Skip to content

Hillary Clinton for VP?

May 28, 2010

I’ll be honest, I’d love it and it would be a winning ticket in 2012 at a time when Obama will need all the help he can get. I agree with those that just don’t see Joe Biden as a strong Democratic heir apparent. I really respect Biden, but I think his time has come and gone and of course he’s run for POTUS several times and never gotten very far. Hillary Clinton, were she to be VP if Biden stepped down prior to 2012, would be a logical candidate for the Democrats. Of course, as I have said many times, I would totally respect any decision she made, whether it was to continue on as SOS, be on the ticket as VP, teach or do philanthropic work or retire and play with her [eventual] grandkids.

My problem with this article from the CNN blog is that it is based on something Ben Smith wrote. Yeah, that Ben Smith. The Ben Smith who originally (well, after Dick Morris that is) started the “Secretary Clinton in the Shadows” meme which resulted in months-worth of silly articles (for example, Tina Brown’s burqa article) which claimed Secretary Clinton had no power in this administration. And how did that work out? False. Then the other day Ben Smith co-wrote an article which had Secretary Clinton as a possible replacement for Defense Secretary Gates. Now he’s floating VP. Again, as much as I’d love it to be true, I long ago concluded that when it comes to Secretary Clinton, Ben Smith just likes to make waves and generate buzz- for himself:

eading tea leaves is not science. And what I’m about to discuss is an epic tea-leaf read. But it could make for an interesting strategy for 2012. Suspend a little disbelief and read on.

Here’s the background. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton hasn’t spoken much on domestic policy since she took the foreign affairs gig. For someone so vocal during the campaign, it’s been clear she’s purposely sticking to her charter and staying out of domestic affairs.

Yesterday, according to Ben Smith at, Hillary spoke to the Brookings Institution on national security strategy. That’s exactly what you’d expect from SecState.

But then she took an interesting foray into domestic affairs by saying, “The rich are not paying their fair share in any nation that is facing the kind of employment issues…”

The comment itself is what got Politico’s attention, but her rare move into domestic policy is what caught mine. Although Mrs. Clinton prefaced her statement by saying it was her personal opinion, that made it even more interesting.

Why would she say such a thing when she’s been so disciplined about her messaging? Especially with China and Korea heating up, the Middle East still simmering, and all sorts of other threats and risks across the world – why would she move to the topic of wealth disparity?

Well, here’s one idea. What if she’s getting ready to go back on the domestic stage? How could it possibly make sense for her or for President Obama?


The rest of the article is available at the link above.

35 Comments leave one →
  1. rachel permalink
    May 28, 2010 2:50 pm

    It won’t happen if her hubby doesn’t quite sticking his neck out for this administration. They are really letting him blow in the wind today. I would like to see her as vp, but not sure she wants it.

  2. discourseincsharpminor permalink
    May 28, 2010 3:00 pm

    I take issue with anyone who suggests that the majority of women will vote for ticket containing Sarah Palin because she too has ovaries regardless of how they feel about her opinions. I’d love to see a woman as president as much as the next girl, but not just any woman. This guy was right about one thing Bill does liven up elections.

    While I do think the political powers that be are gearing up for 2012, we still have a ways to go and anything can happen. As for looking for someone to carry the torch in 2016, let’s not be hasty. Barack Obama himself was a young political nobody six years before his election and we see how much has changed for him in that time. I trust political prognosticating about as much as I do a 21 day weather forecast… in winter… in the northeast.

    • Carolyn-Rodham permalink
      May 28, 2010 3:36 pm

      I was similarly irked by the suggestion that women vote for women regardless of the particular woman’s political views, qualifications, experience, etc. ESPECIALLY since there are a whole bunch of women out there who react in a viscerally negative way to Hillary and would vote for ABH (anybody but Hillary) precisely because — my analysis — she is a powerful woman and that is threatening.

      As for your second paragraph, all I can say is that if Hillary wants to run in 2012, and the party DOESN’T throw it’s enthusiastic support behind her THIS time (as opposed to the pseudo support leading up to 2008 when the likes of Ted Kennedy and even Charles Schumer supported her publically while encouraging Barack to run behind the scenes) then we’ll know for damn sure that sexism is truly alive and well.

    • theprosecutrix permalink
      May 29, 2010 5:51 pm

      Agreed on both points.

      I voted for Hillary because I agreed with ideologically, I thought she had the experience and courage to made a great president, AND I wanted a female president. Do writers like Smith and the CNN guy really think women are so stupid that gender is the only motivating factor when one casts a ballot? If so, we still have a long way to go before females will ever be viewed as equals in this society.

      I wouldn’t mind seeing her as VP, with the possibility of another presidential run in 2016, but it’s way to early to predict what will happen. Whatever Hillary does choose to do, I wish her luck and happiness.

  3. Safia permalink
    May 28, 2010 4:25 pm

    Secretary Clinton makes many speeches every week. Out of all those speeches, she makes one comment about the US tax rates for the wealthy, and she must be seeking a VP or President role?

    This article tells me much more about the author’s attitudes toward Secretary Clinton, Palin, and women, than it tells me about Secretary Clinton’s future. And did he really call Sarah Palin “momma grizzly”?

  4. Jackie permalink
    May 28, 2010 4:59 pm

    I love Hillary. I would vote for her in a heartbeat, but you can’t take anything Ben Smith says seriously.

  5. jillforhill permalink
    May 28, 2010 8:08 pm

    Bill did nothing wrong. He would not hurt Hillary like that.

    • discourseincsharpminor permalink
      May 28, 2010 8:42 pm

      I don’t see how his helping the administration could be hurting Hillary. If Bill refused to make the offer, what would the consequences have been for him or for his wife?

      • jillforhill permalink
        May 28, 2010 10:07 pm

        I agree 100% with you. I don’t even want to know what would happen if Bill said no.

        But the republicans have started tonight asking was Hillary involved. On Hannity’s show tonight a republican lawyer tried to tie Hillary into this by the reasoning that Hillary is married to Bill,Bill is a former president,Rahm worked for Bill,Rahm is friends with Hillary,Rahm and Hillary both work for Obama, Rahm told Bill to help Obama,and Hillary is SOS for Obama. While he was talking that jibberish, Hannity and the other guest were agreeing with him. The republicans are going to try drag Hillary into this by any means necessary. Bill needs to say something and stop this before the republicans go even more nuts.

      • May 28, 2010 10:20 pm

        It is just getting better now,because the guest host for Greta is now asking how is Hillary involved and how she will deal with this mess. I really hate faux noise and their so called reporters.

      • discourseincsharpminor permalink
        May 29, 2010 12:39 am

        How will she deal with this mess. It’s not her mess! Her boss, her boss’s wing man, and her husband made the mess. They’re grown ups. They can clean it up.

        If the administration were going to try to make the Clintons their sacrificial lambs, they would be underestimating them, in my opinion. The only way I could possibly fathom her as a primary challenger for 2012 would be if she had an issue with the administration so contentious and so close to her heart that she felt compelled to resign on principle. Bill seems pretty close to her heart. Obama isn’t stupid enough not to see that if I’ve put it together. He wouldn’t give the only plausible challenger to his nomination that kind of opportunity. He won’t let her come out and fix everything. It only makes her look more capable. They’re hoping the story disappears and, if it doesn’t, he’s going to have to sort it out for himself.

      • rachel permalink
        May 29, 2010 1:25 am

        I really think bill should have said no. Bill an’t no errand boy and shouldnt be doing raham or Obama’s bidding. I knew they would tray to drag Hillary into this. Raham’s out of the country and Obama won’t speak on it. All day they have had just sestak’s and bill’s pictures on blast. It’s sickening all the rotten eggs from the 90’s are back in force newt, and rush(had a blast with this). Makes me wonder if just for the heck of it they will have ken starr go at him just for old times sakes.

  6. Vcal permalink
    May 28, 2010 8:14 pm

    I’d rather choose Hillary-Evan or at least Hillary-Obama, she’s proven what we knew forever that she’s smarter than BO and ready from day 1.He’s not capable to lead this country; but I’ll be w/her on whatever she chooses.I trust her judgment!

    • May 29, 2010 6:42 am

      I will never vote for Evan Bayh. He doesn’t stand for anything. He should switch parties and call it a day. He’s anti gay rights, against any spending unless it’s for the military, protects Wall St. and the oil companies and was nothing but an obstacle during the health reform debate. The Blue Dogs are just obstructionists. And whenever I look at Bayh I think he looks like he could be John Edwards’ brother. Why does every male politician in their 50’s have that same silly haircut from 1975?

      I know Hillary fans just *love* Evan but politically, I think he’s about as exciting [and principled] as a cardboard box.

      • marion permalink
        August 8, 2010 1:53 am

        Evan Bayh is definitely NOT anything you make him out to be.

        Plus … you know he and Hillary voted the same way on a lot of issues when she was in the Senate, right?

  7. May 28, 2010 8:37 pm

    I would have no problem with that whatsoever for a myriad of reasons. She could get off this carousel of global travel. She WOULD remain in the spotlight, because she is so dedicated to social networking. She would make this position very high profile, after it was bunkered under Cheney and gagged under Joe (since they can’t trust his mouth).

    As for the origins, Ben Smith – and Dick Morris also floated this on FOX evidently, who cares where the idea came from? I would go for this in a NY minute! She works so hard. She is so creative. She would make this a whole new, revolutionized 21st century position.

    I vote “YES!”

    • May 28, 2010 8:38 pm

      Replying to self,but really to Stacy – maybe this should be a poll!

    • Tovah permalink
      May 29, 2010 6:30 am

      It matters who it came from if the person is just talking out their back side. When had Ben Smith been right about anything with the Secretary thus far? He says said she had no power, then he said she might be a Supreme Court Justice then as Stacy wrote about the other day he said she might want to be Sec of defense. Now he’s saying VP. How about dog catcher? The guy is just trying to generate headlines.

  8. Terry permalink
    May 29, 2010 12:24 am

    I’m so unhappy with Obama again in his cold handling of the BP mess that I really can’t wish she would tie herself to this sort of a scenario. Who knows he may be a one-term president. Everyone knows she is a terrific campaigner and she has always done what is best for the Democratic Party. Polls have shown she has high esteem among many republicans and would be great for the ticket. Joe as loveable as he is just doesn’t have the Clinton magic. By 2012 there might be many changes in the White House most notably Rahm running for mayor of Chicago.

  9. May 29, 2010 6:37 am

    I like Sestak but for the life of me I don’t know what he was thinking when he started talking about this and then all of a sudden became coy and wouldn’t reveal facts- what was he thinking? He had real momentum after the primary now *he”s* the one who is starting to look bad for how he has handled this.

    Of course, the republithugs have asked the FBI to look into it- they wouldn’t investigate torture, illegal wiretapping or the lies about Saddam’s WMDs but they want to investigate this? Real patriots, those guys.

    Bill will be fine, it looks like he did nothing illegal at all, the GOP just wants an opportunity to bash the Clintons because they didn’t learn in the 90’s that through the whole stupid impeachment Clinton had sky high approval ratings and they looked like damn fools.

    The interesting thing is it apparently was a real crappy deal, no wonder Sestak didn’t take it. Maybe Sestak wanted to get back at Obama for not supporting him but that doesn’t even make sense because now that he’s in the general, he and Obama sort of need each other.

    As for pulling Hillary into it- nothing to see here, move along.

    Honestly, please don’t tell me people watch Faux News? GOP TV? And no, I don’t think they were pro-Hillary in the primaries but rather they were trying to split the democrats in order to help the GOP. Honestly, look at how Faux acted during the Clinton years. And they have DICK MORRIS on the payroll? That tells me all I need to know about their loyalties.

    • jillforhill permalink
      May 29, 2010 10:40 am

      I know faux hates the Clintons. I was changing channels and this came up on Hannity who still talks about Bill’s impeachment even when it has nothing to do with what he talks about. Hannity is a vile creep especially when it comes to the Clintons and cannot get over that fact that people respect Bill and Hillary. The GOP gets their talking points from faux and freerepublic.

      The other jackass is Issa who brought California Schwagnner(sp) is saying this is like Nixon or what he started saying last night it may be more like “Travelgate” and I quote Issa “This is like when Hillary lied and said she did nothing wrong on Travelgate,but the FBI found out she was lying”. Even Lamar Smith brought up that example on Greta.

      Bill and the Whitehouse did nothing wrong,it was politics as usual and nothing more. But now that faux has given the GOP their talking points they will stay on this until the next fake scandal pops up. Bill Clinton is just icing on the cake for them. That is why Bill needs to nip this in the bud as soon as possible.

    • PYW permalink
      May 29, 2010 4:22 pm

      I’m with stacy. Fox is never worth watching, period.

  10. Moshe Aaron permalink
    May 29, 2010 8:05 am

    I’d like to personally thank the good people of the U.S. for giving Israel even more free goodies on top of the 3 billion you just gave us!:

    The Israeli economy is booming and you give us billions of your taxpayer dollars a year while your own people cant find work. Not only that, your Secretary of State lets USAID build our segregated road system and apartheid walls to keep those dirty Arabs off their own land. Thank you! She’s a real humanitarian! I guess Palestinian women don’t count when she talks about women’s rights being human rights?

    Now it looks as though the neocons have successfully prevented a diplomatic solution to the Iran problem as your hawkish Secretary of State, who never really wanted to reach a deal with Iran anyway, she’d rather wipe them off the map, has refused to even consider the Turkey-Brazil deal. Perhaps when you wage war on our behalf, again, your Secretary of State and all the members of Congress will offer up their children to fight in this war? After all, that’s what we do here in Israel- everyone gets to play at war here. Oh, but I bet they have other plans, don’t they? Let the serfs fight the neocon wars, right? Joe Lieberman’s children will be headed off to the ivy halls of Harvard, Princeton or Yale and Secretary Clinton has a wedding to attend! Is her new son and military veteran? No, of course not. He’s a veteran of Goldman Sachs. Perhaps if he the rich in your country had to also fight, they’d be less inclined to carry Israel’s water year after year after year? But don’t get me wrong, we love it- more money for us because of YOUR collective guilt over the treatment of us Jews. So gullible.

    Thank you again for your largess, American taxpayers! How does it feel to be owned by a nation the size or Rhode Island who gives you nothing in return but spit in your eye and allegations that your President loves terrorists? Long live AIPAC!

    Netanyahu wins again!

    • May 29, 2010 10:14 am

      Aaron..I agree with your comment except for one thing you got incorrect. Secretary Clintons new son-in-law to be was in the military. He happened to be a veteran of the marine corps and served overseas. There are so many people who blame her for everything and half of the stuff is not true. Don’t forget she is not the president…he makes the decisions.

      • Moshe Aaron permalink
        May 29, 2010 10:31 am

        tk- really, got a link for that assertion that he served as a Marine? Given his age and the fact that immediately after graduating from Standford, he want to work for an investment firm, exactly when did he find time to “serve overseas” as a Marine? I did a google search and I don’t see one single reference to anything other than his 3 million dollar condo, his Standford education, his greedy felon father and his immediate entry into the world of finance at age 22.

    • jillforhill permalink
      May 29, 2010 11:03 am

      You don’t like it like it than you should not have voted for Bibi. If you want to blame someone look at yourself. When the Obama adminstration stood up to Bibi,people in Israel started to say Obama hates Jews and burning his picture. We are not only protecting Israel,but our military who are over there and they are in just as much danger as anyone else according to Petreus. Maybe you should help get Bib thrown out instead of complaining to us,becasue Bibi is the one doing this. Bill showed the world who Bibi really was when he was president,but you still voted for Bibi. Hillary stands up to Bibi and she gets yelled at that she is anti-Jewish, yet her son-in-law is Jewish.

      Maybe you should take care of your own politcs in Israel and we will take care of our own.

      • Moshe Aaron permalink
        May 29, 2010 11:27 am

        I would never vote for anyone in Likud and Kadima, sadly, isn’t much better.

        As for taking care of my own politics in Israel- umm, duh, that’s my point- you don’t take care of your own, instead, you insist on pandering to us and throwing money at Israel to entrench the occupation even though it serves neither US or Israeli interests in the long run. All it does is serve to fill the coffers of Jewish members of Congress, not to mention your narrow-minded media. Haim Saban wants to buy Newsweek so he can make it more pro-Israel. How much more “pro-Israel” can you get?

        And for your information, much of the angst directed at your POTUS came directly from the Jewish community in the U.S. You can’t blame this all on us or Likud. Did you see Charles Schumer and Anthony Weiner’s bratty responses to the moderate chastisement of Netanyahu? Schumer claims his role in the Senate is to be the protector of Israel and Weiner claims that he will go to any length to “protect” Israel. What other group in the US could make such arrogant, disloyal statements and get away with it? Chinese Americans? No. Muslim Americans? No. German Americans? No.

        Take a look at Haaretz and the Israeli press sometime- we have much more of an open debate in our country than you do in the U.S. Your media does nothing but bend over and grab its ankles when it comes to Israel. You talk about the Palestinians as if they are inhuman, when you talk about them at all, which is close to never. If you Americans even knew 1/5 of the racist, anti-Arab laws our Knesset has passed you would (or at least should be) outraged. We have become an apartheid state while the US sits by and plays babysitter for us at the UN. Only Israel can use chemical weapons against a group of people under its protection and who were not allowed to run away to safety and what does your Secretary of State do? She covers it up. 243 children killed in a matter of weeks and Hillary Clinton goes to AIPAC and bemoans the Israeli children she has seen with schrapnel in their leg. Has she ever even talked to a Palestinian child, let alone one who has been tortured, gassed or mutilated by the IDF. Somehow I doubt it. Oh, I know, Hillary has no power, it is all Obama’s fault. Is that why she and Secretary Gates are known to be pushing the President ever rightward to a more hawkish stance on all things.

        Here’s a question. What would it take for the U.S. to stand up against Israel? What would it take for the traitors Schumer, Lieberman and Weiner to denounce ANYTHING Israel does? If we nuked Iran tomorrow and kill millions of women and children I can bet you anything you’d wager that those apologists would claim Iran deserved it. Would Hillary Clinton denounce it? Maybe if she were forced to, but as she made clear as Senator of NY- she will allow ANYTHING in the defense of her patron, Israel.

        All I am asking is that you THINK for yourself. Stop making excuses and believing that your government is above all reproach, we certainly don’t feel that way about our government in Israel. And stop making excuses for Secretary Clinton’s pitiful lack of action on behalf of human rights in the Occupied Territories- she is a key player in the administration and the fact is, from the time she left the White House she has been nothing but a tool of right wing Israeli interests. Never once has she stood up for the Palestinians. Every step of the way she pandered to the most hawkish and extreme elements of the U.S. Jewish community- she even stood up against a two state solution while Senator. But now we are supposed to believe she will be an honest broker with the Palestinians? Have you noticed how passionate she is when talking about punishing Iran? Ever hear her talk with that much passion about Palestinian rights? No, don’t bother looking. She hasn’t.

  11. jillforhill permalink
    May 29, 2010 11:57 am


    They were burning obama’s picture in Israel. Hillary was close with Afarat’s wife and hillary got so much shit for that, it was used against her.
    Hell yeah hillary can be hawkish,because if she is not and something happens to us and Israel or the U.S. she will get the blame. Because if you think obama will ever take resppnsibilty you are nuts. Obama would be the first one to blame Hillary and he has sone it before. Hillary and Gates give obama their opinion on what should happen, he makes the final decision and what gets done. Why are you not going after obama,he never talks about palestine children either. Hillary stood up to Bibi then obama and gibbs threw her under the bus and tried to walk back what she said. Then that is when hillary had a meeting with obama and after that he took her hard stance against bibi. You do not seem to hold obama accountable for his,but obot supporters never do that.

    Bill and hillary were always for a two state solution. That is why bill had bibi and afarat over at the end of his presidency. Where did you get your facts from an obot site that pulls them out of their ass.
    Hillary is held responsible for her mistakes and has paid for them,but now as SOS if she makes mistakes we all pay for them and is she has to be hawkish to avoid that,then so be it.

    When has obama ever been held responsoible for anything? He has not been held responsible for the oil disaster and instead of taking responsible for the sestak mess he blames bill. Hillary should be held responsible for foreign policy because she carries it out. But obama is the one in charge and he tells hillary what top do.

    Will you obots ever hold him responsible or will it always be the clinton’s fault?

    • Moshe Aaron permalink
      May 29, 2010 12:17 pm

      Oh please, that’s the best you can do? Going all the way back to when she hugged Arafat’s wife? Yes, she got a lot of heat from that. So what? So then she runs for Senate and publicly declares Jerusalem should never be divided and is solely for the Jews? Interesting.

      And what is an Obot? An Obama Robot? Sorry, English is not my first language. I’m not American, I don’t have much faith in Obama although I did have high hopes for him initially and I would like him to do well and I wish the same for the SOS. But why call me an Obot? I disagree with his foreign policy but I also disagree with hers. Are you a mindless Hillbot? Lol. Maybe this bot name calling is an American political thing and I just don’t understand. That’s ok, we do weird stuff in political debates in Israel too.

      You are more than willing to give the SOS credit for everything you think is wonderful, but yet when things don’t go well, you claim nothing is her fault, then she has no control and it’s suddenly Obama’s doing. If Obama is indeed in control of everything she does then perhaps when she does something you like or approve of, you should give Obama credit for it, since as you say, he is ultimately responsible for everything? No, never mind, that would take objectivity and intellectual honesty. At the end of the day, you simply don’t tolerate any difference of opinion so I am not sure how that makes you any better than the so-called Obots.

  12. jillforhill permalink
    May 29, 2010 12:00 pm

    Sorry for the spelling errors.

  13. May 29, 2010 12:59 pm

    My Goodness, how did we get from wacky Ben Smith’s prognostications to Israel? I see that Jill is holding her own here. 😉

    Sorry Moshe, while I agree that the “special relationship” has become, well, a bit co-dependent and taxing for all involved, it’s a bit much to blame it all on the SOS. Obama raised expectations through the roof in Cairo and has failed to deliver. And as you inferred until the US Congress and think tanks like WINEP, CFR and groups like AIPAC, etc. release their stranglehold on U.S. foreign policy, there’s not much any POTUS can do, unless of course he or she wants to be labeled an enemy of Israel, as Obama has been.

    I read a great story about how Pres. Bill Clinton met Bibi for the first time in the Oval Office and after Bibi walked out Clinton turned to his advisers and said “who the fuck does he think he is, who’s the super power here?” or something along those lines. As far as I’m concerned, that pretty much describes the problem every POTUS and SOS faces (except team Bush II), not to mention the terms of the special relationship. Of course, the irony is that WE created the problem, now we don’t quite know how to fix it. In other words, the chickens have come home to roost.

    Oh, and one more thing I heard- while Bill Clinton initially was willing to give Arafat the benefit of the doubt by the end of negotiations at Camp David he had had enough and blamed Arafat for the peace talks falling through- it may well be the case that it was due to Arafat, who was a total corrupt fraud, but I’m not sure that the Clintons have any real political or emotional relationship with the Palestinian people. In fact, I think that’s a big problem with this issue, not just r/t the Clintons but to any US administration- we simply don’t consider the Palestinians as equals in any way- they are not empowered in Israel, they have no pull in U.S. domestic politics and our politicians make no effort to understand them as *people*- when was the last time you heard of someone of Palestinian descent being a top adviser (or any adviser) in the WH or State Dept. On the other hand, their are legions of people who are very deeply involved in the Israel side of things, even having dual citizenship. Don’t get me wrong, I am not going to make the reprehensible “dual loyalty” charge (that does almost border on anti-Semitism). There is nothing wrong with being emotionally, socially, religiously and politically tied to Israel. In fact, it can be a good thing, given history. But unless we make an effort to be more objective we are never going to have the trust of the Arab world, let alone the Palestinians.

  14. jillforhill permalink
    May 29, 2010 1:23 pm

    Get over yourself.

    Obama always gets credit for anything that goes good. He is a president and that is a perk of being president. He unlike the last democratic president never takes the blame for anything that goes wrong. Obama does TELL hillary what to do but hillary actually WORKS for it and gets it DONE.

    Everything is always hill and bill’s fault.9/11 gets blamed for it when bush was the one who did not read the memo. Hillary gets balmed for nafta,glass-stegall,dadt,doma,vince foster’s death,bill’s cheating.

    Hillary has took responsibilty for her iraq vote,not putting more pressure on bush,bosina lie,etc. Name one thing obama took responsibilty for?

    You say yopu are not an obot,I disagree. You did not metion obama until called you out and then you blamed hillary for obama’s decisions. Hillary has always been for a two state solution. Was she more pro-israel when she was in the senate? Yes she was because that is what the people she worked for wanted. What you are implying she has said about palestine is bullshit. She has defended women and children eveywhere, so QUIT LYING and MAKING STUFF UP.

    Once again, when has obama ever been held accpuntable?

    Don’t talk about honesty when you have not been honest about hillary in anything you have posted.

    Like I tell obots you are entitled to your opinion about hillary,but you ar not entitled to make up your own facts about her.

  15. jillforhill permalink
    May 29, 2010 1:33 pm


    I agree bill never liked bibi and bibi know that,so he tries to mess with hillary but she handles herself well.
    Hill and bill may not have a special relationship with the palestine people like with israel. But for this poster to claim that hillary condones the killing of palestine women and children is bullshit in everyway.

  16. Steve permalink
    May 29, 2010 1:53 pm

    Moshe, I agree with some of what you say about Israel’s treatment of the Palestinians and the U.S.’ self-defeating support of things which will hurt Israel in the long run, but Jill is right- you can’t just lay the blame at the feet of Secy Clinton, especially on this blog. Everyone here is open to differing opinions and probably no one more so than Stacy, which is a rarity in the blogosphere, but your claims that Hillary doesn’t care about the Palestinian people is just not supported in fact.

    As everyone here knows, I have been critical of Obama and also at times, a little bit critical of Secretary Clinton, but I know a Clinton-basher when I see (hear) one.

    As a Jewish New Yorker with Israeli citizenship, I was bothered by Hillary’s very rightwing support of the worst of Israel’s policies as Senator but as Stacy rightly points out, unless other members of Congress and members of the Jewish community are willing to speak out against some of Israel’s more self-defeating and even immoral policies re: the occupation, then why should she be the only one to fall on her sword? These politicians, including Obama, need some political cover but they aren’t getting ANY. She’d never have been able to become Senator of NY if she went around criticizing Israel. What that says about the Jewish community in NY, I don’t know, but I fear nothing good.

  17. Steve permalink
    May 29, 2010 3:19 pm

    Man, Bill Clinton is ripping into progressives in Arkansas. I hate seeing him do this! He’s claiming liberals are trying to terrorize members of Congress who don’t “tow the party line”- what the heck is he talking about? Since when has the “party line” of the dems been about progressive issues? I love Bill Clinton, but I HATE this triangulating bullshit!

    I WISH the dems would “tow the party line” and reign in Wall Street and stick up for the middle class but sadly, the dems helped create the global financial crisis and now LIBERALS are trying to fix it with real reform.

    Ok, rant over. I just hate seeing Bill beat up on liberals just to save Blanche Lincoln, who quite frankly, is paying the price for protecting Wall Street and big oil.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: