able to plan and calculate.
And yet, Hillary, a woman, is constantly trashed by neocons and sadly, by many here, for being ambitious and calculating.
Well, duh. Any politician with a few brain cells knows this: unless they get elected, nothing they believe in, nothing they want to accomplish is possible.
MORE on my OPINION.....
Why is ambitious, when attached to Hillary's name, a negative?
Do people really believe that ambition is bad? Do people really believe that if Hillary thought about being president years ago, that makes her evil, calculating?
So I guess when I have asked my students over the years what they hoped to be or accomplish when they were adults, I was promoting the inherently evil notion of ambition? Or was it only bad for the females in my class.
I have yet to hear the word ambitious used as a negative with any candidate except for Hillary! WHY?
If it was revealed that John, or Obama, or Chris, or Dennis, or Bill or Joe had said their goal was to become president of the United States when they were 12 or 20 or 40, would it be viewed as evil and calculating? I understand the neocons love to use the words ambitious and calculating when promoting Hillary Hate but I don't understand it when progressives do it.
And why is it wrong for a politician, any politician to calculate how to get the nomination. SHEESH, if these people don't believe passionately that they are the right person for the job, and do not understand that winning is the only way to get the change in government they believe is good for America, why the hell would anyone support them?
**Why do kos and Arianna Huffington channel Chris Matthews when it comes to Hillary?
I am particularly disappointed in Arianna giving print space to Gerth and Van Natta to spew Hillary Hate and Clinton trashing. I mean why does the guy who spewed the Whitewater lies get another platform to spew more lies?
I am truly disappointed at the progressive sites. Debate is great. This is debate:
I do not agree with HRC's stance on Iraq or NAFTA; I like Edwards stance on labor but wish he were more vocal about NCLB. I like Obama's stance on Iraq but am disappointed in his playing to the religious right.
This is NOT debate:
Hillary is a neocon. Edwards is too pretty. Obama used to be a muslim.
I understand politics is passionate and we all (including me) get passionate and push the envelope. I would like to save my angry passion for the general election.
For the record, my first choice in support is John Edwards. The reason: his stance on labor aligns with mine; his stance on healthcare aligns with mine; I wish he would be more vocal on education.
That said, I am totally sure of one thing. No matter what democratic candidate gets the nomination, I will support them, 100%. I cannot believe any true progressive or liberal would not do so because another four years of the republican, anti-democracy, authoritarian regime will be disaster.
Democracy is hard. Authoritarian regimes are easy.
Hillary, or John, or Obama or Bill or any of them will have to do battle because real democracy implies a constant fight for what is right. It is my belief that if these are not smart, strong, ambitious, intelligent people who can plan and calculate how to pass bills, how to get the support of the people, they will fail.
Done. Had to vent!!!