I don't want to assume too much here and I want to be very fair. If this article is correct, it may be that Senator Clinton's Israel right-or-wrong "policy paper is intended as empty rhetoric."
Okay. Just. Don't. Get. Me. Started.
But if she means what her position paper and earlier speech to AIPAC say, then the Middle East and the millions of people who live there are (gag) better off (gag) with Condi (scuse me while a barf a little in my mouth).
And here are three other reasons I'm not supporting her in the primary season:
Mark Penn, James Carville, and Sandy Berger. I didn't have room for Terry McCauliffe.
AL at Threadingwater has written the post of the year on this subject:
What I fear with a Clinton presidency is a White House influenced by the same element that is directing her campaign: More hard-line foreign policy decisions and direction, more military engagement to protect and shore-up the right wing elements in Israel, more of the Republican playbook when it comes to protecting and rewarding corporate polluters, more industry/government coziness in federal oversight of public safety when it comes to our food supply, drugs and consumer protections.
I don’t see myself ever pointing to a portrait of a President Hillary Clinton and telling my young nieces that therein lies proof they can achieve anything they want as women, because I will also need to tell them about the power brokering, criminal, wealthy white men of questionable morals who helped to get her there.
I agree with Gloria Steinem that it’s time to put women first, and for me, feminism means putting the welfare of my country first.
To me supporting right wing elements in Israel (and the status quo in Saudi Arabia) is NOT progressive. Giving James Carville and company (even if he moves back the New Orleans) power lines off which to feed is NOT why we elect women to public office.
The discourse lately has been about pantsuits and whore-calling and makeup and ageism. I know Clinton supporters are sick of that, and so am I. Let's get back to the issues. I for one don't think the two Democrats are identical on the issues. Apparently Barack Obama has both an "Israel problem" with the AIPAC folks and an "abortion problem" with the pro-lifers. Gee. Those are both pluses in my book. And while I still have a big problem with his "across the aisle" get along with Republicans mumbo jumbo, if that kind of talk prevents a Florida 2000 or an Ohio 2004? What if those voters stupid enough to vote for Bush once or twice (gawd) are given permission to fake amnesia and vote for the young winner over the old poop McCain?
I hope my friends who are supporting Clinton take and appreciate this post for the issue-oriented argument. We don't need any more ad hominem crap in this primary season.