Comments

1
No fucking way will I ever again vote for any more Neoliberal warmongering Wall Street suckups.
2
Then how come liberals didn't swam to vote for McCain so we would have had a female VP? This article cements how jaded The Stranger has become.

I actually might vote for Hillary, and I'd be happy to have a woman president, but this really is an anti-feminist position.
3
And it really helps the "image" of a woman running for president when a liberal news outlet immediately does the work of the Koch brothers by posting deliberately unflattering images like this:

http://www.thestranger.com/blogs/slog/20…
4
@2 I think it's pretty obviously implied that they mean "vote for a woman... that isn't a certifiably insane idiot" Which by default disqualifies pretty much anyone in the Republican field.
5
As long as the Republicans don't for any of their guys just because they're white males.
6
Why would I vote for another right of center President, when moderate centrist President Elizabeth Warren will be so much better.

You do know she started as a far right Republican, don't you?

Hils can be VP in a Warren administration.
7
I fill in the circle for the "not a Republican". that's my one criteria, and it should be yours as well.

but I do think it's past time for a woman to be in charge of this clusterfuck.
8
@6: SHE IS NOT FUCKING RUNNING. HOW MANY TIMES DOES SHE HAVE TO TELL YOU?
9
This is a deeply stupid article. Rich: You do realize, as @2 points out, that the same logic would have you advocating Sarah Palin for President if she were running? Sorry, but gender is nowhere near as important as political views.

You should be ashamed of yourself and your lack of critical thinking.

10
Hey Rich...Why do you repeatedly refer to Hadley Freeman by her first name? Is she your friend?
11
Comparing Clinton to Palin is like comparing Stephen Hawking to some guy who puts Mentos in a bottle of cola...
12
I'll vote for her, happily, since she isn't insane.
13
@6, you are an idiot. Warren is not running. What part of this statement is unclear to you?
14
@7 Forsooth.

Voting for a candidate and not a party made some sort of sense back when the parties were all scrambled up in the mid 20th century - As recently as the 90s, say, there were some democrats to the right of some republicans. But that world is all gone now and party affiliation is the only thing you should care about now because its the only thing that will determine policy outcomes.

Clinton was supposed to be a shoe-in for the nomination back in 2008 but she got wrong-footed and Obama scooped up all the left-leaning constituencies in the Democrats coalition. She won't make that mistake a second time and she's sound a LOT more liberal than she did 8 years ago.

That is how political power works in the USA.
16
"Voters on the right and the left accept that a politician’s religious upbringing primes her to be a presidential candidate."

The fuck I do.

Hillary's femaleness alone makes her just as qualified to be President as Sarah Palin. I wouldn't vote for one because she's a woman, I won't vote for the other because she's a woman. I wouldn't vote against anyone because of their gender either.
17
@11 If you were claiming that the guy with the Mentos deserved a Nobel prize because of his gender, then it would be a very good comparison.

Which is basically what this article is claiming.
18
@4: You validated the point that I was making. People do not vote idiots into office solely because of their gender. True for Sarah, true for Hillary.
19
I have zero problem with Clinton and I don't think she'd be a bad President at all. My worry is that the Republican noise machine might take her down with scary ads about her perceived "scandals." (Which fall into two categories, pure bullshit, and tired, generally-discredited bullshit.)

I'd love to see a new face on the primary scene, or a Bernie Sanders or an Elizabeth Warren make the case for populist, anti-oligarchic policies, and I'll most likely be supporting that person in the primaries.

But, come Hillary's nomination, I'll crack open the checkbook, and get my ass down to volunteer at her local campaign office. If nominated, we have to get her elected!
20
@19 "If nominated, we have to get her elected!"

Fine. We really do not need to nominate her.
21
@17:

That's precisely what I'm suggesting.
22
@10

Thanks for catching that. Sorry for the mistake, and I'll make the change presently.
23
Looking forward to the many, many Clinton rationalization pieces the Stranger will churn out in the coming months, as well as the inevitable hit pieces on any lefty 3rd party alternative that might emerge.
24
I anxious to see how they'll spin away her "lefty Leona Helmsley" years as a First Lady. Those stories by former staffers are bound to come out. It'll be a campaign centered on victim identity politics but even more so than Obama.
25
"I'm"
Obviously.
26
@24: there's no way it will top the Christian persecution complex politics of whatever GOP clown winds up with their nomination.
27
Clinton talks like a populist, but isn't really interested in improving America for the common people:
- She's pro-Wall-Street and generally against financial regulation
- She's pro-fracking and takes large donations from oil companies
- She's pro-NSA, anti-privacy (she voted for the Patriot Act and accused Edward Snowden of supporting terrorism)
- She's been an advocate for the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), a secret deal that will almost certainly hurt American workers
- She's pro-aggression, more pro-war than even Obama (and she voted for war with Iraq)
- She's anti-video game and pro-censorship
.
Sources:
https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2014/…
http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/29…
28
Soul power is the most predictive metric in a presidential contest. I'm not sure she's got it.
29
First of all everyone knows this is a done deal. The ballots are already printed.

70% of women will vote for Hillary.

All Democrats will vote for Hillary.
Even 30% of Conservative men will vote for Hillary.

Reason is that she paid her dues in full, ten times over.

For anyone who has worked in the system, they know what that means.

As far as the GOP, I think anyone who is serious realizes they are running not for 2016, but for 2024 and party leadership (barring some tragedy and a disastrous VP Elizabeth Warren as takeover).

30
As a gay man and mexican-american I have no problem voting for Hillary just because she's a woman. However I know she's imminently qualified for the job--which makes my vote even more satisfying. If she loses, then I and many other gays and lesbians need look no further for blame than the living shit that is these left wing POS. And don't think for a minute that I won't remind them and work against everything they treasure. RIP 5280--it's her turn now.
31
I'm voting for her because her name isn't Walker or Bush and it would be a disaster if the GOP had the White House in addition to the House, the Senate and the Supreme Court.
32
It astounds me that there are people out there who are so milquetoast that they're actually EXCITED to vote for Hillary Clinton.

"OMG she ate at Chipotle once! She's so down to Earth!" yeah like every other multimillionare limousine liberal. How do you keep falling for this?
33
@32 I bet shes a limousine liberal who knows how many houses she has. Unlike McCain.
34
This is the only slog post relating to anything generally politcal on a national level and it's about to get bumped off the main page leaving it for dead, likely by tomorrow morning at the latest. And so there'll be next to nothing interesting on the slog for the weekend. For all the changes that we've been complaining about non-stop for the past couple months, this could be so easily remedied, simply by expanding out the main page to allow more posts. Suck.
35
@31- There is a Walker and a Bush in the Democratic primary race?
36
@34: Indeed. I have a hunch they're farming out web services and rendering operations to third parties and bought the "basic" plans with less innovation. The best was when articles collapsed, which was so much better than having to click on "previous" links.
37
Why the fuck are we we talking about Hillary as a sure thing when we haven't even gotten through the fucking primary?

Show me who else the Dems got.
38
You should not vote for a candidate, just because their name is Bush or Clinton. Like Einstein said about repeating the same mistake.
39
I didn't know Stranger advertisers were so into Clinton. Did they get to approve this article first? Or do they only care about local politics? It's been painful to see The Stranger fall apart over the last year, but I didn't know it could get this bad.
40
"It’d be nice if we voted for a president based on The Issues. But we don’t. We vote for images, symbols." The Stranger votes/endorses based on their advertisers, but I didn't know local pot delivery and conservative restaurant owners were so into Hillary.
41
I would truly LOVE to elect Elizabeth Warren for the U.S. Presidency in 2016----if she was running
(sorry, Will in Seattle @6). I wish Warren WAS running! She'd kick Republican and Teabag Gazoonie ASS and take names!
@31 passionate_jus: Agreed. If the white collar criminally insane neo-Nazi GOP (a.k.a. Koch Brothers' Evil Empire) takes over the White House in 2016, we can all kiss our hopeless asses and this entire planet goodbye.
42
My biggest mistake this week (other than losing thousands a piece of shit vehicle) was commenting on this article.
43
Sorry, unless Washington becomes a swing state (which it's never been as long as I've been a voter) I'm casting my vote for the Greens. Clinton mostly inspires a yawn out of me.
44
By Rich Smith's logic, we missed a great opportunity in not voting for Sarah Palin in 2008. Who knew?
Seriously, I'm not against a woman candidate per se. But please, not one with a proven track record of deceit, incompetence and corruption, who is only in the running at all because of the MAN she married, and whose only qualification for the job is that she wants it.
45
How is she qualified to be president?

Name one bill she got passed while a single-term senator. (You can't, she didn't.) Name one area of the world in better shape after her tenure as SoS. (Good luck, I can name tons of places that got worse.) Name one accomplishment she can lay claim to.

Now name all the shit she's pulled:
Her own War on Women during Bill's affairs - she went around bayonetting the wounded.
Four dead Americans in Libya.
Private Email server
$300k a pop for speeches with a rider that would make a Rock & Roll Band blush
Taking donations for the family foundation as bribes for State Department favors.

She's a winner, y'all ride that horse.
46
@45: In her TWO TERMS as senator (yes, it's two terms even if she didn't finish the second term due to becoming Secretary of State), Hillary Clinton took the lead on rebuilding on the WTC site and securing funding to provide health care for 9/11 first responders. When the PATRIOT Act came up for renewal, she worked to improve its treatment of civil liberties.
I'd say that the USA is better now than it was in 2009, by pretty much every economic or social metric you care to name. In terms of foreign policy, things have gotten better in Burma, Libya overthrew Gaddhafi with international help, and our soldiers shot Osama bin Laden right in the head; in all of these, Ms. Clinton was involved in a leadership role.

Now for the stuff you're trying to hang on her:
War on Women? I'd love to hear what the hell you mean by that.
The Benghazi consulate attacks? Puh-leeze. A committee of REPUBLICANS, people who had every reason to try and pin the blame on a big-name Democrat, couldn't find ANY fault in how the Obama Administration handled anything, despite holding hearing after hearing to try and find something. The only ones still talking about Benghazi are the ones who have nothing else worth saying.
Private email server? Maybe a bit sketchy, but honestly small potatoes. Where was your outrage when Valerie Plame's cover was blown, or when Alberto Gonzales fired US attorneys who didn't play political ball?
You're exaggerating the amount she charged to speak and outright making shit up about her rider. And hell, since when is it unheard-of to go on the motivational-speaker tour if you're a (semi-)retired big-name politician?
Donations to her charity went up when she was Secretary, sure, but there's no evidence of wrongdoing as yet.
Clinton's not my ideal candidate, but your smears are off-the-mark, and she's orders of magnitude more accomplished than any of the Republican hopefuls thus far.
47
@46 Burma?!? you have to go clear to Burma to get a success for her?

Ha-Ha-Ha. Jeez, I'm wiping tears here. Burma. Oy.
48
Totally dumb article about this Obama clone -no way will this typical, well worn politician be in the White House ! Will never happen - surprised she can walk upright with all that baggage hanging on her ! A complete waste of time !!
49
Hillary is the perfect woman to be president if lack of honesty and integrity is the most important trait. She is a lying b@tch who thinks she is above the law. look up the word entitlement in the dictionary and there is Hillary's picture. Lenin had a name for people that support politicians like Hillary.... Useful Idiots.

Is Hillary Trustworthy? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8k1-PdKf…
50
@47: So basically your response to me countering every single thing you said there is to complain that ONE of the countries where Hillary Clinton got results is a small country around the world that Americans don't think about much. That's all you got, huh? Truly pathetic.
52
^^^^^^The Koch brothers are not getting their money's worth with these early recruits.
53
@50 No, I'm laughing at you for your blind stupidity.

She's in no way qualified to be president, but she's all you've got, so you have to ignore the ethical lapses, the felonies, and the hypocrisy.
54
@53: >2015
>making shit up
sure why not
55
BI Islander has it right ! Hillary should not and will not ever see the light of day in the oval office as President !! America's voters made a big mistake in giving Obama a second term - and this clone would be just a continuation of the destruction of our county's integrity and leadership in the world !!
56
All one needs to do to determine how she'd govern as president is peruse her appalling voting record in the Senate. Hillary Clinton only cares about Hillary Clinton, and like the rest of our 1% rulers she's evil to the core.
57
Well, no, she's a terrible candidate as far as foreign policy goes because she'll just continue or escalate drone strikes, undocumented detention, this whole war on terror idiocy, but I imagine domestic policy would be far better under her administration (almost by default) than any Republican administration. It may be a sad fact that anyone as progressively minded as Elizabeth Warren might be disqualified on the basis of the desire for fairness in society. Hillary's big money, big war, big America. Her sex or gender hardly make a difference. Even an old white male like Russ Feingold is more of a feminist than her based on their differences in terms of foreign policy. Bombing civilians form drones is hardly a feminist position and certainly does nothing to improve the lot of women in the societies we've chosen to designate as the bloody buffer for our international excursions in the resource war.

Please wait...

Comments are closed.

Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.


Add a comment
Preview

By posting this comment, you are agreeing to our Terms of Use.