Subject: another Hillary
I do not understand your backing of Hillary Clinton.
You're normally semi-smart.
For the record, I'm going with the Democratic
nominee, whoever that is.
Hillary's lead seems to be holding, so the smart
money is on her - for now.
I hadn't visited your site in a while, and now
I find this.
There are too many reasons not to support her:
Damn, I love it when they use numbers!!!
1) As the recent polls showed, there are people
who hate her, and will always hate her.
She will never get the cross-over votes.
She will never get the independent votes of people
who have already made up their minds about her.
She is not a winnable candidate in this aspect.
It is bad strategy (something the dems seem to
excel at...having bad strategy).
So, you can predict the future?
Did you also say she couldn't win in New York?
They called her everything from a carpet-bagger
to a carpet-muncher - and she won.
She's got the women, the blacks, the Latinos
and a 15-point lead on Obama.
Oh, and she fights like a wounded grizzly.
Where's the "can't win" part?
After Bush, you think voters are going to trust
2) You talk with much vitriol about Lieberman.
Why, then, do you support his good friend Clinton.
She is another DLC insider, and most REAL democrats
are tuned in enough to know that DLC insiders
a) do not have their best interests at heart
b) support candidates who (like Gore and Kerry
and most likely Hillary)
will roll over when the election is stolen from
them yet again.
You say Hillary is a bandleader, I say she's not.
BTW, all that DLC talk makes me think you're
voting for Nader.
Geez - you talk about a "can't win" candidate...
3) The Media Marketing Accountability Act.
Hillary took over sponsorship of this bill from her
good friends McCain and Lieberman, which basically
wants to destroy all independent music, films,
and other media; the only true sources for dissenting
voices in this country.
I don't believe you.
4) Clinton's slamming of war protesters after
meeting with Cindy Sheehan.
A few more:
I don't believe you.
5) Clinton introduced the Flag Protection Act
of 2005 proposing a punishment of one year in jail
and a fine of $100,000. Way to protect
waste congressional time and violate civil liberties, Hill.
She did that to fool the stupidest Republicans.
Dittoes for the videogame accountability nonsense.
6) Senator Clinton voted for and still supports
President Bush's No Child Left Behind Act.
I don't know about that.
7) Clinton supports the death penalty (though,
most other candidates do as well).
That's how you get elected in America.
(8) I don't really have to mention her voting
record showing complete support of Bush's war
you've addressed this in other letters.
Yes, Bart, people are able to "change their minds"...but c'mon...)
You might throttle back on "complete support"
for Bush's quagmire.
Tell me - did you hold Kerry accountable for
that same vote in 2004?
No, you didn't - so why hold Hillary to a higher
standard four years later?
If you can seriously address those points, then
maybe you could sway me.
I doubt you can be swayed, which is OK. But don't
act like an impartial juror
who wants to weigh all the evidence before reaching
a conclusion. I'm pretty sure
your mind was made up before you drew up this
litany of complaints about Her.
But, as it currently stands,
I am among those who can not,
in any way, be able to see myself
as voting for someone like
Good thing we don't charge by the word.
BTW, Karl Rove thanks you for helping the Republicans.
If you want to support a corporate tool in the
primaries, don't whine and cry and be surprised
when many of the real left base don't show up
for the national election.
If you help a Republican get elected, don't whine
to me about the next 4-8 years.
If you're one of those "She's
Cheney's clone" weirdos, you can't be
I don't know enough about Obama to support him,
but I know enough NOT to support Hillary.
Nobody asked you to.
If you vote for anybody besides the Democrat,
you're helping the Fascist Bush bastards.
With Obama, people talk about his lack of experience.
I prefer his lack of experience to an insider
When Ahmahandjob gets his nukes, when Lil Kim
nuclear missle towards Japan, you want a newbie
When Al Qaeda strikes Los Angeles, you want a
who's doing his best to learn the ropes as fast
as he can?
You hate experience that much?
When you have a car wreck and glass is imbedded
your eyes, do you want a new intern
to operate on you or do you want an eye surgeon
with loads of experience?
And don't go using Bush as a defense.
Yes, he was inexperienced as well, but his "team"
were all long-time insiders.
The argument doesn't hold with nepotism candidates
(yes, I apply this to Hillary as well).
Bush is too stupid and too stubborn to learn.
Obama seems very, very smart.
I think he'll be a great president, someday.
Back to bartcop.com