Hillary Breaks Hilzoy.

[elfs]

Hilzoy is shrill:

Obsidian Wings: Crossing The Threshold: However, let's assume, for the sake of argument, that Hillary Rodham Clinton actually believes that Barack Obama cannot "cross the commander-in-chief threshold." One of the most important jobs a President has is to defend the country. If she thinks that Barack Obama is not qualified to do that job, then she should not support him over anyone who can. Specifically, she should support McCain over Obama.

That's why I think some enterprising reporter should ask her whether she would support Barack Obama if he were nominated. If she would, then she should be asked why she would be willing to support someone she does not believe is qualified to be commander in chief.

Whatever her answer, it would tell us something we need to know: either that her doubts about Obama are so serious that she would not be willing to support the nominee of her own party, or that she would support someone she thinks is unfit to serve, or that she does not believe a word she said about Obama, and is willing to impugn a fellow Democrat's fitness to serve as President because her own interests matter more to her than her party's or the nation's.

Comments

[heofmanynames.livejournal.com]

But we already Know those things about Hillary. Calling her "a monster" might be impolitic & over-the-top, but it's clear to anyone who's actually been watching her dispassionately these last 16 years that she WILL DO and/or SAY *ANYTHING* to be president.

All politicians lie, it seems, but none lie more blatantly, more transparently, or less self-consciously than Hillary. She seems possessed by the conviction that the White House belongs to her, and we should stop being mean & making her jump through hoops and just *give it to her*.

The only other player for the current election cycle who even comes close to her skilz in advanced pandering, fear-mongering & general bullshit has been Mitt Romney: same sense of entitlement & ownership, same casual relationship with fact, same brazen need to spin *everything*. I truly think BOTH of them would have given the Chimp-in-chief a run for his money in the worst-evar category.

In short, this is NOT Hillary's time - and I fervently hope Hillary's time never arrives

Based entirely on their contrasting approach & demeanor in the debates, I'll take Obama over McCain's Tweedle-dum AND Hillary's Tweedle-dee

I'd love to see a woman president, but I can't support "just any woman" as if "a woman" were automatically the best possible choice over all other candidates; and as bad the Bush II regime has been, I find it hard to believe that anyone who loves our country would vote for the Bush family's chief dynastic competitor. I cannot support another Clinton presidency any more than I could support another Bush presidency: the qualities of possible individual candidates being irrelevant to the secondary to my distrust of (and antipathy toward) the establishment of a hereditary ruling class. We are a free people, but we'll only stay that way if we insist on learning the hard lessons, learn to value the difficult choices, and refuse to make shallow, easy choices about who we let run this country for us . I'm much more likely to vote for Chelsea, 30 years from now.

Elf, you have a knack for getting me to write stuff I wish I'd put on my own blog - guess that's why you have traffic & I don't ;-)

[elfs.livejournal.com]

Well, take this and put it on your blog, then! Really! I often take the straight-up things I write here and cross-post them to my writing blog and pendorwright.com, or to a usenet newsgroup. They frequently sink with even less attention than they get here, but at least I try.

[heofmanynames.livejournal.com]

In fact, I did so (in rather expanded form), and I expect to do similar pieces on Obama & McCain shortly as well.

I meant no complaint about your blog (or mine), but rather appreciation of your topic choices, and the thoughtful and sensible observations you offer.

I agree we know the answer but ....

[norincraft.livejournal.com]

The answer is anybody who has watched politics for more than one four year cycle and has an IQ of room temperature, perhaps even in Centigrade, knows politicians say things to get elected.

Simple as that.

And you have to admit what was said is mild compared to the whispering campaign against Sen. McCain in 2000 or so. Same goes for Sen. Kerry in my opinion.

But the point is they're all in the big league and they can all take the punches. It's the flip side to politics. One day you hear a politician say "{title} across the aisle is statesman" and another time they slam them as being the most {fill in the blank}.

Personally I don't have a problem with Hillary or Barack; John for that matter. Any of the three can speak in full sentences; after the current Chimp-in-Chief, that is about all I am expecting any more. Everything else is just a bonus.

As long as people vote with their heads I am not too worried. None of us are as smart as all of us. What I fear is when people throw in too much emotion. Unfortunately that is WAY to common. Which helps explain the fear mongering you see

Either way, I am out of the country and can't caucus; certainly not in every state. So I'll get either choice A or B (as well as c,d and the write in campaign for Bobo the Clown etc). I'll make my best informed choice from the data I have.

And that's why I'm not going to get wrapped about the axel.