Why I'm not supporting Hillary Clinton

Since Hillary supporters continually have to answer questions about why they're supporting her, I thought it only fair to post a list of reasons why I am working against her nomination. One common way that the pro-Hillary folks justify their support is to paste in a long list of her accomplishments in the Senate.

I have a similar list of her Senate work and, as you can imagine, it paints quite a different picture. What I see is a politician afraid to stick her neck out and unwilling to challenge what she sees as the current conventional wisdom on an issue. The conclusion one is left with is that Hillary Clinton is unable or unwilling to lead, especially if it involves a significant departure from the status quo.

Here's my list. I may have a few facts incorrect -- it's much more difficult to research lack of action. I'll happily make any corrections (or additions) to the list if people point them out.

~~~~~~~~

Senator Clinton said and did nothing to prevent the Senate confirmation of John Ashcroft.

Senator Clinton said and did nothing to prevent the Senate confirmation of Alberto Gonzales.

Senator Clinton said and did nothing regarding the failed Senate confirmation of John Bolton.

Senator Clinton voted FOR cloture on the nomination of corrupt corporatist Priscilla Owen, clearing the way for her confirmation to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals.

Senator Clinton voted FOR cloture on the nomination of unqualified fascist Janice Rogers Brown, clearing the way for her confirmation to the DC Court of Appeals.

Senator Clinton voted FOR cloture on the nomination of religious zealot and homophobe William H. Pryor, clearing the way for his confirmation to the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals.

Senator Clinton voted FOR cloture on the nomination of John Roberts, clearing the way for his confirmation as Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court.

Senator Clinton said little or nothing during the Senate confirmation of Samuel Alito.

Senator Clinton missed the Senate confirmation vote on Michael Mukasey.

Senator Clinton said little or nothing during this summer's vote on the Iraq War Supplemental.

Senator Clinton said little or nothing during the vote to extend FISA.

Senator Clinton said little or nothing on the Walter Reid scandal, even though she sits on the Senate Armed Services Committee.

Senator Clinton has said little or nothing during the current debate on Telecom Immunity.

Senator Clinton has said little or nothing on the possible impeachment of Dick Cheney.

Senator Clinton has said little or nothing on the possible impeachment of George Bush.

Senator Clinton has said little or nothing on the myriad scandals surrounding the current administration. (Yeah, I'm too lazy to list these one-by-one)

Senator Clinton campaigned for Joe Lieberman against Ned Lamont

Senator Clinton proposed legislation to ban flag burning.

Senator Clinton voted FOR the USAPATRIOT act.

Senator Clinton voted FOR the Iraq War Resolution.

Senator Clinton voted FOR the Kyl/Lieberman amendment.

~~~~~~~~

Yes, many other Senators have failed to lead on these issues, but they aren't asking for a promotion to the highest office in the nation. As Hillary loves to point out, she is not a newcomer to Washington politics. She says she's "ready to lead" and experienced at fighting the right-wing. Why then, does she always seems to fade into the woodwork whenever a contentious issue comes before the Senate?

You worked very hard on this, and it shows.

I think it is important to view candidates from all perspectives. Your list balances with the other; people can read both and then make up their minds about her based upon their own judgment.

gave Bush the power to attack Saddam instead of standing up to Bush -- AND THEY NEVER EVEN READ THE NIE THAT SAID THERE WERE NO WMDs!!

I have begun to see far to often, and hear as well how Obama always was against the war, that is a trite and bogus argument. He had no vote. Everyone in this forum can look back and say that they would have done something different in their lives...that prospect would explode exponentially if we looked into each others pasts...I can say for certain without hearing the information and without understanding the pressure during that debate/vote that I would have voted against it (from my nice comfortable chair), but can't for one minute say what I would have done in that precise moment, so quit using a lame argument as to why Obama should garner support for not having supported the war and start giving some details/positions that show he is ready to lead and not strictly point fingers at other peoples records and claim positions he (might) have taken.

Senator Clinton trusted and gave George W. Bush the authorization to go to war.

It's just like all the other votes Obama has missed, but "said" how he would have voted. It's alwasy easy to "wait" and then come up with a stand on something, but it takes guts to do what you think is right, then defend it! I guess if you don't vote, you can work both sides of the issue!

Seriously, when we're talking careful gutlessness caused by raw ambition, this man really cannot challenge anyone.

If he had been able to vote he probably would have voted "PRESENT." Yes sir, he really knows how to stand up for what he believes.

Hillary suporting Joe Lieberman.
''I've known Joe Lieberman for more than thirty years. I have been pleased to support him in his campaign for re-election, and hope that he is our party's nominee,'' the former first lady said in a statement issued by aides. ''But I want to be clear that I will support the nominee chosen by Connecticut Democrats in their primary,'' the New York Democrat added. ''I believe in the Democratic Party, and I believe we must honor the decisions made by Democratic primary voters.''

....''The challenges before us in 2006 call for a strong, united party, in which we all support and work for the candidates who are selected in the Democratic process,'' Clinton said in her statement of Tuesday.

Did you catch that. Joe was the democratic candidate seeking reelection and she did not support Joe when he ran as an independent. In her letter she would support Lamont who is or was the democratic candidate.

When i can dispute more I will but that one is so false....

Ben David

I want to hear about how well she supported Ned.

http://www.observer.com/node/36203

from me who will not vote for Clinton in the primary.

loaned him Howard Wolfson, one of her most trusted consultants, as an unpaid advisor.

So we can look forward to another administration of lies and distortions from Obama?

True or false: Clinton endorsed Lieberman in the primary over Lamont, and campaigned for him. Answer: true. Nobody said she didn't support the nominee. But she endorsed and supported the pro-war Dem against the anti-war Dem in the primary.

Now, I don't particularly blame her for this: A lot of Dems knew that Lamont didn't have a prayer of winning the general, and the dems figured it better not to offend Lieberman, who they'd need later on. It's not pretty, but it's reality.

Also, you have a fairly disgusting attitude with regard to reality. Deciding that one fact posted online constitutes a "lie," and extending that to assert that a candidate is like Bush, is a load of crap, and you should be ashamed.

do you expect her administration to be any different?

The Times has it all wrong!

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C05E2DC...

Maybe you have a picture of her appearing publicly with Ned Lamont?

Didn't think so!

Keep living the lie.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-bromwich/the-vote-f...

Since they would be acting as a sort of juror in any impeachment trial? I'm not being snarky, I'm genuinely curious.

Maybe it's just me, but I don't understand why a sitting Senator would make any kind of comment that would tarnish their impartiality in a Senate impeachment trial.

I guess I'm misreading the Constitution here.

Also, are you aware that the Nixon impeachment proceedings were prompted by a well publicized Senate investigation?

She's not a great Senator, but she's a helluva lot better than Rick Lazio or what's-his-name that ran against her in 06.

the tools to beat them.

She will not deliver one more electoral vote than Kerry got in 04, and she's the one candidate who can stir the right wing base, thus becoming a drag on down ballot candidates. She is the worst possible person the Democrats can have as the standard bearer.

If we count the votes.

The Republicans have neither money nor candidates in this coming election. NOBODY WANTS THEM.

connections as a former First Lady and because of Big Dawg! However, I'm not sure how much he's helping her right now! Still you can't avoid the fact that she has managed to garner support from some of the MOST Liberal Democrats from the past! I freely admit that I DON'T completely understand McGovern, who was the very first Presidential candidate I worked my ass for in the state of Florida, even when Florida was more friendly to Democrats. Still I had people removing bumper stickers off my car. Then there's RFK, Jr. that really surprised me. His father's death hit me worse than JFK and I cried for days, so I'm thinking "quid-pro-quo" here, and that's the LAST thing I want to think!

And let's NOT forget Chuckie Schumer and Rahm Emanuel... these two alone have immense power and work extremely hard in the background. I suppose I could go on, but no need... she DOES have "big guns" behind her and LOTS AND LOTS of money!

But the fact that she supported Lieberman against Lamont really hurt me.

Great post, and thank you very much!

I want to know what state breeds citizens who feel free to insult the intelligence of New Yorkers.

What an insulting remark. Look to your own damn state.

But Hils isn't exactly asking for that promotion. She pretty much thinks she's got it coming. And so does Billy Jeff.

I think they've got one hell of a disappointment coming.

that they have to go away for awhile and lick their self-inflicted wounds.

you're attacking her for "not saying or doing anything". That begs the fact that she said quite a bit about quite a few of them. Furthermore, attacking her without criticizing Obama for the same things is silly. You're blurring truth with falsehood. Clinton, like every other Senator in the dem caucus supported a sitting dem senator before the primary- and supported Lamont after it. Context counts. And you don't even try to back up your claims about saying/doing nothing. As for the rest of this list:

Senator Clinton campaigned for Joe Lieberman against Ned Lamont

Senator Clinton proposed legislation to ban flag burning.

Senator Clinton voted FOR the USAPATRIOT act.

Senator Clinton voted FOR the Iraq War Resolution.

Senator Clinton voted FOR the Kyl/Lieberman amendment.

With the exception of K/L Senator Edwards, your candidate went further than Clinton on the IWR- he co-sponsored it, and no dem used more agressive language regarding war than Senator Edwards.

Clinton did go along with legislation re flag desecration, and it's a black mark against her, just as it is against Dennis.

JE voted for the Patriot Act.

These lists are always so dishonest.

Hillary is running for President as the most experienced person in fighting the right-wing. As such, I'd expect to see a lot more in her history to back up that claim.

As for Lieberman, there is one candidate who DID campaign for Lamont: John Edwards. And I must have blinked and missed Hillary's "support" for Lamont after he won the nomination.

I agree with you on Edwards' support for the IWR. He's got a lot to answer for and his co-sponsorship of that bill is what kept me from supporting him for a long time. But Edwards' current populist message distinguishes him from Hillary in a big way. He's showing his leadership and willingness to challenge the status quo. How is Hillary doing that?

in areas she doesn't deserve praise.

Edwards, btw, wasn't in the Senate when he supported Lamont, so that's meaningless. Talk is easy. That's my problem with Edwards. I find his rhetoric seductive but his history less than compelling. And just for the record, Clinton "lent" Lamont a staffer/strategist, donated money and offered more. You see what you want to see, because this info has been posted here several times.

My reasons for not supporting Clinton jibe with some of yours, but I don't need to fudge to explain my opposition.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

I am sure his orginal vote was at face value and out of patriotism, but I am not JE, so I can't be 100 % sure. I am sure he has apologized for his vote. I am sure that he is now fighting for us as more and more truths have been revealed. I am sure his message is clear, and does not waver. He has learned. I more than ever have learned too, until the money is out of Washington, until this overhaul happens, the divide will continue. He is truly fighting for the average American in this country. We are at a crossroad, forced into it by decisions past. Either NWO or a strong America, that is what I believe. I choose a strong America.
We have seen the direction we are headed if we continue the status quo.

introduce a Constitutional amendment against flag burning. That's the only reason it was teased into existence.

The measure "sounded" great, but did nothing--all it said was "No burning flags on FEDERAL property" pretty much.

You can't light fires on Federal property anyway, so it was all very symbolic, with not much else behind it.

You can have a camp fire in national forests (federal property) and lots of national parks have fire pits in their camping and picnic areas and as of now you can feel free to fire up that cigarette. pipe or cigar in the appropriate areas on federal property, if I'm not mistaken that will require fire. Oh yeah and you can use your amerikan flag for kindling if you want.

In 1973 I was a young Military Policeman assigned to a security detail at Nixon's second inauguration I watched war protesters (thousands of them) burn the flags around the Washington Monument, we did nothing, thank goodness. By the way the rumor mill had it that the 101st or 82nd airborne was secreted in several federal building just off the mall waiting for major trouble, but I saw no evidence of that and the major trouble never came due to the restraint of all parties involved.

in the Pentagon parking lot, that was my point.

And of course I wasn't referring to designated smoking areas at federal facilities, either.

If you want to take it further, you can also point out that when commands assigned to the Pentagon or the Bureau or elsewhere have a little git-together, they just might barbecue a few ribs in the center courtyard (ground zero) or outside their government offices. But I wasn't referring to THAT sort of activity either....

for what that's worth

As you can guess from my avatar, I followed the Lamont/Liberman race closely. She did support Lieberman prior to Lamont's primary win. But afterwards, she donated money to Lamont (albeit not much) and loaned him one of her advisors.

On one hand, Clinton is not the devil and has done a number of good things. However, a sizable portion of the list consists of "voted for the interests of Group X, Y% of the time." This is all predicated on the notion that what the Senate as a whole has been doing is good for the public. Just because there is a right way to vote on a specific bill from the perspective of a particular organization doesn't mean that anything great is being accomplished by these votes.

If you think that the current Senate session has been a disgrace, then Clinton's having taken part in it is not that impressive.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

I care. I think this is a wonderful post. The OP makes a great case and I, for one, appreciate the work he/she put into it.

I guess the question is, "Why don't you care?"

but the way some supporters lash out at anyone who challenges her is downright frightening.

Wake up, people. We chastise non-thinking Bush supporters for doing the same thing.

such blind devotion reeks of something that would get this message deleted for suggesting, so I won't say it.

buy how much more obvious can you get?

it's either that or brainwashing.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

thanks.

I mistakenly thought the comment above by HM stood alone.

it's a vote for Nader.

There will be plenty of "safe" states where a Vote for Nader will have absolutely no effect on the outcome of the election.

If Hillary (or Obama) becomes the nominee, I would suggest that all AntiWAR/Pro-LABOR Democrats carefully examine whether their state is "in play", and then consider casting a protest vote against BIG CORPO/MoreWAR Democrats.


What the above post DOES illustrate is that a Hillary Nomination will be throwing away Millions of votes. NONE of the current polls that show Hillary winning against Republicans are VALID, because NONE of the polls factor in the effect of a challenge from a 3rd Party Anti-WAR/Pro-LABOR Populist.
A Hillary nomination will catalyze such a challenge, and this 3rd Party WILL peel off many AntiWAR Democratic voters and a large percent of the Independent voters.

Those here who are supporting Hillary in the Primaries would be well advised to Face that REALITY.

Nader will NOT run a 3rd Party challenge against Edwards.

A vote FOR Hillary in the Primaries could very well be a Vote for the Republicans.


The Democratic Party is a BIG TENT, but there is NO ROOM for those
who advance the agenda of THE RICH (Corporate Owners) at the EXPENSE of LABOR and the POOR.

I am not a supporter, but I can't imagine not voting for a Dem after the last 8 years of near-Fascism. If there are critical states lost to a third party candidate and we end up with another Republican, well - perhaps a civil war is what we need at this time huh?

Here.
I'll help.

I accounted for that in my response, but I also tried to account for the 3rd party offensive that you described. Anyway, I suppose all this supposition is pointless, in a month or so we will have to re-calibrate everything depending on what's happening then.

after 8 years of near-Fascism didn't do shit???

here's rec. no. 17.

If she's nominated that is. Which?

He seems to be able to stand up to anything.

how I'd vote (a write-in), it's about loosing my state for sure if Hillary is the nominee.

It means nothing to cite one candidate's record without comparing it to the other candidates.

For instance, I know that Obama supported Lieberman in the primary, and both he and Hillary supported (barely) Lamont in the general election. And Obama has said outright that he opposes impeaching either Cheney or Bush.

I think the list is fascinating. It makes me wonder about Hillary.

Maybe they're like several of us.. torn between two candidates?

border, to extend capital gains and dividend tax cuts for the wealthy, for the automatic "three strikes" mandatory prison sentencing, for Kyl/Lieberman, for reauthorizing the Patriot Act, and for lots of crappy "free" trade agreements.

... is like keeping track of BFEE scandals.

God knows I'm no fan of Hillary, but she was one of a group of Democrats led by John Kerry who supported a filabuster on Alito's nomination, and she did criticize it strongly.

She'll join a sure-lose filibuster, but she won't lead one. And God forbid she do anything that could actually stop the nomination.

Another missed chance for her to stand out from the crowd.

If Hillary had adopted Edwards' populist message, I wouldn't care as much about her Senate record. But she's running a classic "campaign about nothing", so we have only her previous actions to go on.

amazing that he adopted this message after he lost the primary last time and then quit the Senate...it's easy to take the high road when there is nothing at stake and point fingers, etc. everyone else who in all fairness is trying to do the job she was elected for as well as run for the Democratic nomination for POTUS. Saying Edwards is now saying/doing all the right things because he has had a change of heart just doesn't sit well with me when his positions didn't change until AFTER he left the Senate. When he had the chance to lead, he didn't, now that he wants to lead, he's a new man...just fishy is all I'm saying.

Somebody oughta bear mace these fools...

People change. I thought I was an (R) once, but find myself a liberal today. I call myself liberal because with the bad Dem leadership, I hate to say I'm a (D).

He talked at length about poverty. He said that work was being taxed over wealth. He introduced the two Americas theme. Sounds prety populist to me.

And, as expected, the loudest Hillary Goose-Steppers are nowhere to be seen on this thread.

And if they do show up, instead in intelligent counter debate, they will bring insults, personal attacks, and messages screaming of tin-foil, sexism, etc.

What I am going to do is first quote the rule they have broken and then hit the alert button and then add them to my ignore list. Someone has even contacted my work to threaten me which is a very serious violation or the rules. I didn't think that would happen here but it does. I reported the incident. That's how mean it can get here. Watch out and and don't leave any personal info or home page links in your profile.

Priv msg me if you wish to know who did this.

Knock yourself out.

it wears out the scroll button.

or another, but i have to say, your responses lately have been cracking me up - SO many times, and especially when they follow that bit of a wit, who apparently chose the nic on opposite day!

Keep up the good work - laughter is good medicine!

i tend to be that way with DUers.

between you and Kurovski I don't think I ever laughed so much in my life as I did yesterday, and I love people who have more than a bit of a wit!!

now I'm married to him!

I think! Besides, I did see his picture holding a sign - he's a cutie!

90% of that list of yours is small potatoes and most of it could be applied to most politicians.

No wonder the Goddess of Peace is the most popular candidate ever. Her naysayers stay up night and day trying to come up with negative lists and all they come up with is a long list of nothings, almosts, not so quites, and not even so's.

I'll give you A for effort though. Nice try!

Also sounds like a failed snack food, despite an expensive marketing campaign.

"The crunch that tastes like nothing."

"The Goddess of Peace"

Yep, that's what I read. My mouth is hanging open in astonishment.

Look, I don't support her and I don't not-support her. I'm still looking. I like a lot about her and dislike some things about her positions, but I must say, the Goddess of Peace is the most ridiculous tag I've ever heard.

admiration you have going on there.

I myself am still undecided, but I will not give any candidate or person that kind of admiration calling them the "Goddess" of anything. yikes.

I also love all your Hillaryous photos.

As if anyone needs yet ANOTHER reason to please reconsider nominating this risky candidate in more ways than one:

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/GC01Df03.html
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/538674.c...
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/593175.c...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UhLBSLLIhUs
Hillary pushes for more h1-b visas and outsourcing

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cLNOSGM2jK4
Hillary Clinton's hypocrisy (part 1)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jgdrh2Bc95M
Hillary Clinton's hypocrisy (part 2)

K & R.

Can you point us at a link for that? I must have been not paying attention when it happened.

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/r...

The Dems to vote against this were: Bayh, Biden, Clinton, Dodd, Inouye, Landrieu, Lautenberg, Lieberman, Lincoln, Nelson (FL), Nelson (NE), Pryor, Rockefeller, Salazar, Schumer.

according to Mtnsnake above.

It takes a village my ass.

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0102/01/se.13.ht...

Meanwhile, Joie, if you are keeping score at home: a couple of votes you may want to take note of. Hillary Rodham Clinton, the junior senator from New York, has just voted -- not surprisingly -- in the negative, voting against the Ashcroft nomination. She said before she would do so.


I'll check the next one.

Um, that's what I mean by "said and did nothing". Casting a vote against a sure confirmation is not exactly the kind of leadership I look for in a president.

Wake me up when you manage to find something better than a quote from Ari Fleischer.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

In true Clintonian fashion, you're parsing each word to make your case. I said she did nothing to stop these nominations. The point here, which I've made before, is that a vote is not enough. Any marginally credible Democrat would have voted against these nominations. Hillary showed zero leadership or initiative in these votes. That lack of leadership is characteristic of her political career, and it disqualifies her from consideration as a presidential candidate.

http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/members/c00... /

6/20/05 Vote 142: On the Cloture Motion: Blocked, for the second time, the confirmation President Bush's choice for U.N. Ambassador, John Bolton. Those opposed to the confirmation voted "no" on a measure to limit debate. Those in favor of the confirmation fell short of the 60 votes needed to limit debate and move the nomination process forward.

The idea here is that simply VOTING is not good enough. That's just going along with the herd. We need someone who has demonstrated actual leadership. If pro-Clinton people are going to spam us with her Senate record, they should also have to deal with her pathetic lack of leadership during that time.

Seize the Senate by armed force and close it down? Hillary says what she has to say. Its not her fault if the media doesn't cover it. As for Hillary leading, she's not the leader or even in leadership. If Hillary did grandstand she'd be accused of self promotion and manipulation and probably poison public opinion toward Democratic opposition.

You should change your list from "said or did nothing" to "Didn't bring the whole world to a halt in a way that would satisfy me."

Witness what Chris Dodd has done this past week. Has anyone here accused him of grandstanding?

yawn.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

wait, no it wasn't.

yawn.

Well, I learned something new by reading it.. Senators Obama and Clinton voted differently on the Cluster Bombs vote.

It's a pretty interesting thread I think. Lot of info - without name calling.

http://clinton.senate.gov/news/statements/details.cfm?i...

I have reviewed Judge Gonzales's record and his responses, or lack of responses, to the many thoughtful questions posed by members of the Senate Judiciary Committee. On the basis of his professional record and his unwillingness to answer critical questions, I am compelled to oppose his nomination.

Judge Gonzales' record as White House Counsel contains misjudgments and misreadings of U.S. and international law that were so grievous as to have shaken the conscience of our nation and the bedrock of the most fundamental aspects of our democracy.

Judge Gonzales advised President Bush in January 2002 that the Geneva Conventions did not apply to the conflict in Afghanistan. He wrote that the "war on terrorism" offers a "new paradigm renders obsolete" the Geneva Convention's protections. Memos prepared under his direction that same year recommended official authorization of cruel interrogation methods including: waterboarding, feigned suffocation, and sleep deprivation.

(More)

No holds, no attempts at a filibuster. She just stood by and cast her safe NO vote without ever having to stick her neck out.

Keep 'em coming, you're just digging the hole deeper.

I judge the weight of an opinion by the amount of work shown going into it. I respect most an opinion from someone who worked and studied in an area for many years, especially if that person shows a good sense of logic and thoughtfulness.

Then there are opinions I respect based only on my duty to do so. These meritless opinions are given by those who haven't lifted a finger to learn or think for a second about what they are discussing. Just emotion and ranting.

Did you check to see if there was a filibuster on the Gonzales nomination and if there was how Hillary voted on cloture?