The ramifications of supporting Hillary

Hillary Clinton I’m fascinated by the amount of angry messages and "Wall posts" I’m getting on my Facebook page from my friends these days after I announced that I’m supporting Hillary for president (for reasons that I do not wish to delve into now). Most of the angry messages came from my Jordanian/Arab friends who made sure to tell me that they do not agree with me. Here are some examples:

Come on now, she flip flops, she is owned by the Jewish lobby and she has a one sided view of the Arab Israeli conflict. She is no Bill.

Boooo…. Obama…Obama!

Why Hillary she is a devil wearing Prada…Because she is a woman ?!!

Whyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy?

I am aware that Hillary is a pretty divisive choice but I never realized how much she is hated in the Arab World until now. I guess I have been away from the Middle East for a long time and now I’m no longer connected with the "Arab street." However, I’m not backing down. I’m someone who believes in the individual’s freedom of choice. By that I mean a choice that stands on its own that is not influenced by the preference of a community or society. I’m at a stage of my life where I no longer want to chant the same song with a familiar crowd. I want to chant my own song and make individual decisions. So for that I say, go Hillary.

36 Comments

  1. nzm January 11, 2008 at 8:56 pm

    I once admired Hillary and thought that she would be a good leader.

    That quickly changed when she so adamantly denounced Dubai’s DP World when they bought P&O, and with it the management of the US eastern seaboard ports. I lost all the respect for her that I had.

    Her comments about the arab world were ignorant and uneducated. She and her cronies used the media to create fear and doubt, and they succeeded because Sheikh Mohammed bin Rashid Al Maktoum then made the decision to sell off the US entities in order to shut them up.

    She also seemed to conveniently forget that her husband had earned many $$$s from speaking events in Dubai and had enormous respect for the UAE leaders.

    However, if I was a voting American, I really wouldn’t know who to vote for. Obama would be a good choice if only he came across as a stronger man. But to me Hillary is outwardly dangerous.

    Reply
  2. Qwaider قويدر January 11, 2008 at 10:40 pm

    Personally, I like Hillary, but not enough to vote for her. My first choice would be Edwards, I like the dude for some reason. And here I don’t back that up with anything other than “Like”.
    After Edwards, Hillary or Obama… same to me
    It’s funny how everyone says the last-name of the candidates, except for Hillary, since her first name is distinguished enough. While her last name is laced with oval office cigars!

    Reply
  3. Brian Ulrich January 12, 2008 at 4:31 am

    From the standpoint of Middle Eastern issues, there’s no question Hillary Clinton is the worst candidate in the Democratic field. This comes in terms of both points of apparent conviction, such as the Iraq war and her support for Kyl-Lieberman, and for issues she has been willing to demagogue, such as Dubai Ports World and staking out a position to the right of Avigdor Lieberman on the Arab-Israeli peace process. She is, however, probably the most popular candidate here in Israel.

    Reply
  4. amal January 12, 2008 at 4:47 am

    Thank you Brian…very well said

    Reply
  5. Hareega January 12, 2008 at 5:43 am

    George Bush seems to be more concerned and just about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict than Hillary would be if she’s elected. Her policies twards the Middle East in general will likely be unfair and very biased.

    Reply
  6. Brian Ulrich January 12, 2008 at 5:46 am

    One quick point, though, in case you’re feeling put-upon: Senator Clinton has staked out some of the best territory in terms of domestic policy, such as on health care. To me, this is largely balanced by her conception of the presidency as primarily a legislative position rather than a bully pulpit and her assortment of advisers, of whom Mark Penn is the headliner, but I can understand the attraction some have for her candidacy.

    Reply
  7. Arabi January 12, 2008 at 12:17 pm

    Actually to put it differnetly, its not Hillary that is hated in the Arab world, its Hillary that hates the Arab world.

    Hillary was viewed positively for a long time until she made her choice and instead of trying to be an honest broker (as possible as that is given the influence of the Jewish community) like Bill did, she chose to alient herself from many including the Palestinians.

    It does not surprise me though that you would support her.

    At the end of the day, the Jewish community will buy Obama as well (already started to).

    Arabi

    Reply
  8. dm January 12, 2008 at 5:00 pm

    Natasha, I am with you on this one. I completely back Hillary for reasons I wish not to announce either. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion and for their own reasons.

    Actually to put it differnetly, its not Hillary that is hated in the Arab world, its Hillary that hates the Arab world.

    I completely understand why you feel that way and why you are saying that, but from the messages I’ve read, it sounds like it goes both ways here.

    Reply
  9. Arabi January 13, 2008 at 12:57 pm

    dm

    It HAS become that way due to the alignment that Hillary has chosen for herself upon becoming a senator in New York.

    Reply
  10. Hareega January 13, 2008 at 4:25 pm

    dm,
    I respect your decision and Natasha’s not to mention the reason(s) why you’re supporting Hillary, but it’s difficult to make a case why you think she can be a good president when you’re not stating the reason why you’re going to vote for her. I understand that there may be reasons to support her, but when you’re not stating them a lot of people, not necessarily me, would assume that they’re not valid reasons to vote for someone to become president (like showing some tears in N.H.)

    Reply
  11. dm January 14, 2008 at 9:09 am

    Hareega,
    I respect that and thank you. I will say that one of the reasons I am voting for her is because of her stance on healthcare. Healthcare has become such a HUGE issue in the U.S — always has been actually. As a nurse, I see how people are either left behind or get the VIP service just because of how much money you have. I think that she has done a lot for the healthcare system and I would love to see if she would be able to better it if elected president. Can she do that? I believe so. WILL she if elected? We will only find out if given the chance. Who knows? When electing someone we can only hope that they’ll fullfill their campaign promises, which most of the time doesn’t happen.
    That’s one of many reasons.
    I really don’t like Obama, and I’ll be DAMNED if another Republican is in office again.

    Reply
  12. Arabi January 14, 2008 at 9:27 am

    dm

    I guess we agree on something finally, I wouldn’t want a Repbulican back in office either. Socially Hillary will be democratic, economically and internationally I think she would be closer to the republicans. I don’t like Obama either, but I dislike him the least out of the poor options we have for president.

    Arabi

    Reply
  13. Jeff January 14, 2008 at 8:01 pm

    Several things deserve mention here. First and foremost, one of the greatest parts of freedom, is the choice to elect one’s leaders for reasons of individual choice. That’s really the motivation behind this post I think. It’s an empowering feeling.

    Second, leaders in the US Congress represent the desires of their constituency. It’s what gets them into trouble with earmarks/pork spending. But it also must be noted that the attitudes a senator/congressperson takes need to reflect those of their constituency or they will not be re-elected. This is a simple concept that seems to be completely ignored when considering Clinton’s record on things. Frankly, you cannot discount it. She chose this area — choosing to establish residency expressly for her Senatorial run — for a purpose and she has worked to maintain a position there that would allow her to run for presidency. While many, including myself, do not agree with her choices. They are not really ‘her’ choices, are they?

    The United States is a representative government, not a dictatorship. She must represent those that elected her, else she will not return. That needs to be plugged into the equation and calculated.

    Third, it is this sort of attitude — against Clinton, like against Gore, like against Kerry — that led to two terms of Bush. I’m sure many thought, “oh those democrats have sympathies that don’t jibe with mine in the Middle East.” Likely many thought that Bush in the White House would mean better things for those living in the Middle East. Clearly, that is not the case. It was a mistake to throw support — TWICE — in his direction with that kind of mindset.

    For my own part, I’m undecided, but it is clear that the US needs a change and needs to move away from letting “old white men” run things this time around — it’s clearly not representative. And we clearly do not want another four years of republican rule in Washington. Perhaps Clinton’s ties and that sort of uneasy feeling one gets when thinking about ‘legacy’ make her a difficult choice. But she is clearly an experienced, tremendously intelligent woman that would be miles beyond what is in the White House today. Obama has the charisma and a freshness to DC politics that makes him, in my eyes, equally appealing. The two together would make a formidable ticket.

    But bottom line here, it’s a mistake to lean any other direction than democrat this year, regardless of whether the face representing that is female or not. Eight years of republican rule clearly showed that any belief that republicans could do no harm in the ME was very misplaced. Second, Clinton does what a representative should: she supports the policies of her constituency. Of course, she has attitudes of her own, but she cannot replace the beliefs of those she represents with her own. When and if she has an opportunity for the White House, she will surely represent the will of the American people, as one would hope any elected official would – the current resident being perhaps a glaring exception.

    It’s hard for me at least to make a clear choice between the top two democratic contenders. But at least this time round, the choice of “sides” is clear as a bell and honestly, either democratic choice would be a much needed respite from the current status quo.

    Reply
  14. Khaled Ulayyan January 14, 2008 at 8:15 pm

    I love it how Jeff always comes to the rescue: Whenever Natasha gets in trouble or gets challenged by somebody here (on her blog), Jeff always comes to the rescue and saves her life. What a perfect husband you are!

    Reply
  15. natasha January 14, 2008 at 9:24 pm

    Khaled,
    The web is a large large place. Please a choose a blog that you like and stop harassing people that you disagree with. I do not appreciate your comment (which is meant to mock me and my husband, please correct me if I’m mistaken). I have the free will to support whoever I want to. I do not expect readers to this blog to agree with me and I’m not here to justify my decisions. I only expect them to be decent and polite.

    Personal attacks are not tolerated here. Users who violate the rules are banned.

    And yes, I’m very happy with my supportive husband. I hope your spouse (current or future) is that supportive.

    Thank you.

    Reply
  16. rrosss January 15, 2008 at 1:03 am

    What are your thoughts on Ron Paul?

    Reply
  17. Arabi January 15, 2008 at 1:46 pm

    Jeff

    Good post, however, one point to correct is that Arab Americans supported republicans during Bush’s first round, but during the 2nd one the vast majority supported the Democarts. You can look at the stats on http://www.aaiusa.org posted by Zogbi International.

    2nd point is that I agree the President of the US SHOULD support the will of the people. While I understand because I lived in the US and understand American politcs, I feel its hard to convince people in the Middle East that American Democracy is working with such a maniac in the White House. That part I don’t even understand myself. Even today, I’m afraid if Bush could run again he has a very good chance to win. Is it possible that over 50% of Americans are that naive.

    Arabi

    Reply
  18. dm January 15, 2008 at 2:51 pm

    I’m afraid if Bush could run again he has a very good chance to win
    I’m not so sure I agree with that. Polls have shown that he is thought of by the vast majority as the worst president the U.S. has ever had. His popularity has completely dropped drastically over the past 4 years…and deservedly so.

    Reply
  19. Arabi January 16, 2008 at 1:17 pm

    Yeah that was the case last time he ran, but he still won, so I’m quite sure its still the case. You know whats amazing, one of many stories I can go on and on about. I was talking to a co-worker the other day (white American guy) who drinks more than a gutter and quite liberal and he said the following:

    “You know Bush as all the credentials of an idiot, but he is the right president because if no one did what he did in Iraq then who would have made the world a safer place”

    Quite of those exist!!!

    Arabi

    Reply
  20. dm January 16, 2008 at 3:41 pm

    Well, I guess it’s all in who you talk to. I certainly can say that I don’t know one person who supports Bush or this war, at least no one I associate with. I know those people exist–ovbiously–so I guess it just depends on who/where you are.
    What does him being white have to do with anything?

    “You know Bush as all the credentials of an idiot, but he is the right president because if no one did what he did in Iraq then who would have made the world a safer place”

    I agree with HALF that statement…of course the 1st half.

    Reply
  21. Hamzeh N. January 16, 2008 at 8:25 pm

    This round of elections is so stupid. It comes at the worst possible time that the two main democratic representatives are a woman, and an african American.

    On one hand, everybody with a little bit of reason has about had enough of the Republicans, and they know the next president must be a democrat, but on the other hand, they are left under the impression that the decision for them is going to be choosing between two minorities to decide which makes it first to presidency.

    Now, I’m certain not every female democrat will vote for Hillary, and not every African American democrat will vote for Obama, but I am almost certain all females will feel proud the first time a female becomes the president, and all African Americans will feel proud the first time an African American becomes the president, so the issue does exist in the back of everybody’s mind, and quite honestly, and I hate to say this to someone like Natasha, when a woman comes out and says that she supports Hillary and that she doesn’t wanna say why, it’s just too easy to assume that it’s because she wants to see a woman in the White House, and if that’s true, then it’s really sad.

    This is why this round of elections is so stupid, even more stupid than how much US elections are usually, where some people are forced to not vote for their number 1 candidate because they know that only a few will vote for them. People didn’t wanna vote for Nader because they knew he would not win, and ended up contributing to his loss (really their loss) by voting for Gore.

    Why is it that Americans don’t vote for people like Nader, or Kucinich? Someone explain to me and convince me why they must always be so undervalued in the American public’s eye?

    Is it because those individual candidates have a problem? Or could it be because there is a much bigger problem with Americans in general?

    I don’t like Clinton (I didn’t even like Bill), and this is the most disappointing post I’ve ever read on this blog, and the most annoying one too given that Natasha won’t even explain why she thinks Hillary is the best next leader of not only the US, but the world (Middle East included).

    And you know why it’s annoying too? Because I say that term “next leader of the world” with the sad realization (as a Jordanian) that this leader is forced upon us, not elected by us, and here I am finding out that one of my role models is participating in that process of forcing upon me one of the dirtiest politicians I’ve ever known to exist in this world.

    Reply
  22. Jeff January 17, 2008 at 3:15 am

    Just to be clear, I’m undecided between the two primary democratic contenders. There are reasons for both that aren’t that difficult to divine beyond race and gender. I’ll support the democratic nominee but I’m unsure whom I’ll pick when I reach the ballot box. But Hamzeh where on earth do you come up with the comment about the ‘dirtiest politiican’ you’ve ever known to exist? I’m assuming you mean Clinton or the Clintons, sa7? I really don’t understand it. Without a doubt, both are not shining examples of purity. Obama, by his very newness to the process, seems less soiled by the goings on in DC. But the Clintons are dirty because, unfortunately, it’s a dirty business. That’s why so often so many of us like the idea of an outsider in the process. But it’s only a matter of time before they, too, are soiled by things. Politics is dirty business after all.

    If, Hamzeh, you are referring to the Clintons, I really am confused. Their exploits are fairly well documented and in truth they are not the kind of thing that merits that comment. If you direct that comment towards the current occupant of the White House and his advisors, then you’ve got some traction. The degree of corruption present there is just hard to fathom. They put kids, 20-year-olds (nothing against them), into Iraq that had little to no experience and asked them to help run things simply because they were republican insiders. They reached out to the littlest thing — pulling animals off of the endangered species list to allow big business access to protected areas. I mean, it seems there is no end to the degree of it all. It is depressing, honestly. It’ll likely be years — though the recent push for a release of records and so forth from the White House by the courts is a good start — before the full extent of things is fully known.

    So, I stand a bit confused by the idea. I’d be curious to hear you (Hamzeh) hit us up with some examples of how she is the dirtiest politician you’ve ever known to exist in this world. Certainly no saint, perhaps more soiled than some (Obama certainly), but she hardly holds a candle to the current office holder. Please cite something to back up such a bold statement.

    As for having a leader forced upon you, leaving behind the likes of Nader and Kucinich, know this: This is how it works. The two you’ve named have many disadvantages — the number one being money. But they also have limited appeal. There’s just not that many people in the US that will get behind them. And that’s the way of democracy — the majority rules, no matter how whacked out that opinion might seem. You’d hope that what you would get would always be the most qualified, the most respected … the best possible leader. But it doesn’t work that way. Right now, I think many would agree, the system is flawed. The electoral college seems terribly outdated. The money, the influence peddling before, during and after elections is such a terribly scary force. Perhaps that’s the reason Obama was so quickly hailed — he could bring change, and likely would bring some. I do think that those new to the process should fight against apathy and frustration and get out and work to make the process work, to make it just that much more representative. It’s shocking how few actually vote. Voting can bring changes, slowly but surely. I still believe that.

    Reply
  23. Jeff January 17, 2008 at 3:27 am

    One other thing: Regarding the race/gender issue and the fact that they might get support simply by their inclusion in a particular group, I think you have to look at how people vote. They’ve done studies that show simply having a name at the top of the ballot has an influence so surely race and gender have and will have a potent impact. But that doesn’t mean that the candidates of that particular group are not qualified, are not going to be good leaders. You can lament that people would vote on such superficial issues because, well it is somewhat lamentable. But people vote on these superficial things. The media contributes, the society, with its rapid pace allowing only for the most cursory examination of the most complex issues, where Britney’s exploits get nearly as much air time as discussions on international relations by the contenders … it’s a screwed up system, no doubt. But even when running at its best, the choices people make in the voting booth run the gamut — looks, name, origin, sex, party, teary-eyed confessor, nice hair. Democracy has its flaws, most of them human.

    Reply
  24. Hamzeh N. January 17, 2008 at 10:45 am

    Well, you bring up a good question Jeff. Who’s worse: Bush or Hillary? But you’re comparing 8 years of office for the Bush adminstration to Hillary now when she’s not even president. So it is kind of like comparing apples and organes.

    Regarding your question. First, I did not say she was “the” dirtiest politician I ever knew, but “one of” such politicians. I would say that I perceive her as definitely the dirtiest politician currently running for office. Second, I only said what I said to express to Natasha (one of my favourite bloggers) my disappointment upon reading this post, and as to why I said what I said about Hillary, I’m just gonna say that it was for reasons that I “do not wish to delve into now” (simply because it wasn’t the point of my post really).

    Finally, the point of my post wasn’t convincing you or Natasha not to vote for Hillary, but simply to express my frustration, disappointment and being annoyed by the fact that how Americans vote for the American president ends up affecting not just them, but more so people in my region of the world. And regardless of why I might not like Clinton, or why another might not like Obama, finding out that a Jordanian who was in my shoes a few years ago has now become an American and was gonna choose a new “world leader” that I did not want, and that I cannot do anything about it, is annoying. You have to admit it’s annoying, and frustrating, and disappointing.

    Reply
  25. natasha January 17, 2008 at 10:56 am

    Hi Hamzeh,
    Well.. I will summarize my reasons for supporting Hillary right here just for you, cause I like you 🙂

    1- Health care
    2- I want the Clintons back in the White House
    3- She has enough experience that will make me breath easy
    4- It is about time for the US to have a female president
    5- Obama seems a bit naive to me and unrealistic.
    6- Edwards annoys me and he annoyed me even more with his sexist remarks about Hillary

    You might not agree with me, but it is okay.

    Reply
  26. Hamzeh N. January 17, 2008 at 12:35 pm

    I think the least I can say now is thank you, with a smile 🙂

    But I still don’t like her :[

    Sometimes I just wish this country was on a different planet.

    Reply
  27. Hareega January 19, 2008 at 10:55 am

    dm, I totally hear you on health care. Almost daily I see Americans being humiliated by the way their health insurances treat them. I’m not sure Hillary can fix it. Believe me if she does most people including me will worship her.

    Reply
  28. alurdunialhurr January 20, 2008 at 2:37 am

    Hilary Clinton will never be able to deliver on health care because she has been bought and sold by the big boys ,mark my word on that Natasha,I for one will be giving my vote to Cynthia McKinney
    Hilary can’t be trusted on all issues like her husband,she has supported the war and mayhem in Iraq and at the same time she turns around and pontificate about how she will put forward environmental issues first while she supported this terrorist in the white house,just like the rest of the Democrats except for Dennis Kucinich which I like and respect because of his principled consistency…

    Reply
  29. dm January 20, 2008 at 3:02 pm

    she has been bought and sold by the big boys…

    What poletician hasn’t been? That’s the problem. No matter what party you are, democrat, republican, independent — all these politicians have been bought and sold, and they all will tell you what you want to hear. That’s the way it is everywhere. Unfortunately, we hve to pick who we think will be best at leading this country. Personally, yes I believe it could be Hillary, but as long as it’s a democrat I’ll be as happy as I can be.

    Hareega, ever see Sicko? I’m not a big Michael Moore fan and know that he doesn’t always tell the truth, but it’s an eye opening documentry.

    Reply
  30. Skye January 20, 2008 at 7:56 pm

    Cynthia Mckinney? LMAO. Giving your vote to her for what?

    Any Democrat who is stupid enough NOT to support the Dem nominee no matter who he/she is, better not complain when we end up with a Republican in office again.

    Reply
  31. Hareega January 20, 2008 at 8:03 pm

    dm, yes I saw Sicko, good documentary except for that trip to Cuba , if the Moore and his group were treated just like any Cuban patient at least one of them would have ended up with a disability.
    I’m a doctor in Arizona I could totally relate to what Sicko was talking about, I can write a very large book -and I’m sure you can- about how health insurances are crippling health care in America. One of the main rwasons is the crazy lawsuits. A patient might suffer from an expected complication from a surgery and he would end up winning a lawsuit against the hospital for a incredible compensation, so the hospital and doctor loses and doctors wnd up ordering an endless list of unncesessary tests just to protect their butts. The cost goes up big time, also malpractise insurances are so high as well. I’m not sure a lawyer can fix that or want to in the first place.

    Reply
  32. tarbo January 21, 2008 at 12:13 pm

    what is facebook???

    Reply
  33. Hamzeh N. January 23, 2008 at 2:31 am

    What poletician hasn’t been? That’s the problem. No matter what party you are, democrat, republican, independent — all these politicians have been bought and sold, and they all will tell you what you want to hear.

    But if what you’re saying is true, and every presidential candidate has been bought by the same big boys, then they would not have conflicting agendas, or it wouldn’t make much difference for the average American to choose candidate A or candidate B.

    They must be bought by different people then, but in that case, the most important question here arises. Which one do you end up voting for? It must be the one who has been bought by parties whose agendas you agree with, which puts you in the same group as the often villified yet mysteriously mass-endorsed “big boys,” be they the big boys who bought candidate A, or the ones who bought candidate B.

    Reply
  34. jareer January 27, 2008 at 10:31 am

    Neither Obama, nor Hillary is going to win. It is just a simple prediction that I am glad to have it archived in this blog until final presidency elections are finalized.

    Reply
  35. Julie February 11, 2008 at 12:50 pm

    “1- Health care
    2- I want the Clintons back in the White House
    3- She has enough experience that will make me breath easy
    4- It is about time for the US to have a female president
    5- Obama seems a bit naive to me and unrealistic.
    6- Edwards annoys me and he annoyed me even more with his sexist remarks about Hillary”

    I would like to step in here a minute. I know many people who are voting for Hillary and many who are voting for Obama. As Kucinich and Paul have no chance, I will vote for Obama.

    I will explain why as a counter to Natasha’s reasons for voting for Hillary. BTW, I am a life long American involved in the Palestinian issue and have friends in Gaza and Lebanon.
    1. Hillary’s health care plan won’t work. Tax credits to pay for it are irrelevant to people who live from paycheck to paycheck, and in America there are many and the numbers are growing. When you are in that situation, another $50 will throw you over the edge. She doesn’t understand that. And them she wants to penalize you if you don’t purchase it. Many of her campaign contributors are CEO’s of America’s health care providers, those most likely to benefit should her plan succeed. Obama gets the part that people don’t have it because they can’t afford it.

    2. I would like Bill back in the White House. I didn’t like the Hillary the first time she was there and I don’t want her there now.

    3. What experience does she have? She is a two term senator from NY, who’s really from Illinois. She chose not to run aqainst Obama in her home state. Why? Because all the money and power are in NY. Other than being a two term senator, she has never held a public office, she was a lawyer, like a million other people who run for office. She probably never owned a home until the one they bought in NY because before that they lived in the White House and prior to that they lived in the Governor’s mansion in Arkansas. I doubt she has experience running a household let alone a country. At least Obama was a community organizer/activist and served in the Illinois legislature, and practiced law. That’s experience. being the wife of a governor or president is not.

    4. It’s time for the U.S. to have a female president, but if you don’t have the RIGHT female president, you’ll never have another one. Jane Byrne was the first female mayor of Chicago, and we were paying for her fiscal irresponsibility for a decade after she left. No woman has ever dared run again. They will lose.

    5. Obama is neither naive nor unrealistic. He grew up in a former slave state as a bi-racial child living with a white woman in the 60’s. Not a good time or place for that and not an environment that would produce naivete. Hillary, on the other hand, grew up in an upper middle class all white suburb of Chicago, which to this day is only .9 African-American.She neither understands, no has ever lived, like the vast majority of Americans. Her policies reflect this. Her plan to fix the “housing crisis” is reflective of her lack of understanding of it. You can’t force banks, who borrow money to loan YOU money,to refinance the loan at lower rates. THEY will then take the loss and the banks will fail. Her plan also wants to bail out people who took mortgages up to $650,000. Sorry, she’s bailing out the Wall Street jerks who caused these problems to begin with and bought houses with the millions in bonuses they got while they were busy screwing the American people.

    6. I liked Edwards but didn’t entirely trust him.

    If you want someone who will be an honest broker for the Palestiniaan cause, or even Lebanon or Syria, Hillary has had numerous donations from the Sabans and Martin Indyk, former Ambassador to Israel and the director of the Saban Center, which, if you recall, invited Lieberman to speak after he as much as said the Palestinians should be wiped off the map. hillary Clinton spoke with him.

    Obama takes no PAC money. His money comes from individual donations. He has the fewest people who list their occupation as lobbyist, of any of the candidates. He is NOT a Washington insider, which was also one of Bill Clinton’s strengths. Hillary is. And she owes people.

    I’ve voted in every election since 1972. I’ve seen what happens when the bought and beholden are elected to public office. It directly affects their policies. Please do not be so shortsighted as to believe Hillary is a woman, therefore she is just like me. Hillary is a politician. If you really listen to her, she says we should vote for her “because I (she) can win” not because she will do the best job as president. She says she has experience in campaigns. That’s nice, but after the campaign is over, she has to be president and she will be president at a time when we are fighting two wars, a failed economy rapidly falling into a depression, the potential for a worldwide recession, allies that can’t agree on anything, and Israel ramping up to bomb Iran.

    Yet she cries on the campaign trail because she takes this personally and she doesn’t understand why people don’t like her.

    Sorry, I don’t want a president who just wants to be popular and will therefore change policies as the polls go, and I certainly don’t want one who will break down in a negotiation or a cabinet meeting and cry.

    Everyone is entitled to vote their choice and I respect that, but please give it a little more thought and research before you decide. All of you.

    Here are a couple of links to help you figure out just who is paying for them.

    http://fundrace.huffingtonpost.com/
    http://www.fec.gov

    Reply

Leave A Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *