What is it about the Clintons?

If you had asked me a year ago if I'd like to have a third term of Bill Clinton, I'd have said yes in a heartbeat.  I defended his actions all throughout the 90's, even when there were times when I thought they were a bit sketchy.  Probably it was because his attackers were just SO loathsome.

But now that I'm supporting a Clinton opponent, I think I'm starting to understand some of what I've been dismissing as mere right-wing talking points for so long.

I want to say right off the bat here, that I don't want this to be a snarky "hate on Hillary" thread.  We get enough of those, with obnoxious one sentence comments that really say nothing of substance and just repeat old lines and use disgusting words like "Clintonistas" or "Hillbots" or "Billary" just to get a rise out of people.  I'm not interested in doing that.  

I'd like people to share their own stories and experiences of the journey from adamant Clinton supporter to disdain for things Clinton.  I'm sure that many of us have had similar experiences, because I imagine that most of us over age 35 voted for Bill Clinton at least once, if not twice, as I did.  I'm sure we defended him throughout his presidency as the GOP thugs took shot after shot at him.  

Did you have a moment when you realized something that made you turn away from Bill and Hillary?  When was that, and what was it?  Was it about policy or tactics?  

For me it was the realization that for the Clintons, it's more about "winning" in the short term than anything else.  I guess I admired that when Bill was keeping Republicans out of the White House in the midst of a massive rise in the radical right in Congress and seemingly all across the country.  Only later did I come to see his tactics as CONTRIBUTING to the rise of the right, and the only battle that we progressives won in those years was the actual battles for the White House that Bill himself won.  No coattails.  No policy wins.  Just a lot of losses in Congress, governorships, state legislatures, and progressive policy deaths to show for 8 years of "leadership".

This has really been driven home in the past two months in their battle against Barack Obama.  There is a single-mindedness at play there, a focus on winning the nomination that is SO SHARP that Hillary and her people can't seem to even see beyond that primary goal.  It's like a pit dog.  There seems to be little consideration of whether the tactics being employed to defeat Obama will in fact damage her chances against John McCain in the general election, much less whether they will permanently damage Obama if he in fact ends up being the Party's nominee.  There have been enough diaries dissecting the tactics themselves, I think we all know what I'm talking about.

But that's just my breakup story.  It's not like there weren't hints inthe past.  Hillary's craven vote for the Iraq War just to seem "macho" enough to be elected President someday.  The shallow protestations about the Dubai Ports deal just to score cheap political points (when even Bill and his pals thought the whole blowup was silly).  Other signs.  But now it's really over.  I for one WILL still hold my nose and vote for Hillary in November if I have to because I'm a lawyer and SCOTUS is too important to me, but I'm gonna feel like Roy Munson in Kingpin after he had to "negotiate" his rent with his landlord (link kind of gross, you've been warned).  

http://www.youtube.com/...

•  My last moment of tolerance of Hillary

  Was during the 2006 elections when she triangulated on torture.  I realized then that she would do anything, ANYTHING to avoid having arrows slung at her from the right, and NOTHING about her support on the left.

  This thing with McCain is just the latest bit of right-stepping accomodation that I have lost all tolerance for.

  by slippytoad on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 03:38:08 PM PDT

  •  mine was her AUMF vote

    specifically after she walked by us, some of us begging her not to sign on; after she avoided her office while it was being camped by NYU students; after she listened to Grahmn's "blood on your hands" speech and then... voted to send thousands of Americans and millions of Iraqi's to their graves.

    by Great Uncle Bulgaria on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 04:41:50 PM PDT

•  I lost respect for him/them when

  he began co-opting Republican legislation and reframing it as "new Democrat". Specifically, when he signed DADT and DOMA . As a teenage gay kid who had just "come out", it pissed me off so much that I registered Independent and stayed that way until this year, when I switched to Democrat so I could vote for Barack. I saw duplicity on an issue which was very very important to me , and then had that reinforced when I found out that Bill had advised Kerry to throw us under the bus in 2004 to neutralize the "gay issue" . I don't trust either Bill or Hillary . I don't believe a word they say anymore. That's my opinion.  

  by dantrotheplanetman on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 03:39:02 PM PDT

  •  I can't blame him for DOMA and DADT

    DOMA was a compromise and it ensured that nothing worst passed with the GOP in congress. As for DADT it was the best we could get at the time, gays were being thrown out of the military left and right and this stopped that. We can change it now but at the time it was needed.

    by SensibleDemocrat on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 03:46:17 PM PDT

    •  bull!

      that's a Hillary talking point and it's crap.
      There was no way even back then that the GOP could've actually gotten the Constitution changed . It was a compromise that neutralized the issue so he could move on to something else. And gee, so good that he signed DADT and gays and lesbians aren't being kicked out of the military anymore. ;) he was such a success!

      by dantrotheplanetman on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 03:56:22 PM PDT

      •  be in denial if you want

        but doesnt make it not true

        by SensibleDemocrat on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 04:04:58 PM PDT

        •  so ya think

          that little Newty Gingrich could've pushed through a 2/3 vote in both houses of Congress and then 3/4 of the state legislatures to change the Constitution to keep me from getting married? Really? And are you seriously arguing that DADT is some great policy that has kept gays from being discharged?! Really? Huh.
          Now who was in "denial" again?

          by dantrotheplanetman on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 04:12:01 PM PDT

          •  I am saying DADT was needed at the time

            But now we can change it, and DOMA helped nutralize the anti-gay feelings in the GOP by doing somthing for them, should we overturn it now? Absolutly I'm all for gay marriage.

            by SensibleDemocrat on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 04:18:24 PM PDT

            •  DOMA helped ... do what! to the anti-gay GOP?!

              do what!?
              geez ! you ever heard the one about this river in Egypt? (I'm glad you're in favor of equality.)

              by dantrotheplanetman on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 04:20:48 PM PDT

    •  More gays were thrown out of the

      military after DADT --  DOMA is disgusting. Clinton never made the case for anything  -- he appropriated GOP initiatives and together they closed the deal.  

      Maybe if Clinton hadn't been so incompetent during his first two years, the DEM might not have lost the House.  And it was Clinton that lost it; TV ads against targeted incumbent DEMs were aired with their faces morphing into Clinton's face.  Very effective.

      by Marie on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 04:01:52 PM PDT

      •  it had nothing to do with clinton

        it was because of the gun control measues we passed for the most part

        by SensibleDemocrat on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 04:04:40 PM PDT

        •  Elections are multivariate --therefore,

          it's plain silly for anyone to argue that any single X caused Y.  It was many X's that reduced Clinton's standing with voters enough by '94 that his face paired with that of an incumbent DEM was enough to take take a whole bunch of DEMs.

          by Marie on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 04:25:22 PM PDT

          •  not only that, Perot was eating away

            at the republican/independent base by 4-12% percentage points -- in 1996, Clinton owes Perot for Flordia and Michigan.  Without Perot in the picture, Dole would have taken the presidency.

            by Great Uncle Bulgaria on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 04:38:04 PM PDT

            •  he doesnt owe perot anything not even ion 1992

              http://www.dailyhowler.com/...

              by SensibleDemocrat on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 04:47:00 PM PDT

            •  Bill probably owes Ross BOTH elections

              He never broke 50%, and had a whopping 43% of the popular vote in 1992.

              Hell, even Bill could never manage 50+1, and nobody had any reason to hate him before he came on the national scene.

              by punkdavid on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 04:48:00 PM PDT

      •  Do you feel the same way about Paul Wellstone

        If I recall, even though he regretted it later, he supported DOMA.

        by oceanstar17 on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 04:41:18 PM PDT

  •  DADT was the best that Clinton could do

    I've gotten into arguments with several people here. Clinton tried to eliminate the ban, but Colin Powell protested. As soon as he tried to do it, not only did Powell protest, but so too did Sam Nunn (D-GA) and other conservative Democrats. They threatened to join together with the Republicans to codify the ban by a veto-proof margin. DADT was the best that Clinton could do, given the dynamics at the time.

    by oceanstar17 on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 04:40:33 PM PDT

•  My contribution ...

  Actually not mine but a great column I discovered only this afternoon. Here it is.

  by Gene12 on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 03:39:13 PM PDT

•  The Politics Of Meaning

  did it for me.

  by bugscuffle on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 03:40:00 PM PDT

•  Sorry, late tip jar

  Gracias.

  by punkdavid on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 03:44:51 PM PDT

•  Nice diary

  I too was often mystified with the frenzied rightwing hate of the Clintons during the 90's. Also wondered about why were people hating HRC. Was it the "cookies" comment? Then I saw woman after woman decry her decision to stay with Bill after Monica: it was as if it was a personal afront to them. I thought it was her marriage; plenty of political wives endure serial infidelity for a variety of reasons. Not my thing. South Carolina and Ohio got to me though.  Bill plummeted in my esteem and Hillary has tanked.  I felt when Bill left the WH he had done nothing to build the party except to complain about how Gore didn't use him enough. I really detest HRC now. Instead of "hinting" at Obama for VP, she should just declare herself the ReThug's VP nominee. Talk about uniting the country. yeah undeniably.

  by never forget 2000 on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 03:45:03 PM PDT

  •  I too thought it was just the fucking

    I thought it was just uptight Christian Conservatives who couldn't stand the Clintons being less than perfect in their marriage, or reformed hippies from the 60's.  

    As Bill Clinton once said, there is a major schism among baby boomers between those who think "the 60's" were good for America and those who think they were bad for America.  That's what I always thought it was about.  All the personal attacks seemed petty and irrelevant, and when the GOP criticized Clinton tactics, I thought they were just being sore losers at their own game.

    But when GOP tactics are used against a fellow Democrat who is not using such tactics himself, it makes me wonder if the 90's tactics were "dirty" even against Republican hitmen.

    by punkdavid on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 03:49:29 PM PDT

    •  that is a great point

      As Bill Clinton once said, there is a major schism among baby boomers between those who think "the 60's" were good for America and those who think they were bad for America.

      I feel that a similar rift about the Bush Years will be inevitable.

      by georg on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 04:03:27 PM PDT

      •  I don't

        In ten years, many of the dead-ender 30 percenters will be dead.  There will be no revisionist hstory to paint the Bush years any rosier than we see them today.

        by punkdavid on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 04:08:08 PM PDT

•  The politics of triangulation

  when Bill basically played Machiavelli with Dick Morris, collaborated with the Republican Robespierres on the Hill and in the end governed as a moderate Republican.

  Expect more of the same with HRC.  No thank you.  She won't get my vote, because at the end of the day, the Clintons are simply moderate Republicans in fact who are running under the Democrat brand because moderate Republicans can't get nominated these days.

  by novaseeker on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 03:47:18 PM PDT

  •  I dont see Clinton as a republican at all

    he no liberal but he still a Democrat, I don't blame him for triagulation it was needed in the 90s to get things done with a GOP congress. Its not needed now with the dems back in power.

    by SensibleDemocrat on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 03:49:10 PM PDT

    •  You'll probably catch shit for this

      But I do agree that to some extent the triangulation was necessary in such a hostile atmosphere in the 90's.  But I'm coming to believe that the triangulating ended up hurting the left more than it hurt the right, and it didn't save Democrats or progressive programs, it only saved the Clintons themselves.

      by punkdavid on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 03:51:30 PM PDT

      •  It didn't hurt the right at all -

        Michael Moore nailed it when he referred to Clinton as the best Republican president since Nixon.

        by Marie on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 03:55:48 PM PDT

        •  I'd say the best since Eisenhower...

          ... but Eisenhower was better -- he recognized the danger of the growing Military-Industrial Complex, and he tried to warn us about it.  Nixon just fed it.

          by tbetz on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 04:03:25 PM PDT

          •  Ike only warned about it as

            he was exiting center stage.  Otherwise it grew very nicely during his tenure.  Lots of lovely coups during those years and his team set up the agreements for the Vietnam War.  In fairness, Ike didn't do most of that -- he left it in the hands of the venal Dulles brothers.  Also, he didn't do anything to put a stop to the crazy McCarthy commie witch hunts.  

            Policywise, Nixon differed little from Ike - just a little bit more to the right; he was just a more insecure, secretive and ethically challenged person than Ike.  Easy not to like.  For the most part, legislation under Clinton was far to the right of what it was under Nixon and none was to the left.    

            by Marie on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 04:12:00 PM PDT

        •  moore was stupid for saying that

          by SensibleDemocrat on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 04:05:47 PM PDT

          •  Anyone that doesn't see the truth in it

            is not well informed.

            by Marie on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 04:13:14 PM PDT

            •  no

              moore basically said the Democratic Party is onlyfor liberals which is not true. Hell I'm as liberal as the next guy but I realize we need the moderates in the party too.

              by SensibleDemocrat on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 04:23:46 PM PDT

              •  That's not what Moore said --

                but what do you mean by moderates and liberals?  Was FDR a moderate or a liberal?  I'm sorry, but there is nothing moderate about anyone that supports inequality.  That supports welfare for corporations.  That supports regressive taxation (and yes, it was more regressive at the end of the nineties).  

                It's time to end this back and forth between us because it's not productive.  Facts are meaningless to those in love.

                by Marie on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 04:30:41 PM PDT

                •  your right

                  we should agree to disagree on moore statement

                  by SensibleDemocrat on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 04:48:02 PM PDT

        •  And Moore voted for Nader in 2000,

          giving him credibility and helping usher Bush into office.

          by oceanstar17 on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 04:42:21 PM PDT

          •  Moore voted for Nader in a state

            with a wide margin of victory for Gore.  He recommended that those in states where the race was tight to consider voting for Gore instead of Nader.  And just why the hell do you and other Democrats continue to insist that Gore deserved the Nader votes?  Those voters made their choice.  How many non-fundie voters in '00 were persuaded by McCain to vote for GWB?  Maybe that support is what swung NH, OH and FL to GWB.  

            Only idiots would harp on the fact that Nader got votes in FL and therefore, Nader is the reason why Gore lost.  It's logically highly suspect and impossible to prove.  It's really time for Democrats to grow up this particular point.  

            (Btw, I supported and voted for Gore; have never considered voting for Nader.  But if Clinton steals the nom this year, I will vote for that edgy African American woman running on the Green Party ticket.)g

            by Marie on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 05:21:52 PM PDT

            •  Actually it is easy to prove

              Nader received 96K votes in FL. The difference between Bush and Gore was 537 votes. If Gore receives just 1% of Nader's vote he carries FL by around 430 votes. On top of that Nader received 22K votes in NH, more than the difference between Bush and Gore. On top of that Nader campaigned aggressively in the swing states, even though he promised not to. So, while I can't prove with 100% certainty that Nader is the reason Gore loss, I can argue that he played a very major role.

              As for Moore, if he truly didn't want Bush, he would have supported Gore. So yeah I don't cut him slack because he should have instead called for Nader to drop and endorsed Gore. And unlike the naive college student or young professional voting for the first time, who could claim ignorance and "not knowing any better", Moore knew what Bush would be like. He knew that Nader had no chance of winning.

              So yes I do blame Moore for his role in supporting Nader. He and the rest of the wealthy celebrities, academics, pundits, activists, and other famous Nader supporters gave his futile run for the presidency credibility that it might not otherwise have had.

              And so yes I will blame Nader for his role. After all this is a man who has called for the destruction of the Democratic Party.

              by oceanstar17 on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 09:48:50 PM PDT

•  I still greatly admire President Clinton

  The man is my political idol, the reason I got into politics. I think he been overzealous at times trying to get his wifee info offfice. As for Senator Clinton she been a good Senator and would be a good President but Obama is more progressive and will be a great president.

  by SensibleDemocrat on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 03:47:53 PM PDT

•  I gave up on Clinton...

  ...when he screwed up the Lani Guinier appointment.  He not only betrayed her, he sent a message to the GOP that he would not stand behind the people on his team.

  by Jackson L Haveck on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 03:50:55 PM PDT

•  Never much liked Bill -- his charm didn't

  work on me.  Much preferred Gore and Hillary in '92.  Clinton lost me almost immediately as he demonstrated his inability to quick began to lose me after the health care issue when she chose to remake herself into a Laura Bush type First Lady.  

  I defended them against the smears, lies and impeachment for adultery.  Even voted for him in '96 because Dole plus the GOP congress would have been worse -- that would have taken some doing; so maybe it's only that they would have enacted the GWB tax cuts a few years earlier.  Mostly closed eyes and decided that it would be better to look at this after he was out of office.

  I lost a lot of respect for Hillary when she went on TV and spouted that the vast right wing conspiracy was out to get them.  Began to dislike her when she carpetbagged herself to New York and the Senate (Didn't everybody know that Bill desperately wanted a third and fourth term and by proxy was good enough for him?)  Then I began reading about what the hell Clinton had done at the policy and legislative levels.  It's horrifying!  Not sure it could even be categorized as GWB-lite because in some ways it's no different.  Beyond that, once Clinton got to the WH and his good buddies were dictated the running of the DEM party after he left, Democrats lost power at the same time as the power of DINOs in the party was increased. If McAuliffe had not been replaced with Dean in '05, DEMs would not have had a big win in '06.  I truly cannot think of a single reason why a liberal/progressive, or even a Democrat, would want to return power to the Clintons.  While not as obvious, they damaged the DEM party as much as GWB had damaged the GOP and both have damaged the nation's economic well-being (if one looks past the '90s bubble economy mirage).  

  by Marie on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 03:53:53 PM PDT

  •  "hell at the policy and legislative level"

    i bet that has been that way for a long time.  

    i imagine it would take immense political will to gain and wield control of the beaurocracies.  

    by georg on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 04:10:11 PM PDT

    •  Lucky for us

      that those bureaucracies were fairly well built in the decades from '32-80.  Otherwise, the right would now be nailing the coffin in our government.  One small example - the Clinton/Gore Reinventing Government initiative that they bragged about because it reduced federal employment and thus save dollars.  It did but not by very much.  What they cut out be oversight layers throughout the government.  Layers that precluded the wholesale rip off of federal funds by the private sector.  Halliburton et. al and Bush/Cheney are grateful to Clinton/Gore for having made it ever so much easier for them to loot the government.

      by Marie on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 04:21:03 PM PDT

•  There was her war vote.

  That made me cautious about her.  I could not believe that she voted yes and from that she went steps down in my book.

  by Janeo on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 03:56:55 PM PDT

•  We are not a monarchy

  I am adamantly opposed to family dynasties in politics.

  by Paul Goodman on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 04:01:27 PM PDT

  •  That is my major point as well

    The founding fathers would be quite unamused, I think.

    Then again, the thought of explaining the effects of nuclear weaponry, television, and the internet to them makes my head explode.

    by georg on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 04:12:17 PM PDT

    •  They're ALL related

      http://www.familyforest.com/...

      Scroll down to see the list of Presidential Cousins of John Kerry and George Bush.  It's nuts.

      Didn't it come out that Obama was related on his mother's side to some famous Republican?

      by punkdavid on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 04:18:21 PM PDT

•  I live in a different world than most here

  I've been following politics since I was a small child, and first worked on campaigns before I could even vote.  That was almost 30 years ago.

  And I just don't see this "win at any cost" approach that's being ascribed to Hillary.

  There have been almost no negative ads in this campaign, and those that have come along have been of the most mild sort.

  Both campaigns have stepped a bit over the line upon occasion.  But it's nothing compared to some campaigns I've been involved with.

  I hope when the tempers calm, and after the Republican 527s unleash their fury in the fall, we'll see what a powder puff competition this has really been.

  by Moresby on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 04:17:53 PM PDT

  •  I sincerely hope so as well.

    I'm also hoping that the stuff that we internet people see on a daily basis is not filtering into th homes of the average American.

    by punkdavid on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 04:22:35 PM PDT

    •  Remember this is the Internet ...

      where sharp distinctions and hyperbole are the primary form of communication.

      Any long time Internet users knows that subtle, reasoned or nuanced comments rarely get any attention.

      And this doesn't just refer to political discussions.  You find that in forums talking about almost any subject.  Hell, the Mac vs. PC debates are often more heated than this.

      I have to keep reminding myself of this fact, and view the comments here through that prism.

      by Moresby on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 04:36:57 PM PDT

•  South Carolina sowed the first seeds of doubt

  And the past two weeks, particularly the McCain debacle, has done it for good. I want her out of the race now for the good of the party.

  by Reckoner on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 04:24:25 PM PDT

•  missing poll option

  when she threw the democratic party along with Obama under the bus

  by Jersey Girl on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 04:31:14 PM PDT

  •  There are several options for that

    Take your pick.

    But I made my options time-based, not hyperbole-based.

    by punkdavid on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 04:35:24 PM PDT

•  I have to disagree with you

  on this argument:

  Just a lot of losses in Congress, governorships, state legislatures, and progressive policy deaths to show for 8 years of "leadership".

  The 1994 losses were inevitable. I say this because the 1990 redistricting basically laid the groundwork for the GOP to take the House back. The 1990 redistricting created majority-minority districts that were 70%+ Black and Hispanic. These districts were illogical, often extending like snakes over hundreds of miles. They took in communities that shared no other geopolitical interest beyond race. As a result the surrounding districts turned into conservative Republican bastions. Many white Democrats found themselves in hostile districts. Some of them barely held on in 1992. The rest of them washed out with the 1994 Republican Revolution.

  The second issue was the long-term realignment of the south. By the late 1980s and the early 1990s the last of the old-fashioned Southern Democrats first elected in the 1940s and the 1950s either died or retired. Democrats like William Natcher, Claude Pepper, Charles Bennett, Jack Brooks, Don Bevil, Sonny Montgomery, Butler Derrick, and Jamie Whitten finally left office. Although their districts had been supporting Republicans for national as early as the 1950s, their personal popularity kept these districts Democratic even though they should have been taken over by the GOP decades earlier.

  In addition, in 1994, six Democrats retired. The Democrats had to defend six open seats. There was no way that the Democrats were going to hold the Senate and the Congress. Against the backdrop of the first two years of the Clinton administration these were impossible dynamics to overcome.

  by oceanstar17 on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 04:39:24 PM PDT

  •  ah yea, losing is contagious

    it's spread by having a Clinton around -- without Perot Bill would have lost both of his presidential bids.  It seems that the Clintons thrive when the field is divided.  No promise is meant to be kept too... when Bill was running in 1992, he chastised NAFTA - and then, once he got elected, signed it into law.   Where was the veto for Environmental and Labor rights then?  Where was "fighting for us"?  I call B.S. on the Clintons, and their excuse that we were 'going to lose anyway'.

    by Great Uncle Bulgaria on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 04:45:57 PM PDT

    •  They never had me

      I was a minor in school during the Clinton presidency.  I only remember the guys in class laughing about bill and Monica and the media stating that Nafta was a great thing.  So I was neutral on the Clintons.  I've seen BC do television interviews and only saw them because people always said that he was so charming.  To me, he came off as just another politician.  I was disappointed.

      As an indie who is incredibly liberal, I was willing to vote for any democrat this November.  Not any more.  Hillary has shown that it's all about her and power.  To be honest, she scares me more than Bush because at least Bush is an idiot.  

      There is a DINO congressman in my state who constanly votes like a Republican.  He represents a solidly Democratic area so there is no reason for this.  But people in his district still support him because he is a democrat.  Hillary reminds me of him.  She can do many bad things but many democrats will still support her because she is a democrat.

      I believe that if is elected she will govern as Republican-lite.  I've been told that a person's past actions are a good indicator of their future actions.  Hillary's actions scare me while Obama's give me hope.  Right now, I'm at the point where if she is the nominee I will stay home in November and encourage everybody else I know to.

      by Sarella Sand on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 05:10:34 PM PDT

  •  True ...

    This was an inevitable realignment.

    We must also remember that the Democratic congress turned on Bill Clinton almost the minute he took office, and was plagued by a series of scandals connected to leadership figures which Clinton had nothing to do with.

    Clinton did play an active role in the '94 Virginia Senate race, and was instrumental in the words "Senator Oliver North" never being heard in the halls of congress.

    by Moresby on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 04:54:58 PM PDT

    •  Actually the VA Senate race came down

      to Nancy Reagan, who criticized Oliver North publicly right before the electoin. Marshall Coleman also ran as a third party candidate because North was unacceptable to moderates in the VA GOP. Had Nancy Reagan not opened her mouth North might very well have (God help us) won.

      by oceanstar17 on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 09:51:17 PM PDT