necessary honesty to make a good president in "We need HONEST Leaders."
Hillary and Bill Clinton have been campaigning like neocons not like democrats. You'd think they had morphed into Karl Rove himself with the divisive lies they keep spreading.

There's one big fact that everyone can see . . . Hillary Clinton will lie and maybe stop at nothing to get elected.
4. From Democratic Central, blogger "cvillelaw" challenges Clinton's electability in "Warnings for Democrats about a Hillary-McCain matchup." Consider this:
Rich's theme -- with which I agree -- is that Hillary can't out-experience John McCain, so whatever benefit she claims in that field over the Democratic field, it will be lost in November. And she really can have no plausible claim to being the agent of change, particularly if she is making it clear that the two-for-the-price-of-one rationale that was advanced in 1992 and 1996 is making its comeback in 2008.
5. Well known and much beloved Kossack Teacherken delivers his take on a column by Bob Herbert challenging the Clinton's dirty campaign tactics in "Bob Herbert has 'Questions for the Clintons'." Teacherken points to the Clintons' tactics as a cause for concern among Democrats:
It may be extreme to wonder if the Clintons can be other than divisive, but it is clear that they started with a substantial portion of the American electorate and many opinion makers who viewed them negatively, sometimes with outright hostility. One might have expected that their actions would not feed into that paranoia. Earlier this campaign cycle I used to argue that the caricature of Hillary was so over the top that when people would encounter her the expectation would be so low that she would easily exceed them and thus win a substantial number over to supporting her. I no longer think that. Watching her the past few weeks she seems to have decided that she is justified in using a scorched earth policy straight out of Carville, Penn, Atwater and Rove. While it would be expected that she would take advice from Democratic consultants who had helped her husband, that one can clearly see evidence of the approach of the consultants who elected the two presidents Bush is disturbing to many. And the rationalizations offered for some of the tactics, while they will be cheered by partisans of Mrs. Clinton, serve onloy to further alienate many others. They may lead to success in achieving the nomination, but one has to ask at what cost.
This is a good first sampling that provides plenty of food for thought on this important topic. I intend to post additional roundups before February 12th with the goal of thoroughly vetting Hillary Clinton. When Virginia Democrats go to the polls on February 12th, they must make an informed choice.

If you have a post you'd like to see included in my next roundup, please post a link in the comments section.


teacherken said...

you have the appropriate snip from my diary on Herbert's column. I can also say that I am hearing increasingly from non-blogger types that they are now past the point of being willing to vote for HRC in a general they are so angry.

Derek Anderson said...

We all know what the most important issue is.

It's our economic security at the individual and family level.

What has the war in Iraq done for your economic security at home?


The prices of food and fuel have doubled and keep rising. Your employers aren't handing out cost of living increases. The $300 per person "rebate" will not help the economy in any way.

People need to seriously look to Ron Paul. Ignore that the media tells you he is un-electable.

For once, please make an informed decision with out the media's influence.

The Green Miles said...

Hillary should not be president? So if she's the nominee, you won't be voting for her? It's one thing to boost Obama, it's another to say the possible Democratic nominee should not be elected. Will you vote for Mitt Romney instead? Please explain.

The Richmond Democrat said...

Green Miles:

I can't speak for others, but no, I cannot find it in my heart to vote for Hillary Clinton, even should she win the nomination. She did not have to run her campaign the way she did. She made choices, and those choices offended many people, many beyond the point of return. I am one of those people she cannot win back. Bill Clinton's comment comparing Obama South Carloina's win in South Carolina to Jesse Jackson's victoroes these in 1984 and 1988 was a dogwhistle invocation of racism in support of Hillary Clinton's candidacy. It is unforgivable.

Under no circumstances will I vote for Hillary Clinton. I will sit out the general election if she is nominated and only vote down ballot for lower level races.


spotter said...

Thanks, J.C. As I have stated elsewhere, I too will never vote for Hillary Clinton. If the Clintons win the nomination by these disgusting tactics, I will refrain from voting Democratic for President for the first time since 1976.

However, I hope that we do not arrive at that point. Fortunately, we have two other wonderful candidates, true Democrats who should make us all proud. Why waste any more time and effort on this anomaly?

Sisyphus said...

How about
and about a half dozen posts for the month of January at However, my position is she should not be the nominee for a variety of reasons. If she pulls it off then she will have my support in November unless there is a very good reason a Republican should be allowed to carry on the disaster Bush started. I'm old enough to remember 1968 and these elections do make a difference. In fact, I believe we are still living with the repercussions of those folks who, 40 years ago, could not bring themselves to vote for Hubert Humphrey.

I'm an Obama supporter and certainly am not making any excuses for the Clintons but remember politics is a blood sport and not for the thin-skinned.