huffpost article - real case against HRC

[Muttocracy]

oops, edit to paste link
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/cenk-uygur/the-real-case-against-hil_b_81248.html

...Other critics have done a better job of analyzing her advisors and her triangulation better than I can hope to do here. So, I want to focus on the one overwhelming problem with Hillary Clinton.

She claims that George W. Bush is the worst president we've ever had. Yet in her entire time in the Senate she has never led one successful fight against him. She has either lost every legislative battle on Iraq, or worse yet, been complicit. The vote to authorize the war was one thing, but how about all of the votes to continue and support Bush's war for all of the remaining years? Let alone every other issue on which Bush got exactly what he wanted, up to and including this year, when the Democrats and Senator Clinton were theoretically in charge.

I understand that leaders are supposed to lead. Yet, I have never seen Senator Clinton lead her fellow Democrats in a successful challenge of President Bush. Never. That's a pretty awful record....

[IndianaGreen]

1. Hillary opposed Kerry's filibuster of Judge Alito

and she joined Lieberman and others in opposing Kerry's troop withdrawal resolution.

[Yael]

5. Why is no one talking about this?

I mean, seriously. The flawed DLC triangulatrix thing needs air time.

[Rageneau]

2. I've never seen ANY Democrat lead others in a successful challenge of Bush.

You attack Hillary for not leading crowds of angry villager-Democrats up to the castle to overthrow Doctor FrankenBush. But when did Edwards do that? Or Obama? or any OTHER damn Democrat, for that matter?

Here and there, now and then, someone like DK will actually light a torch and march up the hill, but there's never anyone behind him. He just has to march back down again, sheepishly, when he sees he's leading nothing but a deluded fantasy. Not only is Bush not overthrown, he's not even inconvenienced.

So, if the criteria you insist upon is that the Dem candidate must have led a successful rebellion against George Smirk Bush, then we HAVE no Dem candidate. Because not a one of them has.

[Muttocracy]

6. I agree - I'm not happy with any candidates on this

esp. the ones we're left with now. The rest of the article goes into that, but emphasizes Hillary because she talks so much about experience and her record in the Senate. I didn't quote the whole article - I thought there was a rule against that. Sorry, I was trying to point out an article in the news. I didn't say LOOK AT THIS HILLARY SUCKS!

[dailykoff]

3. There's a reason she's not running on her record:

it's shameful. Nothing but signing checks for Junior and Darth.

[Diane R]

4. Amen. I've never seen Hillary exhibing one bit of leadership, unless someone else paved the way.