Hillary as Sec. of State? I don't like her

Home » Opinion » Daily Napablogger

Sunday, November 23, 2008

Comment

By MICHAEL HALEY

Daily Napablogger

I just don't like Hillary Clinton, I admit. What I don't like about her is the same thing that I don't like about the Wall Street companies that are taking bail out money and giving multi-billion dollar Christmas bonuses to the same guys that threatened to take down the economy, or the average Americans who have 13 credit cards and expect to be bailed out with their own bankruptcies.

She has got a huge sense of entitlement, she is owed whatever she wants, most recently being made President, and a huge sense of greed to go along with it. I don't mean greed for money, although she and her husband have that too, but greed for getting her way, getting what she wants when she wants it in the way she wants it. And if she doesn't, well she is entitled to tell any falsehood, slam any person in any way she wants to get her way. That is greed too, a type of greed.

This is what justifies a lot of her mean behavior, a lot of the ugly stuff said about Obama during the primaries, and the way she used her gender to attack the media as sexist against her. I don't buy it, I know a lot of women do, but women can get criticized without it being sexist. Any criticism of Hillary became sexism, funny how that never seems to happen with other women in politics like Barbara Boxer or Dianne Feinstein.

Remember the blogger list that ended up over 100 things the media did to her that were “sexist.” Lipstick on a pig, her phony laugh, god I don't even want to rehash all this stuff again, but there is no doubt that there is a constant aura of victimhood around her whenever she is center stage and gets criticized, and to me that adds up to a person who lacks strength of character. She may be smart and powerful, but she is also small when it comes to personal character. She can't hold a candle to Condoleeza Rice on any level.

She has a way of creating tension and divisiveness around herself, and I don't think that we need that in the Secretary of State position. One has to wonder why Obama wants to pick her, because there are plenty around better qualified. And Democrats, be aware, the Republicans are surprisingly supportive of her in this job. There is a reason, and it isn't because they just love her so. They know her capacity for screw ups, and her capacity for bringing out the worst in feminists.

That, I suspect, is what they are looking forward to, not what a great job she will do.

41 comment(s)

napablogger wrote on Nov 20, 2008 11:10 AM:

" Boy, no sooner have I spoken than here comes the manipulator. The Daily News is reporting today that the speculation is coming from her camp and Obama is unhappy about it. Haven't you learned yet about her, Obama, she will manipulate to get her way all the time.

The report is that leaks are coming on a daily basis and are strategically done to to advance her cause of becoming Sec of State.

Can't wait til a reporter interviews her and we will hear "golly gee, it wasn't me, must be some rogue member of my staff".

Now the pressure is really on Obama to go ahead and pick her because if he doesn't, then she loses so much clout that her minions will turn against him.

The only safe advice in dealing with Clinton is never speak to her or have anything to do with her. She is trouble from the word go, and if she gets the SOS job we will be going through this on a weekly basis. "

a teacher wrote on Nov 20, 2008 11:46 AM:

" I can't say I like her much either, for one thing she voted for the Iraqi War and has been pretty weasely about that. However, I doubt that most of the complaints that the right has about her would be as bad if she were a man. Then she'd be like Cheney, a hard driving, win at all costs, SOB.

Sometimes you need an SOB. I think it's a smart move on Obama's part. If she succeeds it makes him look good (and I think she will), if she fails, well, that's one less rival for him in 2012. "

kevin wrote on Nov 20, 2008 1:23 PM:

" B.O. picked Hillary in order to eliminate her as a 2012 candidate. She must have considered it a long shot, if she chooses to accept this post.

I think she will do fine. She won't turn her back on Israel. She voted for the war in Iraq. Her biggest blunders were with domestic policy (National health care, immigration, etc). "

napablogger wrote on Nov 20, 2008 2:31 PM:

" I dunno, I have the same complaints about her husband, in fact he is the instigator of a lot of it. He certainly carries her victim water for her, but she is the one who does make the worst statements---victim of a vast right wing conspiracy, etc.

I am sure she has many fine qualities, but she represents something that I think is a serious lack or dysfunction in the American body politic right now which is entitlement. That is why we are in so much debt right now, because everyone feels entitled to spend other people's money, or raise their debts beyond what they can pay, or get a bail out when they screw up for decades and don't do the prudent thing.

To me Obama represents the opposite, someone who will take responsibility and doesn't blame anybody and doesn't feel entitled to get whatever just because...

So we have both types in both parties, but I have to give the Republicans the most credit for fighting it. It is one of their basic platforms, to fight entitlements and victimhood politics. "

napablogger wrote on Nov 20, 2008 2:34 PM:

" Obama can't possibly be worried about her in four years. If he does well he has nothing to worry about, if he doesn't he has a Republican to worry about, not another Democrat.

She has as much pro Palestinian rhetoric in her background as Obama, more really.

If she was so terrible when Clinton was President, why would the Republicans support her now. I am mystified by their turn around on her. She has not changed at all. "

steph wrote on Nov 20, 2008 2:51 PM:

" What about her ties to the Chinese, and the Clinton sale of US nuclear secrets for campaign money? It is this one issue that frightens me the most about her. I don't trust her. I hope the CIA keeps an eye on her. "

kevin wrote on Nov 20, 2008 3:01 PM:

" You have to compare her to B.O., NB.

He is so far to the Left with his Socialist ideology that he makes her look like a conservative... "

srnitnw wrote on Nov 21, 2008 8:49 AM:

" Am I the only one that remembers when Clinton was President and the big deal was that nopbody was happy during that time coupled with the snickers that it was really Hillary running things? Given that, I never really understood why she's had so much support through all of this. Are our memories that short? "

PlasticPinkFlamingo wrote on Nov 21, 2008 1:48 PM:

" All the Obama supporters need to be reminded to be more careful of what they wish for. Now we are seeing proof that the Obama presidency is really going to be Clinton's third term (run by both Hill and Bill - you don't really think he's going to quietly sit in the background do you? hahahahaha), with large overtones of Carter's failed economic, foreign relations, intelligence and defense policies thrown in for bad measure.

This is change we need? I agree that Bush had us going the wrong way around the track, but Obama's change is just spinning us around even faster.

I'm going to start a countdown clock for the 2010 congressional elections, when we can begin to slow down this out of control madness. Yes we can. "

freeport56 wrote on Nov 21, 2008 3:14 PM:

" I guess CHANGE really means Clinton Administration II! "

napablogger wrote on Nov 21, 2008 4:34 PM:

" Kevin, I don't think he is any more liberal than Hillary, maybe even less so.

PPF I kept trying to respond to you on that other thread about Caldwell but the comment box never worked. Sorry about that. I guess we can take some of it up here and in other threads.

It is too soon to tell what Obama is going to be like but so far we are getting good management of the government which is one of the main reasons I voted for him.

Conservatives are making a lot of assumptions about him that with each day I grow more confident that he is not at all what they are saying, Marxist, etc. I even got an email today referring to people like me as a Marxist Republican.

Don't get too hooked on your own propaganda, I have a feeling Obama is going to be a great President. We will have to wait and see for sure, though. "

napablogger wrote on Nov 21, 2008 4:42 PM:

" steph, srnitnw, it is hard to see what people like about her so much when you don't like her yourself. I did like her at first, way back, because she comes across as a powerful woman which I liked.

Then you realize how much lying, and even worse what a petty, self centered basis to that powerful feeling is and it is a real turn off. She does have a lot of power in her personality, but also a smallness of character to go with it.

She is like the head girl in high school of one of the little cliques that are mean to the other girls. Like from all those high school girl movies like Mean Girls was actually the title of one of them I think.

The head cheerleader who stabbed you in the back if you didn't submit to her bossing.

Well, she is secretary of state now. Let's all do predicitons of what is going to happen and see who has it right a year from now.

Here's mine, she is going to take over and try to run Obama's foreign policy and make deals he never approved of and there is going to be a tug of war struggle for power between them. It could even end up that she has to resign.

She is never going to take a back seat to anyone, and she is willing to blatantly manipulate to get her way and make everyone else look bad and herself like a saint. "

winemd wrote on Nov 21, 2008 4:43 PM:

" I am from Arkansas originally, and I have had enough by far of Bill and Hillary Clinton. They have not changed since then. "

kevin wrote on Nov 21, 2008 6:48 PM:

" NB said "Here's mine, she is going to take over and try to run Obama's foreign policy and make deals he never approved of and there is going to be a tug of war struggle for power between them."

He also said "I have a feeling Obama is going to be a great President".

It would seem to me that the two statements are contradictory... "

Raven wrote on Nov 21, 2008 9:45 PM:

" hmm.....they may be at first kevin, but Lincoln did the same thing, packed his cabinet with competent rivals and I think most people would call him a great president? "

PlasticPinkFlamingo wrote on Nov 21, 2008 9:53 PM:

" "with each day I grow more confident that he is not at all what they are saying" - yes I am growing more confident that we are in a dangerous situation with an unknown hand at the wheel, and our ship is in a really bad storm and leaking. When Obama looks at the compass, he's going to be looking to the Clintons for direction.

This is not the change we need, nor the change people had in mind when they voted for Obama.

winemd - I've heard several other Arkansans (is that the correct plural form?) say pretty much the same thing about their former governor. "

Raven wrote on Nov 22, 2008 6:23 AM:

" so I will put this question out there...where would any of you go to find democrats with experience in Washington and in world affairs?...since the last demo administration was clinton's..seems to make sense to look there....

and be honest....most of you who are dissing Hillary wouldn't think she was fit to be dogcatcher in the hills of..oh, say....Arkansas....so your outrage is a bit less than authentic

btw...the people of new york seem to think she is doing a great job, reelecting her by huge margins ... but I guess she has them all fooled... "

glenroy wrote on Nov 22, 2008 7:13 AM:

" Clinton, Gore, Dean, Kerry or Richardson…..what’s the difference? "

a teacher wrote on Nov 22, 2008 9:48 AM:

" " Clinton, Gore, Dean, Kerry or Richardson…..what’s the difference? "

They are not Bush, Cheney, Rice, Rumsfeld... "

kevin wrote on Nov 22, 2008 9:51 AM:

" Good question glenroy. Of the one's you mention, I would say they all fall into the same group: they all have sold out their Socialist ideology in order to make money. (eg Algore living in eco-disaster mansions and flying huge, polluting jets all over the world.) That's what makes B.O. so scary. I think he is still a "real believer". "

winemd wrote on Nov 22, 2008 10:11 AM:

" PPF - unless you go old school (Arkansawyers).
Just to be clear - I agree with napablogger. Hillary is an extremely intelligent and highly ambitious person (as is Bill). The difference between them is that Bill is very charismatic naturally. Hillary has had to work very hard to develop some of that ability to talk to people. She was not well liked in Arkansas, as a personality issue. Her personality type fits in with New York much better, IMHO. "

PlasticPinkFlamingo wrote on Nov 22, 2008 10:20 AM:

" Raven - Obama promised 'change' so why then is it OK to accept the Clintonistas back in power? I'm sure there must be many people out there capable of handling a cabinet post, although there is the argument that since the recent election provided us with such awful choices, if that is the best we've got we are in bigger trouble than we realize.

The voters said they wanted change but Obama is giving them the old Clinton party hacks. That's not change. Obama is not living up to his promises and he's not even in office yet.

Contrary to generally accepted wisdom, I do not consider Lincoln to have been a great president (I am not a great-great grandson of a Confederate soldier).

And if the people of New York love Hillary so much, she ought to stay in New York. But then, New York also elected Schumer for their other senator, so that wipes out the argument that New York makes wise senatorial choices. "

PlasticPinkFlamingo wrote on Nov 22, 2008 10:36 AM:

" Actually, the mental picture of Hillary running around the hills of Arkansas catching stray dogs is really pretty funny! I would vote for Hillary for dogcatcher! "

napablogger wrote on Nov 22, 2008 10:41 PM:

" Raven, there are tons of people better qualified for that job than Hillary, that is not the issue. I think the people that like her don't care that much about the character issue, it is not a deal breaker for them.

Kevin, I didn't say Obama would be perfect, and I am not even sure he would be a great President. But it seems he has the makings. He sure isn't the socialist you all keep trying to invent.

You have to have more evidence than that he came up in a liberal city. He is going to govern from the middle as much as he can, he has to.

I think Republicans would be a lot better off, instead of constant slamming him and making psychic predictions of how bad he is going to be, to start working on certain issues like health care, card check, etc and make sure they don't get passed or too out there. "

Raven wrote on Nov 23, 2008 1:26 AM:

" and who would you have in her place and why, NB? "

kevin wrote on Nov 23, 2008 8:37 AM:

" I'n not 'inventing" anything; just looking at B.O.'s past associations with radical Socialists and his own admissions that he want's to "redistribute wealth".

If you are looking for someone who is projecting their own ideology onto B.O., you only need to look in the mirror... "

steph wrote on Nov 23, 2008 10:04 AM:

" Raven, I'm not ignoring your question. I think it's a good one.
I can't think of any Democrats I'd like to see in Cabinet positions, but I'm not qualified since I'm really not familiar with any Democrats I actually like or admire.
I don't dislike Hillary, actually; I think she's been conservative as far as Liberals go, but her covert dealings with the Chinese bother me enormously. If it weren't for that, I'd say she's fine for the job.
But she's not. "

Raven wrote on Nov 23, 2008 2:08 PM:

" good answer Steph, nice to see an answer that hasn't been steeped in Vitirol and hate for the Clintons....and I am not thrilled but i can see the advantages she can bring to the job and the ... well, cleverness Obama shows in bringing rivals onto his team...the stuff I have read and heard indicates she is well respected on both sides of the aisle in the senate as a person who can work across the aisle and who isn't afraid of hard work ... and surprisingly enough gets good marks from the Pentagon as some one who wants to learn ... (CNN this weekend)

and Obama's picks show one other thread....he is picking people who can be succeeded in their current job by democrats....i.e., Clinton's replacement being appointed by a Democratic governor and his resigning his senate seat before January so his successor will gain a few days seniority on the other freshman senators... "

kevin wrote on Nov 23, 2008 5:35 PM:

" Seniority doesn't seem to matter as much as it used to, at least to the current Democrat Congress. "

funnyme wrote on Nov 23, 2008 6:03 PM:

" Under the Clintons, again?
I hope nobody "commits suicide" for no reason, or dies on an "airplane accident" "

Raven wrote on Nov 24, 2008 8:50 AM:

" funnyme...you aint....now we are cycling the false claims from 16 years ago..

and yeah, where it stands in the way of getting his program done it doesn't, kevin...and it now gives California a pretty good one two punch on a number of issues with waxman and boxer in important chairs... "

kevin wrote on Nov 24, 2008 9:42 AM:

" Unfortunately, it is the ever suffering taxpayer that is going to be on the receiving end of the "one-two" punch.

By the time B.O. is done bankrupting the coal industry (as he has promised to do) and Waxman is done bankrupting every other industry through huge "carbon taxes" and unattainable emission standards, the economy should REALLY be on it's a*s. "

Raven wrote on Nov 24, 2008 10:57 AM:

" okay kevin...when and where di he promise to bankrupt the coal industry?....and waxman is the guy who had the cojones to start investigating the improprieties of the Bush administration and had the tobacco officials swearing tobacco wasn't addictive...and the unattainable emission standards were endorsed by the scientists of the EPA, before being watered down by their bosses... "

kevin wrote on Nov 24, 2008 12:54 PM:

" LA Times:

""So if somebody wants to build a coal-powered plant, they can; it's just that it will bankrupt them because they're going to be charged a huge sum for all that greenhouse gas that's being emitted," Obama said."

Just once it would be nice to see Dems attack our ENEMIES as hard as they attack their country's own BUSINESSES... "

Raven wrote on Nov 24, 2008 2:02 PM:

" ahh.....kevin, so if they reduce their carbon emissions they wont be charged.....unless you hold that coal fired plants can never be made to be clean....

and read the more recent statements...Obama goes on to say that we should approach coal from a technological approach instead of an ideological approach....and if coal fired technological can be made to reduce pollution and greenhouse gas emission, great...but it is time for polluter and those who emit greenhouse gases to pay their share of the cleanup...LATimes "

kevin wrote on Nov 25, 2008 11:33 AM:

" Typical Lib; madate a law REQUIRING the use of technology that HASN'T been invented and may never be cost effective even if it COULD work.

(Didn't California have a LAW saying we were all going to be driving electric cars by 2010? That one worked REAL well.)

Why can't Libs go study Engineering and then INVENT all these great things they keep telling us we need? "

Raven wrote on Nov 25, 2008 12:38 PM:

" actually kevin that law was modified when the technology didn't meet expectations....and yes ...one can set a goal when the technology doesn't exist yet...but at the same...how do you know the technology cannot be perfected and wont be...you don't..did we have the technology when Kennedy committed the US to put a man on the moon in less than a decade?..no, but sometimes your dream has to exceed your grasp to make any progress at all...so, it is not an outlandish proposal to require industries to clean up after themselves...that is what it boils down to. "

kevin wrote on Nov 30, 2008 9:12 AM:

" "Clean up after themselves"?

Oh that's right, you're one of those "believers", the ones that think global warming is man made, despite all the evidence to the contrary.

If you don't like the uneven playing field between countries that free trade produced, you are going to hate what happens with carbon taxes. The Third Worlders will have a field day with exemptions and/or lax enforcement... "

Raven wrote on Nov 30, 2008 10:05 PM:

" kevin, I am not going to waste my time debating global warming with you...nothing I can say nor any evidence I can produce will convince of you of the facts of global warming.....the key point I think is even if, and it is a very big if, man is not the root cause of the warming trend, can we afford to even contribute to it? "

kevin wrote on Dec 3, 2008 9:52 AM:

" I believe in global warming. It has been occuring since the last ice age 100,000 years ago. It is a GOOD THING and will continue until the next ice age begins (we are overdue).

From everything I've read, it is MUCH easier to deal with global warming instead of an ICE AGE.

Just seems to me we should concentrate our resources on mitigating the effects, regardless of the cause. Build more dams and pipelines, etc... "

Raven wrote on Dec 3, 2008 12:27 PM:

" wouldn't it be easier to mitigate the effects if we also attack some of the contributing causes?.... "

Join the conversation

*Member ID:
*Password:
Remember login? (requires cookies)
	Forgot Your Password?

Create an account

Comment Guidelines

The goal of the story comments section at NapaValleyRegister.com is to have an open, thought-provoking, civil community forum for all issues.

What gets your comment posted?

• Staying on topic

• Keeping your comment to 300 words or less

• Avoiding name-calling

• Addressing your comments to the message rather than the messenger

What gets your comment deleted?

• Personal attacks

• Derogatory remarks

• Name-calling of any sort

• Going off-topic

• Hate speech

• Racially-insensitive comments

• Implying guilt of a subject in a crime story before there is a court verdict

• Posting e-mail addresses

• Posting comments of a commercial nature

• POSTING WITH ALL CAPITAL LETTERS

• Linking multiple comments together with "to be continued..." to get around the 300 word limit.

The fine print

- Comments are either approved or denied. We do not edit comments.

- You are welcome to modify and resubmit a denied comment.

- Comments may take several hours to be posted.

- Comments posted are those of the writer, and do not necessarily reflect the opinion of NapaValleyRegister.com, its employees or its parent company.

- Do you have information on a story? Please go to our virtual newsroom to send us a news tip.

- If you feel a posted comment has violated our guidelines, please contact online@napanews.com or add a comment indicating you have an issue and our moderators will review the comment in question.

Search: