Memo To Hillary: Stop Waffling

[babylonsister]

Memo To Hillary: Stop Waffling

By SUE HUTCHISON
November 25, 2007


Hillary Clinton may get tired of six men ganging up on her during the presidential debates, but at a recent event in San Jose that I attended, a roomful of women were piling on against her as well. And if she had been there, she might have learned something.

This group, members of the Santa Clara Valley Chapter of the Brandeis University National Women's Committee, is representative of those who tend to be Hillary cheerleaders, according to recent polls. Most are over 55 and, judging by the derisive laughter and eye-rolling in the crowd when the current administration was mentioned, most are Democratic. But they are tired of not getting a straight answer from the Democratic front-runner on questions of major policy issues facing the country.

And who can blame them? It has nothing to do with the fact that Hillary is a woman. It's all about the fact that, especially during the debates, she's a waffling woman.

I was speaking to the Brandeis group about the intriguing role women are playing in the presidential election, and many of them wanted to talk only about the presumed Democratic nominee. "Hillary's still my girl," one woman said, but she went on to discuss her doubts that the senator from New York can win the election if she continues her double talk about her stand on the war in Iraq and U.S. policy on Iran.

There were others in the room who should have been natural Hillary die-hards but vented their frustration about the senator's continued evasiveness. This is particularly disheartening coming from the woman who is supposed to represent a change from politics as usual.

more...

http://www.courant.com/news/opinion/editorials/hc-commentaryhutchison1125.artnov25,0,6586085.story

[Deja Q]

1. But holding out for more gangbangers is so much fun!

:hide:

[AtomicKitten]

2. mmmmmm

[MethuenProgressive]

33. Who is "SUE HUTCHISON"? And why should anyone care?

Big whoop. Google search produces another anti-Clinton rant.
:boring:

[journalist3072]

3. Yawn.......This line of attack against Sen. Clinton is getting really old

When she has clearly taken strong positions.

And what the hell does the author of the op/ed mean by "there were others in the room who should have been natural Hillary die-hards..."

The hell? What is the author's definitions of a "should be Hillary die-hard."

One more jeopardy question for 300: who was the candidate in the last debate, who couldn't give a yes/no answer regarding drivers' licenses for illegals?

[peacebird]

4. you mean the licenses she was for before she was against them...?

those licenses?

And you have problems with other candidates positions on it after her torturously twisted path? :eyes:

Speaking of torture - what's up with Dems who do the bush wiffle-waffle on torture? Saying we don't support torture, yet stating "harsh" techniques are appropriate in the case of a "ticking bomb" scenario?

[Kahuna]

6. Is that so? So every body is making it up, huh? There's no truth

to it at all, is what you're saying?? Keep it up. You do Hillary no favors by staying in denial. If she doesn't become more forthright she will not only lose, she'll deserve to lose.

[1corona4u]

8. I'm just sick of all of it.....

just look at this board....as if it makes a difference...I guess it makes people feel better about theirselves and their choices to constantly be poking at the other person...I bet the people in Iowa are sick of it too....

[Kahuna]

14. I don't know what history you're trying to rewrite but Obama did..

after hemming and hawing for a while give a definate YES! It doesn't help your side to make things up. Too many DUers watched that debate and KNOW what happened.

[bvar22]

17. "clearly taken strong positions".....on WHAT?!!!!

The ONLY clear positions Hillary has taken since 2000 are on Flag Burning and Cartoon sex in Video Games!

Please explain this "Clear Position" on one of the MOST important issues facing the next president:

Position 1) "I will End the War and Bring the Troops Home".

Position 2) Combat troops will remain in Iraq "protecting American (Corporate) interests" and "fighting Al Qaeda".


Hillary would rather PLANT questions than answer them!

[JerseygirlCT]

19. I would disagree about the

"clearly taken strong positions".

Regardless, if the perception is that she's focus-grouping everything she says and triangulating every position, then that perception in itself is a big problem.

[Joanne98]

5. snippet

The sentiments of the crowd at the Brandeis gathering in San Jose were a good indication that the woman-thing alone will not be enough for even the faithful to propel her into the White House

DUH!

To be fair nobody except DK is being straight with the voters. Obama is every bit as vague. Hope isn't a policy!

I'm supporting John Edwards right now because he's a POPULIST! But I'm more a DK supporter on issues. I wish JE and DK would run together.

My fear is that the reason she's being vague on policies is because we're not going to like what she has to say!

Naomi Klein would call this "pseudo politics. A Milton Friedman economic policy enacted by a center left politician. Something I worry about a lot!

[Tom Rinaldo]

10. Perhaps an even deeper fear...

American politics might be approaching the point where only those who are skilled at "pseudo politics" can win National contests.

I don't think we are quite there yet, but that has been the trend. It shows up less in Democratic Primary Contests than it does in General Elections for major State and National offices, because of the often issue oriented nature of Primary voters. I often find fault with Clinton for being too carefully scripted and hard to pin down on specifics, but then that fear starts to creep in that says that type of campaign might ultimately not only be the safest road to victory, but also the surest road to victory, and possibly the only road to victory.

Again, I don't think it has to be that way and I think it is unhealthy to Democracy for it to be that way. But I also can read the handwriting on the wall that extols the benefits of a tightly on message but elusive on specifics campaign. As it is I think it is equally likely that Hillary Clinton as President would surprise progressives on the up side as it is that she would surprise us on the down side. It is also possible that she is trying to cloak some of her true colors from centrist voters, looking ahead to the General Election. But I deplore guessing when it comes to picking leaders.

I think Hillary would do well by herself in the home stretch toward the Primary voting if she could allay more of the concerns reflected in the OP column.

[bvar22]

22. I agree.

The ROOT of the problem is the sorry state of our "consolidated media", specifically television.
It is the TV (more than anything else) that is responsible for our current Homecoming Queen/ videobyte elections. They sell us our politicians just like any other marketable commodity. The scary part is that the Media and their Big Corporate owners have a vested interest in the elections.

Will a candidate who pledges to "break up" the consolidate Media stand a chance in a National Election?

The TV debates and "Townhall Meetings" can be (ARE) manipulated.


*Follow The Money is the only thing I truly trust anymore.
Large Single Source contributions ARE investments. These bankrollers aren't stupid, and they expect a return.

*Voting Records can be manipulated by a savvy candidate.
Ambiguous proclamations fence-sitting the current popular Issue of the Day will not reflect the candidates CORE position. Those merely produce videobytes to be used by the Campaign Spinners, especially where the candidate discusses both sides. That makes it easy to tailor for the campaign. (Lots of these cropped "quotes" appear at DU.)

To determine where a candidate stands (or doesn't stand), look for Floor Speeches BEFORE a vote, and issues consistently publicly promoted by a candidate.


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.

[Cha]

12. From her record on

bushite enabling..why should we think any differently?

"My fear is that the reason she's being vague on policies is because we're not going to like what she has to say!"

hillary's been nothing but a big disappointment as our senator..her and schumer..two little dlcs in a pod.

[Kurovski]

7. K&R.

I don't think such a thing is possible at this juncture.

[truedelphi]

9. Also, maybe it is just me, but I get the sense that Hillary wants to show us

What a leader she is.

Right now, I want someone who combines leadership with an ability to listen to the vast majority of citizens. We already have a leader who is in bed with the corporations and is pro-war.

The change I see for the nation is if everyone gets up on election day and resolves to vote for Dennis.

The obstacle is two fold: one: the mainstream media pretty much ignores him
And two: I am inclined tobelieve that the machinery that was used to fix the nomination against Dean and give us Kerry will just as effectively keep Dennis out.

[scarletwoman]

11. ..."the woman who is supposed to represent a change from politics as usual"

Oh, Sue Hutchinson, please stop! You're killing me! :rofl:

[Cha]

13. Really! Has Sue

been hiding out in the jungle for the last 7 years?

[scarletwoman]

16. No, anyone living in the jungle has WAY more smarts than Ms. Hutchinson.

I think she's been living in Conventional Wisdomburg, with a summer home in Non-critical Thinkingland.

:)
sw

[Cha]

18. Touche' Scarlet!

Paid for by corporatemediawhores' Expense Account.

[sandnsea]

15. what woman says "still my girl"

I agree with the article, but still don't know who the hell these women are. What woman calls another woman "her girl". I don't even want to know them.

[Nedsdag]

20. I have a tough time calling a 60-year-old middle aged woman

a "girl."

Hell, Chelsea's not a girl anymore. Why does she use that phrase?

As for her taking "strong positions," apparently she forgot what her husband said about elections: "Don't worry about the next election or there won't be a next election." Hillary's thinking too far ahead. If she continues this eminence grise meme, she'll be conceding on February 5, 2008.

[MonkeyFunk]

21. its sunday

take a break from scouring the internet to find anti-Clinton articles.

[scarletwoman]

23. It's Sunday. Take a break from scouring DU to find anti-Clintion posts. (nt)

[MonkeyFunk]

24. You honestly think

I have to "scour" DU to find these posts?

A swing and a miss.

[scarletwoman]

26. LOL! You're correct. Still, no reason for you not to take a break, you're not going to convince

anyone who's against Clinton to change their minds anyway.

[MonkeyFunk]

27. No

but I can point out to everybody else the OPs rabid obsession with finding these obscure articles and blog posts and repeating them here. And I can comment what a lame, cheesy tactic it is.

[scarletwoman]

29. Well, I happen to think that the OP is performing a valuable service & I applaud it. (nt)

[MonkeyFunk]

30. well I think it's detestable

there's one candidate I abhor. Really hate. Don't trust him, don't like him, think he's a through-and-through phony.

But I've never once started a thread about him. Never. I barely participate in any discussions about him.

Why?

Because he might be our candidate, and I think it's ridiculously childish, short-sighted and just all-around idiotic to tear down any of the people who might be our nominee.

I wish people who practice the tactics of destruction you applaud would grow the fuck up.

[babylonsister]

32. I've noticed you have no criticism for certain specific posters

who only post negative Obama articles. Now why is that? Why aren't you equally critical? Nevermind, the answer is obvious.

[MonkeyFunk]

36. I have criticized people who've made lame attacks

against Obama. I like Obama very much, and hate to see cheap smears used against him.

The problem, sister, is not that you dont like Clinton. It's that you use sleazy, underhanded tactics to try to destroy her.

[babylonsister]

37. Baloney. I don't write the articles, I post 'em.

Sleazy and underhanded, just because you don't like the content? Your insults say a lot more about you than me frankly.
And if you're so concerned, why not try to put a little effort into posting something, anything! yourself instead of acting so self-righteous?

[MonkeyFunk]

42. No

They're sleazy and underhanded because you


a) go out of your way to smear Clinton. you go searching for articles and blog posts that are negative toward her and

b) you use tactics like you did in this thread: you post the smear, but not the substance.

You're detestable.


Edit: And I've explained why I don't post negative articles about candidates I don't like: it's unproductive, stupid and childish. You seem to think it's a valid way to interact on a democratic board. I just couldn't disagree more. You're detestable.

[babylonsister]

45. Who the

HELL do you think you are, calling me detestable? I don't go 'out of my way' to find them, but if I see an article that looks interesting, you can bet I'll post it. Again, the fact you don't like the content IS NOT MY PROBLEM. This is a discussion board, not a name calling one; you apparently don't know the difference.

And I suggested you should post something other than propping your candidate up or knocking people down who you object to. It doesn't have to be about a candidate. Not all my posts are, but it seems you live in a little tunnel and only have one vision.

There are rules to posting on DU, but maybe you're not aware of them. Post a few paragraphs, and if someone is interested, they can actually click on the link to read the rest. :think: Novel, isn't it.

And finally, this is my final interaction with you because you are a one trick pony, and a rude one at that.

[Nedsdag]

41. And Hillary is as pure as the driven snow?

You've got to be kidding!

[MonkeyFunk]

43. When did I ever say any such thing?

And does clinton post here on DU?

My point is that people here should not go out of their way to tear down candidates. I dont do it. Babylonsister shouldn't do it. Nobody should do it.

Doing so is childish, churlish and counter-productive.

[ilovesunshine]

25. Scouring? Surely, you jest.

It's almost every other thread on this forum.

What are so many (here) going to do if (when) she is our nominee?

[scarletwoman]

28. Sorry, I generally avoid GD-P like the plague. Yes, I was ridiculously off with that line.

As for what I will I do if she's the nominee; I will write in Kucinich. If people really want a Dem president, then they should do everything they can to make sure Clinton does NOT get the nomination.

sw

[Grateful for Hope]

31. It's more than waffling

she does not take an unambiguous stance on any of the important issues that matter to mainstream US. She is an expert at "double-speak".

I have not joined any of the "let's bash the candidates" threads because I am not happy with most of our candidates, and the one's I am a little happier with do not show any signs of being able to even make the primary nom.

But, personally, I am a victim of the Clinton administration's passing of NAFTA. I am a tech person, and, contrary to what is widely believed, the mass H1B import of workers (particulary from India) began at least prior to 1998.

Back in 1998, I was a consultant working for a very reputable consulting firm, and, this firm threw a holiday party in December, 1998. I attended, and what I saw really alarmed me. I went to the "festivities" with a male co-worker. Once we were there, we saw we were the only Americans there, aside from the consulting firm's administrative staff. Out of a room of at least 100 consultants, we were two out of approxmately 100 contractors.

At that time, I didn't know that this was a dire set of circumstances for tech people. I now know that it was as I have been looking for a job for a very long time after being laid off from a job that I held for about 8 years. You guessed it: my former position is now in the hands of a firm that employs, again, you guessed it, Indian contractors.

On a positive note, I do currently have a wonderful short-term contract. Blessed Be.

Clinton was responsible fo the passing of NAFTA. And, because of this, I will never, ever, vote for his wife.

[babylonsister]

40. Thanks for your post, Hope! nt

[AlertLurker]

34. Canapes, then cookies, then waffles...

"she's a waffling woman???"

:crazy:

WTF is the nomination for, anyway, Cordon Bleu?

I don't particularly like HRC, but this stuff is just geting boring.

Made me hungry, tho.

[snowbear]

46. Me too...

I made sweet potato waffles w/the leftover sweet potatoes from Turkey Day.. they were awesome!

Don't care for HRC as a presidential candidate, but think she's doing fine right where she is (in the senate).

[calteacherguy]

35. .

[L0oniX]

38. IMO our candidate should be so far above the repukes candidate or he/she isn't good enough for us.

Average polls are comparing our top choice to Ghoulinany and I say if it's clear that our candidate isn't way ahead of him or their top choice then we need someone else. I don't want to see a close race for the presidency. We don't need someone with a lot of baggage or a flip flopper or someone who is indecisive.

Kucinich speaks for me.

[Seabiscuit]

39. So now is Bill going to whine publicly about all those "girls" beating up on Hilliepoo?

No, it's ok to call grown men "boys" but not grown women "girls".

[GreenTea]

44. She is the ALL time waffler! Which ever way the wind blows......