Pretty good synopsis of my feelings about Clinton: HuffPo

[BlooInBloo]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/e-a-hanks/hillary-the-heartbreaker_b_43602.html

"Hillary Clinton is killing me. Slowly. It's like someone's feeding me ground glass in small increments. By the time the election is actually on, I'm going to be too dead to vote.

Every officially released apology just digs the knife a little deeper. This recent fracas with Gen. Pace declaring homosexuality "immoral" might have taken the cake."


It looks as though there are 2 primary differences between the HuffPo author and myself:

1) Instead of "I wanted to like her" (HuffPo author), for me it's more like "I don't particularly want to *dislike* her".

2) I don't care about Clinton apologizing. For me, it would be enough if she merely acknowledged her error.




EDIT: Closed quote on 1).

[asjr]

1. I don't have to "like" any of the Democratic

runners. All are flawed--that's what makes them human. I will vote for the one that is the nominee. I am sick of right-wing Republican ass-kissing robots. Senator Clinton has acknowledged her error, just maybe not in the way some people want her to.

[BlooInBloo]

2. I'll vote for the nominee as well - but she has NOT acknowledged that her vote was a mistake.

She's squarely in the the-vote-was-fine-the-problem-was-poor-execution camp.

If you're ok with that, fine - like I said: I'll vote for the eventual nominee too. But sugarcoating her position seems craven.

[asjr]

5. I sugarcoat nothing. I'm just stating my position

just as you state yours.

[sellitman]

3. I hope I never have to vote for her

BUT.....I will if she is the only Dem standing at the end of the primary.

[BlooInBloo]

4. I don't feel quite *that* strongly about it, but yah.

[kdpeters]

8. Same for me except that I would vote for one other candidate against her

Ron Paul. I don't give him a chance to get the Republican nomination, and I sure hope someone other than Clinton gets the Democratic nomination, but a Paul/Clinton matchup is the only way I'm not voting Democratic.

[PATRICK]

6. Step back and there's an underlying problem

How do parties end up with Nixons and Bushes. Lack of choice? Judging from the wide range of sentiments that go from wild antagonism to resigned dismay, there should be little practical worry she should receive the primary victory. What is there that would lead us to believe that horrible candidacies of the GOP have any chance and that our least likely appealing candidate should be the major frontrunner? This goes beyond the relative flaws and strengths of anyone. It goes to the fact of what faith we have in the voters getting a real voice, real choice and reality asserting itself against power.

The assumptions we have about all this are more disturbing than anything about Hillary Clinton. the problem is not with her, it is with a system that gives undue advantage and anti-democratic support to some elitist segment's "choice". In fact that is always the case to some degree. How bad is it now? With our party it is not so bad in that the candidates are all good people and good public servants and all favored to win. But the fact that the least electorally powerful candidate(setting aside all those other
laments which are part of that mix) is "feared" to be inevitable seems very strange.

People feared Lieberman just as unrealistically, but Joe had much less real chance of getting anywhere. Our fears knew our flawed system. Our voters reasserted the truth very easily. Hillary however is better than Joe and much more politically viable and much better backed and organized. Our fears predominate again but we must recognize them for what they are.

That the system is an obstacle for our citizens, adversarial and deceptive in its own faceless unright. Nourish the grass and the weeds get crowded out. Our best effort would be not so much to "trash" Hillary, but the unnatural advantages given to the wrongly anointed and the flaws in the system top to bottom.

We got Bush with this anti-democratic system, overwhelmed by the underwhelming. The voters want and will move toward quality from this lesson and the defeat of decent, but not quite so popular, candidates. I trust the people on this and ironically some of the blowback of the unfair MSM Hillary stomping is with us on this one whether anyone likes it or not. Practically speaking she should be DOA toast even with a respectable showing, but if one can envision her getting through the primaries as the "winner", then something is deeply wrong in the peculiar chaos of this year's stampede of primaries AND its past flaws.

[BlooInBloo]

7. (shrug) Sure, but even were I to 100% get on board with you...

... it's of exactly ZERO help on the question of what-to-do-for-THIS-COMING-election.

[libodem]

9. I wish she weren't hooked up with the shit-handlers at the DLC

and then I do wish she would stand by her convictions. She rings hollow as much as I would like to see a woman run for president. Then be the president. I predict that if she wins the nomination the other side will pit her against Condascenda. It will look like a mud wrestling roller derby bitch fight. And then Coneheada will win. And we'll be stuck with evil and corruption at its vile dirtiest. I am starting to feel like Hillary is the Ralph Nader of 2008. Split the party and the spoils go to the repukes.

[Morgana LaFey]

11. Uh, it's less that she's hooked up with THEM than

they're hooked up with HER.

No, she doesn't run the place, but she (and Bill) certainly are their types.

But I do agree with you, despite the quibble (but not the party split).

[robinlynne]

10. HIllary lost any support of mine such a long long time ago....

[OneBlueSky]

12. don't worry about Hillary . . . when Al Gore announces, she's done . . . n/t

.