Reply #52: Not meaning troubles me just as must [View All]

[karynnj]

If she said these hurtful things, intentionally and for their potential political use, it means she has no moral, ethical core values that would keep her from using rifts that have somewhat healed for her own political gain. What does it say to black Americans, who were the strongest allies Bill Clinton had - even when his lack of morality likely offended them. As a woman, I can immediately see that if HRC was male and her opponent female - the comment would have been "hard working MEN"

HRC has been given pass after pass when she has said things that were insensitive. There are always apologists saying that she didn't really mean it. This is a time to draw a line - and acknowledge that this is what she said - twice - and it was likely not off the cuff. At some point, you become the sum of what you do - not what you say you did or your own self image.

In HRC's case, her admirers to the contrary, look at her actions. It might be good to concentrate on 2005 going forward. What did HRC do to unite a demoralized party, set an agenda, or create a vision going forward. When Bush appointed Alito, the NYT lobbied for the Democrats to block him - clearly inferring that HRC should lead this. When it became clear that Kerry and Kennedy were already pushing the party to do so - and HRC was one holding back, they switched to ridiculing the efforts of the two MA senators. Though after it failed, they chided the Democrats for losing a battle that could have been won. Look at the comments in "Hillary War" the NYT magazine story on HRC on Kerry/Feingold. She was angry that it was introduced and pointed out that we controlled neither house of Congress or the Presidency. This was defeatist - the Senate fight on Iraq led to the Republicans not being able to label the Democrats as not having a plan - though they tried. It also was a variation of that plan, hit by HRC as hard as by the Republicans, that by early spring 2007 was the defacto Democratic plan. In the years 2005 through 2008, I do not see ONE issue that the Clintons led on. In fact, I don't see one from 2001 - 2008 and as the NYT stated they still controlled the party through that time. They failed as leaders.