For the record, Hillary Clinton got where she is own her own merits

[journalist3072]

I see we've still got the DUers (be they sexist, disingenuous, whatever you want to call them) who baselessly and shamelessly advance the theory that Sen. Clinton would not be where she is today, without Bill Clinton.

So let's just examine the facts here.

- When Hillary Rodham was asked to give the commencement speech at Wellsley College, it wasn't because of Bill Clinton. In fact, she didn't even know him. Her classmates choose her to represent them. When her college commencement speech was featured in Life magazine, it wasn't because of Bill Clinton.

- When Hillary Rodham was accepted into Yale Law School, it wasn't because of Bill Clinton.

- When Hillary Rodham was asked to come to Washington, DC and serve on the impeachment proceedings against Richard Nixon, it wasn't because Bill Clinton was her boyfriend (which he was then).

- When Hillary Rodham worked for Marian Wright Edeleman at the Children's Defense Fund, it wasn't due to Bill Clinton getting her that job.

- When she got into the Rose Law Firm, and became the first woman to make partner there, it wasn't because Bill Clinton was her husband.

- She wasn't elected United States Senator because Bill Clinton was her husband.

The point being that she's a woman of her own means and accomplishment. Bill Clinton didn't make her.

So can we please stop this ridiculous notion that everything she has or has become, is because of Bill Clinton.

[LulaMay]

1. THANK YOU. I'm getting sick and tired of the sexist crud being spouted here.

She is brilliant and extremely accomplished.

Nobody would dare insult a man the way pundits and others attack her.

[Hekate]

5. Welcome to DU, Lula May. Right you are: she was one of the best "children's rights" lawyers inthe US

...when she had to give that up to be First Lady.

She's smart and ambitious, two qualities that are often not appreciated in women unless they are aimed at getting a husband and promoting HIS career. She married Bill alright, but it was/is a partnership marriage, and she promoted her own career.

I am not a Hillary supporter -- unless she gets the nom for the GE, in which case I am behind her 100% -- but it really aggravates me to read the kind of swill about her that gets posted all too often on DU.

She is and always was head and shoulders above any Republican candidate for president.

Qualifications? -- I give you Fred Thompson. :eyes: Nearly Dead Fred, who is taken seriously by the MSM.

Hekate

[cali]

67. For the record: Ther e is absolutely no fucking way on earth to

know where Hillary Clinton would be today if she hadn't married Bill.

That is a fact. Period.

[Hekate]

69. For the record: did I say there was?

Sheesh, Cali. Chill out.

There's no way to tell where I'd be if I hadn't married my ex-husband. There's no way to tell where you'd be if you hadn't done whatever it was you did in your 20's.

But I certainly know I never would have been a brilliant lawyer no matter who the hell I married. Ever. It's not in me.

It's in Hillary. I don't have to endorse her to admit that.

Hekate

[cali]

71. I'm sorry

My post should have been to the OP, not you. Apologies.

[Bitwit1234]

24. And don't ever say anything about the STAR

you all know who I mean --hard to tell what they will they'll do.

[leftchick]

68. "brilliant, extremely accomplished"

and extremely compromised. Fuck That shit!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x2723179

[Yupster]

70. I agree that she is brilliant and very accomplished

But it is deluded to think she'd be the favorite for president had she not been First Lady.

There is no way in the world that a successful lawyer moves into New York State where no one has heard of her and decides to run for the senate unless she is very famous for something. In her case it was First Lady. Any other person in that position would be laughed out of the race.

In her case long-time politicians who had planned to run for the senate seat for years withdrew from the race to let her have the nomination without a fight. Yeah, like that would have happened were she not the First Lady. Withdraw from the race to give a clear nomination to a woman who no one knows and doesn't even live in the state. What a joke.

So where would Hillary be today had she not married Bill?

Of course no one knows. But ... I don't have any doubt she would be successful and wealthy.

Probably a successful partner in a major law firm in DC or Illinois.

The question would be which direction she went after flunking the Bar Exam in DC. In real life she chose to follow Bill to Arkansas.

What if that option were not available? She could have stayed in DC and retaken the Bar with her reputation a bit tarnished by the Bar Exam failure, or she could have gone back to Illinois to practice there.

Either way, I believe she would have been successful, but running for President? How do you get to there? I don't see it. A brilliant young lawyer? There are thousands of brilliant young lawyers.

[The_Casual_Observer]

2. The Obama nutcase contingent has already rewritten the history

of the Clintons. It's too late for you.

[Fredda Weinberg]

3. k&r

[Stephanie]

4. Um, you don't think she won the NY Senate seat because of her marriage to Bill?

What other candidate could waltz into NY with barely a year of residency and claim she deserved the seat? It was only the sympathy vote and outrage over impeachment that put her in the Senate. The carpetbagger charge was not so off-base.

[journalist3072]

8. No, I do not. Do you even have a clue how she won that Senate senate? Because she listened to the

people of New Yorker. If you paid attention to the results of particularly her 2000 election, you know that she won over a lot of upstate (i.e. red State) New York...places George W. Bush had carried in 2000. Same thing happened on her re-election.

So how did she do that in 2000? Because she went and educated herself on their issues and their needs. She listened to farmers in New York (yes, they have farmers).

And in the process, New Yorkers felt like they had someone who understood their concerns, which they did.

THAT, my friend, is how she won her Senate seat...by winnning over places in New York no Democrat would have even tried.

[Matariki]

12. thank you!

[Stephanie]

13. Um, I AM a "people of New Yorker"

So, yeah, I do have a clue how she did it. I was here. She made a lot of promises upstate she didn't keep. Google Buffalo+Tata. The campaign theme was the "listening tour" but did she actually listen when a million of us marched against the Iraq invasion? Not so much.

[journalist3072]

14. Yawn...Boo freakin boo, sob, sob, sob...

[Stephanie]

15. Oh, that's substantive.

Nice job. You're a "journalist?"

[journalist3072]

16. And your post was? NOT! eom

[Stephanie]

18. You might be off the clock but do google Buffalo and Tata Industries

And please tell me what she's done for upstate NY. Answer: not much.

[madrchsod]

33. tata? what a company!

they`ll under price anyone in the world for products. god only knows the working conditions in their factories. from the shit in the bottom of the part boxes i may not want to know...

[Stephanie]

40. She promised to bring jobs to Buffalo. She only brought Tata, an outsourcing firm.

They created about 10 jobs in Buffalo and then shipped god knows how many American jobs to India. Thanks Sen. Clinton! :hi:

http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/07/30/2857/

Published on Monday, July 30, 2007 by the Los Angeles Times
Clinton Woos the Outsourcers that Workers Fear
by Peter Wallsten
BUFFALO, N.Y. - To many labor unions and high-tech workers, the Indian giant Tata Consultancy Services is a serious threat - a company that has helped move U.S. jobs to India while sending thousands of foreign workers on temporary visas to the United States.

So when Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) came to this struggling city to announce some good news, her choice of partners was something of a surprise.

Joining Tata Consultancy’s chief executive at a downtown hotel, Clinton announced that the company would open a software development office in Buffalo and form a research partnership with a local university. Tata told a newspaper that it might hire as many as 200 people.

The 2003 announcement had clear benefits for the senator and the company: Tata received good press, and Clinton burnished her credentials as a champion for New York’s depressed upstate region.

But less noticed was how the event signaled that Clinton, who portrays herself as a fighter for American workers, had aligned herself with Indian American business leaders and Indian companies feared by the labor movement.

Now, as Clinton runs for president, that signal is echoing loudly.

Clinton is successfully wooing wealthy Indian Americans, many of them business leaders with close ties to their native country and an interest in protecting outsourcing laws and expanding access to worker visas. Her campaign has held three fundraisers in the Indian American community recently, one of which raised close to $3 million, its sponsor told an Indian news organization.

But in Buffalo, the fruits of the Tata deal have been hard to find. The company, which called the arrangement Clinton’s “brainchild,” says “about 10″ employees work here. Tata says most of the new employees were hired from around Buffalo. It declines to say whether any of the new jobs are held by foreigners, who make up 90% of Tata’s 10,000-employee workforce in the United States.

As for the research deal with the state university that Clinton announced, school administrators say that three attempts to win government grants with Tata for health-oriented research were unsuccessful and that no projects are imminent.

The Tata deal underscores Clinton’s bind as she attempts to lead a Democratic Party that is turning away from the free-trade policies of her husband’s administration in the 1990s and is becoming more skeptical of trade deals and temporary-worker visas.

Like many businesses and economists, Clinton says that the United States benefits by admitting high-tech workers from abroad. She backs proposals to increase the number of temporary visas for skilled foreigners.

The Tata deal shows the difficulty of proving concrete benefits to U.S. workers from the visa system. Since 2003, the year its Buffalo office opened, Tata and its affiliates have sought permission to bring more than 1,600 foreign high-tech workers to the state, including at least 495 to the upstate region and 45 to Buffalo, according to government data. Tata has brought additional workers into the country under a second visa program whose numbers have not been disclosed.

Some U.S. worker organizations say Clinton cannot claim to support American workers if she is also helping Indian outsourcing companies and proposing more worker visas.

“It’s just two-faced,” said John Miano, founder of the Programmers Guild, one of several high-tech worker organizations that have sprung up as outsourcing has expanded. “We see her undermining U.S. workers and helping the offshoring business, and then she comes back to the U.S. and says, ‘I’m concerned about your pain.’ ”

Among Indian American activists, Clinton’s work with Tata has been seen as a sign of her independence from outsourcing skeptics within her party - and a break from the Democrats’ 2004 presidential nominee, Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry, who lambasted “Benedict Arnold CEOs” for shipping jobs overseas.

The main lobbying organization for the Indian-American community, USINPAC, cites the Tata deal as one of Clinton’s top three achievements as a senator - and evidence of a turnabout, in its view, from her past criticism of outsourcing. “Even though she was against outsourcing at the beginning of her political career,” the USINPAC website says, “she has since changed her position and now maintains that offshoring brings as much economic value to the United States as to the country where services are outsourced, especially India.”

Clinton regularly reinforces that view. When CNN anchorman Lou Dobbs, an outsourcing critic, pressed her on the Tata deal in 2004, Clinton responded: “Well, of course I know that they outsource jobs, that they’ve actually brought jobs to Buffalo. They’ve created 10 jobs in Buffalo and have told me and the Buffalo community that they intend to be a source of new jobs in the area, because, you know, outsourcing does work both ways.”

This month, she made a similar case to a conference of Indian workers in Silicon Valley, saying she supported an expansion of visas. “Foreign skilled workers contribute greatly to our U.S. technological development,” she told the group via satellite.

Clinton acknowledged the strains on American workers and called for more job-training programs. But her words seemed to distance her from those who would end outsourcing. Increased U.S. job losses, she said, could cause Americans to “seek more protection against what they view as unfair competition.”

The Tata deal, she said in a 2005 stop in India, exemplified the cooperation that will “help to prevent the kind of negative feelings that could be stirred up” by critics of the global marketplace. She called those critics “short-sighted.”

Today, on the campaign trail, Clinton often strikes a different tone. Addressing union audiences and Democratic crowds, she does not highlight her support for expanding foreign-worker visas. Instead, Clinton often laments a system that, as she told a government workers union last month, rewards companies for “moving our jobs overseas.” “Outsourcing is a problem, and it’s one that I’ve dealt with as a senator from New York,” Clinton said during a Democratic candidates debate in June. She said she had tried “to stand against the tide of outsourcing.”

Clinton aides say the Tata deal is just one example of her broader efforts to help upstate New York. Whatever the results, said spokesman Philippe Reines, the effort showed Clinton helping to build a high-tech future for a region long focused on manufacturing.

Buffalo’s population has fallen by half over 50 years, as automotive and other manufacturing jobs moved overseas. Resentment is so high that voters last year nearly dumped a longtime Republican congressman for an anti-trade Democrat, who had made outsourcing his biggest issue.

For Clinton, a newcomer to New York when she ran for the Senate in 2000, the upstate region was considered a challenge - a traditionally conservative area that did not participate in the economic prosperity during her husband’s presidency. So, as a candidate, she pledged to use tax credits and other incentives to create 200,000 jobs in the region.

In 2002, Clinton took a group of Indian business executives on a tour of the region and to a meeting with administrators from the state university in Buffalo. The group included Tata Consultancy Services, an information technology consulting firm that is part of Tata Group, a conglomerate with interests in electricity, steel, aviation, cars and hotels.

At the time, Tata Consultancy had two offices in the state - both in New York City to service Wall Street clients.

But a year after the tour, the company flew Clinton to join its chief executive, S. Ramadorai, in Buffalo for an announcement: It would open an office there.

Tata also signed a memorandum of understanding with a university research center to pursue discoveries in genetics, drugs and other areas. In a news release, Tata said that deal “will eventually lead to opportunities for training, recruitment and job creation in Buffalo.”

“There was a sense of excitement on the part of the community,” said Anthony M. Masiello, Buffalo’s mayor at the time, “to have a company like Tata that would not traditionally look at coming to western New York.”

But soon the company faded from public view, said Andrew J. Rudnick, president and CEO of the Buffalo-Niagara Partnership, an economic development group in which Tata was initially active. “They told us their business strategy had changed,” he said. “The reality is that the number of people that Tata is employing here now doesn’t seem to be significant.”

At the University at Buffalo, Bruce A. Holm, director of a research center pursuing projects with Tata, conceded that the partnership had not played out as hoped. But he said that progress was still possible.

Tata officials say the company has hired 50 people from the Buffalo area in the last four years but most have left or have been transferred to other locations. They say the Buffalo operations remain important to the company and a part of the civic life of the city.

But critics say that Tata has done more to undercut workers in upstate New York than it has helped - and that Clinton is wrong to argue that exposing U.S. workers to competition from foreign workers is helping both groups.

Since Tata arrived in Buffalo, “the reality is that it probably created many more jobs for workers overseas and displaced lots of American workers,” said Ronil Hira, a public policy professor at the Rochester Institute of Technology and a prominent critic of outsourcing.

A report released by two senators said that Tata was one of the biggest users of foreign-worker visas in the United States, employing more than 7,900 visa recipients last year. The large number of visas suggests that companies are circumventing laws designed to protect American workers, Sens. Richard J. Durbin (D-Ill.) and Charles E. Grassley (R-Iowa) said in their report.

Clinton and many other lawmakers have called for cracking down on visa abuse. At the same time, she has backed an increase in the number of foreigners admitted to the U.S. each year under the main type of visa for high-tech workers. The cap is 65,000 each year; companies are seeking 115,000.

And her campaign continues to telegraph - sometimes in front of Indian American audiences - that she sees benefits to a globalized world.

Three weeks ago, her husband drew applause at a conference of 14,000 Indian Americans in Washington as he extolled the benefits of “open borders, easy travel, easy immigration.” He said the outsourcing debate bothered him because it failed to acknowledge the contributions of Indians who settled in the U.S. The same day, he headlined a fundraiser at the conference for his wife’s campaign.

Labor union leaders, who haven’t decided whom to endorse for president, say they have watched the Tata deal and Clinton’s statements on outsourcing.

“People do want to see from her some recognition that the outsourcing of these service jobs isn’t a good thing for the U.S. economy,” said Thea M. Lee, policy director of the AFL-CIO. “It’s a little bit of an open question where Sen. Clinton’s going to end up on outsourcing.”

Total … 495

–

*H-1B visas allow U.S. employers to hire high-skilled international workers for up to six years. Obtaining certification from the Department of Labor does not necessarily mean the company secured visas, but that is the only public indicator of where a company intends to deploy foreign workers. Whereas H-1B certification data is public, similar information is not available for L-1 visas, which accounted for more of Tata’s workers in 2006, according to a U.S. Senate report.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

74. Being a NYer myself, thank you for telling it like it was/is! nt

[dorkulon]

21. Oh, BS. She won the senate seat because she was already famous.

Famous for being the first lady. Not that there's anything wrong with that.

[journalist3072]

22. What a bunch of crock.....Just more B.S. from the anti-Clinton contingent...

[dorkulon]

30. You can't pretend being one of the most famous people in the world

didn't give her just a bit of an edge. I mean, come on.

[hfojvt]

34. it was not just fame

it was also connections to big money donors. Connections she got as, wait for it, part of the Clinton Administration.

http://www.opensecrets.org/races/summary.asp?ID=NYS1&Cycle=2000

Clinton $30 million raised. $30 million spent. However, she was also good for Republican fundraising. She was out-raised and outspent by $10 million, Compare that to Schumer's opponent 4 years later.



http://www.opensecrets.org/races/summary.asp?ID=NYS2&Cycle=2004

Schumer $27 million raised, $17 million spent

http://www.opensecrets.org/races/summary.asp?ID=NYS1&Cycle=2006

Clinton 2006 $51 million raised, $41 million spent

[JVS]

35. And had they never heard of her and her husband they'd have said

"Who the fuck is this lady from Arkansas asking about my concerns?"

[dkf]

45. She won her Senate Seat with a huge campaign war chest.

You think John Edwards hasn't listed to the people of this country? He has. The reason he hasn't done well is because he couldn't raise the big bucks. You and I both know that is a huge part of it.

Had John Edwards been hugely independently wealthy, like Mitt Romney he could do it too. In fact, I think he could very well be the front runner.

But he doesn't have the money and without the Bill Clinton Presidency, neither would she for the Senate or for the Presidency.

In fact, I read that one of the gripes of the Gore campaign was that Hillary and Bill used all their contacts and influence to fund her Senatorial campaign, instead of Gore's Presidential run. So they messed up Gore in two ways, one by having him tied to the whole Monica thing, and two by having the Democratic establishment prioritize her fund raising instead of his. You remember that at the time, Clinton best buddy Terry McAuliffe was head of the DNC.

[fujiyama]

53. She worked hard to win her races...I won't doubt that

But regarding the '00 election, she won the state by a lower margin than Al Gore won. I'd be interested in seeing the district or county distribution especially in upstate NY compared to Gore. She did have weak competition with Lazio though. She may have beaten Giulliani but it would have been a lot tougher.

I'm not going to argue about her %s in '06, because by that time she had proven that she could bring home the pork. Though, given the ridiculous amount of money she spent on a safe seat, the margin by which she won wasn't that impressive either.

[Yupster]

99. And you think that if she weren't Bill's wife

that the other Democratic candidates in the race, with far greater credientials than her would have quietly stepped aside to give her the nomination without a primary?

Long time politicians with long careers in elective New York politics would have said "Oh here's a woman from Arkansas who's never been elected anything. I think I'll step aside and let her run for this senate seat."

What a laugh.

[aquart]

10. I'll give you the first election. Not the second.

Americans like high profile celebrities. California made Arnold a governor. So, yeah. We liked voting for the First Lady who had behaved with such consummate grace during eight years of constant assault. And it was delightful that the woman who didn't bake cookies became the FIRST First Lady to go on to elective office.

I'll give you something else: I think the Republicans conceded the election in advance. Her opposition was lightweight both times. I can't even remember them.

But she worked her ass off and she delivered. Which is what we had in mind when we voted for her. (She and Schumer also broke my heart with the IWR vote which is why I preferred Edwards until Iowa.)

I would like to think, and hope it's true, that we would not have voted Britney Spears into the Senate had she chosen to run. But I'm not totally sure. I do know we would laugh Laura Bush out of the five boroughs. Upstate New York? Who knows with them.

[Cleetus]

11. Stephanie..

I agree completely with you. Hillary is an opportunist who will do anything to get what she wants. This includes securing her legacy, should she be elected. Don't get me wrong, if she gets the nod I'll vote for her, but I don't have to like it.

Cheers

[madrchsod]

38. she needed a job and new york had an opening

no she deserved the seat...

[Stephanie]

44. Deserved it? On what basis?

There was tremendous sympathy for her here after the egregious Republican slime machine got impeachment throught the Congress, and that is why she was welcomed. She arrived in NY as an ambassador-at-large and we took her in. In fact I campaigned for her on election day. But did she deserve to represent NY? Had she lived here, did she know us, had she worked for New Yorkers and advanced their concerns? Not one bit. She was elected because of our collective outrage. She had nothing of her own to recommend her. She didn't even live here. The Senate seat was a gift.

[madrchsod]

91. just kidding

i thought she`d move back to illinois but she`s all grown up and moved to the big city.....

[niceypoo]

52. No, she won because the GOP ran Lazio as an "Anti-Hillary" which backfired

[Stephanie]

55. Giuliani backed out and left the GOP stuck for a candidate.

And the entire NY political machine had rolled over to welcome her. It was a gimme.

[Yupster]

100. But she would have never gotten the nomination

were it not for her marriage.

If she was Hillary Smith and moved to New York and said she was running for the senate, she'd be like hundreds of other candidates who "run" for office and never even get their name on the ballot. She sure wouldn't have gotten the other Democratic candidates to sheepishly back away and let her run unopposed for the nomination.

Instead she would have gotten a chuckle and ignored, were she not married to the right guy.

[VotesForWomen]

64. you don't think hillary helped bill get where he got? nt

[Andromeda]

66. No.

Your description of how Hillary won her seat is ridiculous and there isn't a shred of truth in it. She won it on her own merits in spite of people like you who refuse to give her any credit for being an intelligent, human-rights advocate.

The fact she is Bill Clinton's wife was probably more of a detriment to her than a help in spite of his high poll ratings when he left office.

I give New Yorkers a lot more credit than you do. They didn't elect Hillary out of pity or sympathy.

[Name removed]

75. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Stephanie]

76. You're the only woman I have a problem with at the moment.

If you are in fact a woman. You are not going to win over voters for Mrs. Clinton with rudeness and wrong information, so adjust your trolling technique. For instance, tell Michael Moore that HRC's spectacular health care failure ten years ago is the reason we're all talking about it now

[LulaMay]

78. Apparently not, given your remarks about Hillary. For the record, I'm a woman.

I've been a woman's rights activist since I was 16, and was a NOW chapter leader for years too. Our group fought local police over their sexual harassment and firing of female officers. We succeeded in getting the chief and sergeants fired. We were in the Times quite a bit and on 20/20 and 48 Hours.

I have fought many many battles for women with women in my own community and nationwide, for my entire life. I've also fought with other groups and personally against prejudice and conservatives.

What have you done but disparage the first viable female candidate for president we've ever had?

Even if she is not your candidate of choice, you should respect her, and how far we've come, and be GLAD for this historical achievement.

Women fought and died for it.

[LulaMay]

82. Call her SENATOR Clinton, not "Mrs." Clinton.

Maybe YOU'RE not a woman.

[Stephanie]

83. Don't tell me what to do.

[LulaMay]

85. MMoore gives Hillary credit for putting health care reform on the table. Check his website.

I've met him. I adore him. I own every TV show and movie he's made.

He acknowledges her courage and efforts, calls the 90's plan 'Hillary's Health Care Plan'.

At least he can see that she was no ordinary first lady and was, is, a leader.

[Stephanie]

89. Then why doesn't he endorse her?

Oh yeah, because her health care plan was a spectacular failure and she's a total sell-out to the insurance industry. Among other things.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06/21/AR2007062102150.html

Moore Says Weinstein Wanted Clinton Scene Cut

By Politics
Friday, June 22, 2007; Page A05

Michael Moore is getting a lot of mileage out of the hit he takes on Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) in his provocative new movie "Sicko," which made its Washington premiere Wednesday night at the Uptown theater.

Moore said after the premiere that movie mogul Harvey Weinstein, a personal friend and supporter of the Clintons whose company financed the film, "begged" him to remove a scene exposing Hillary Clinton as the second-highest recipient of campaign donations from the health-care industry.

Filmmaker Michael Moore said producer Harvey Weinstein urged him to cut a scene in his new film "Sicko" that revealed the health-care industry's financial support of Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton. Weinstein is a friend of Clinton's. (By Manuel Balce Ceneta -- Associated Press)

"I said, 'No, Harvey. I gotta do the right thing.' He understood."

Moore said he didn't know whether the Clintons asked Weinstein to make the call.

The film describes her as "sexy" and "sassy" as photos of Clinton over the years are splashed on the screen.

After her health-care overhaul plan failed, Clinton went "silent" -- as Moore put it -- on the need for health-care changes. And then she began raking in the dough -- big time -- from the industry when she started running for office.

Clinton's campaign had no comment on Weinstein's attempt to have the scene removed.

-- Mary Ann Akers

http://www.michaelmoore.com/sicko/checkup/

SiCKO: Hillary Clinton became the second largest recipient in the Senate of health care industry contributions.

"As she runs for re-election to the Senate from New York this year and lays the groundwork for a possible presidential bid in 2008, Mrs. Clinton is receiving hundreds of thousands of dollars in campaign contributions from doctors, hospitals, drug manufacturers and insurers. Nationwide, she is the No. 2 recipient of donations from the industry, trailing only Senator Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania, a member of the Republican leadership." Raymond Hernandez and Robert Pear, "Once an Enemy, Health Industry Warms to Clinton," New York Times, July 12, 2006.

http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/message/index.php?id=220

Wednesday, January 2nd, 2008
Who Do We Vote For This Time Around? A Letter from Michael Moore

---snip---

Two months ago, Rolling Stone magazine asked me to do a cover story where I would ask the hard questions that no one was asking in one-on-one interviews with Senators Clinton, Obama and Edwards. "The Top Democrats Face Off with Michael Moore." The deal was that all three candidates had to agree to let me interview them or there was no story. Obama and Edwards agreed. Mrs. Clinton said no, and the cover story was thus killed.

Why would the love of my life, Hillary Clinton, not sit down to talk with me? What was she afraid of?

Those of you who are longtime readers of mine may remember that 11 years ago I wrote a chapter (in my first book) entitled, "My Forbidden Love for Hillary." I was fed up with the treatment she was getting, most of it boringly sexist, and I thought somebody should stand up for her. I later met her and she thanked me for referring to her as "one hot s***kicking feminist babe." I supported and contributed to her run for the U.S. Senate. I think she is a decent and smart person who loves this country, cares deeply about kids, and has put up with more crap than anyone I know of (other than me) from the Crazy Right. Her inauguration would be a thrilling sight, ending 218 years of white male rule in a country where 51% of its citizens are female and 64% are either female or people of color.

And yet, I am sad to say, nothing has disappointed me more than the disastrous, premeditated vote by Senator Hillary Clinton to send us to war in Iraq. I'm not only talking about her first vote that gave Mr. Bush his "authorization" to invade -- I'm talking about every single OTHER vote she then cast for the next four years, backing and funding Bush's illegal war, and doing so with verve. She never met a request from the White House for war authorization that she didn't like. Unlike the Kerrys and the Bidens who initially voted for authorization but later came to realize the folly of their decision, Mrs. Clinton continued to cast numerous votes for the war until last March -- four long years of pro-war votes, even after 70% of the American public had turned against the war. She has steadfastly refused to say that she was wrong about any of this, and she will not apologize for her culpability in America's worst-ever foreign policy disaster. All she can bring herself to say is that she was "misled" by "faulty intelligence."

Let's assume that's true. Do you want a President who is so easily misled? I wasn't "misled," and millions of others who took to the streets in February of 2003 weren't "misled" either. It was simply amazing that we knew the war was wrong when none of us had been briefed by the CIA, none of us were national security experts, and none of us had gone on a weapons inspection tour of Iraq. And yet... we knew we were being lied to! Let me ask those of you reading this letter: Were YOU "misled" -- or did you figure it out sometime between October of 2002 and March of 2007 that George W. Bush was up to something rotten? Twenty-three other senators were smart enough to figure it out and vote against the war from the get-go. Why wasn't Senator Clinton?

I have a theory: Hillary knows the sexist country we still live in and that one of the reasons the public, in the past, would never consider a woman as president is because she would also be commander in chief. The majority of Americans were concerned that a woman would not be as likely to go to war as a man (horror of horrors!). So, in order to placate that mindset, perhaps she believed she had to be as "tough" as a man, she had to be willing to push The Button if necessary, and give the generals whatever they wanted. If this is, in fact, what has motivated her pro-war votes, then this would truly make her a scary first-term president. If the U.S. is faced with some unforeseen threat in her first years, she knows that in order to get re-elected she'd better be ready to go all Maggie Thatcher on whoever sneezes in our direction. Do we want to risk this, hoping the world makes it in one piece to her second term?

I have not even touched on her other numerous -- and horrendous -- votes in the Senate, especially those that have made the middle class suffer even more (she voted for Bush's first bankruptcy bill, and she is now the leading recipient of payoff money -- I mean campaign contributions -- from the health care industry). I know a lot of you want to see her elected, and there is a very good chance that will happen. There will be plenty of time to vote for her in the general election if all the pollsters are correct. But in the primaries and caucuses, isn't this the time to vote for the person who most reflects the values and politics you hold dear? Can you, in good conscience, vote for someone who so energetically voted over and over and over again for the war in Iraq? Please give this serious consideration.

[LulaMay]

90. That's not the point. You don't give her any credit or respect at all. She may be our nominee.

[Stephanie]

92. Are you a stalker or something?

Why don't you find someone else to troll around after. You just arrived at DU and you're already ordering everybody around and telling us how to behave. Back the fuck off.

[LulaMay]

93. You call me a liar and now a stalker. I guess you have nothing else to say.

[Stephanie]

94. How about you deal with the facts?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=2730402&mesg_id=2733728

[Binka]

95. Jesus Steph This Person Is A Motherfucking Batshit Crazy Loon

Hey Lulabelle don't tell me to stop swearing. You are a bossy old cow and a FUCKWITTAGE!

[durrrty libby]

6. K & R for truth

[dkf]

7. Oh for goodness sakes...she got into the Rose Law Firm when her husband was AG.

She was made partner when he was Governor. While she was a partner, she gave suggestions on judicial appointments, which looks like a huge conflict of interest to me.

And the question should be would she have been elected Senator from NY if she had not been married to Bill Clinton?

If she hadn't had the Clinton fund raising machine could she have raised enough to run for NY Senator? I find that difficult to believe.

[journalist3072]

9. And you know what? From what I read, the Rose Law Firm struggled with that

Of course they knew that she was qualified for partner..that's why she made partner...But they were also concerned with "pillow talk." Would she be telling Rose Law Firm secrets to the Attorney General...especially if the Rose Law Firm and the A.G. were on opposite sides of an issue? They definitely did NOT think it was a plus that she was the A.G.'s husband.

And for my response about the Senate seat..see me replying to DUer Stephanie above.

[dkf]

42. From Wikipedia Rose Law firm was a bastion of Arkansas political and economic influence

"Bill Clinton had lost the Congressional race in 1974, but in November 1976 was elected Attorney General of Arkansas. This required the couple to move to the state capital of Little Rock.<61> Rodham joined the venerable Rose Law Firm, a bastion of Arkansan political and economic influence,<62> in February 1977,<63> "

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillary_clinton

Maybe it was perfectly fine but forgive me when my antennae snap up.

[niceypoo]

54. There is a direct connection between ignorance of Hillary and opposition to Hillary

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillary_Clinton">Go educate yourself, then open your mouth

[dkf]

56. I got all that stuff from Wikipedia. I already read it.

Here are some direct quotes:

Bill Clinton had lost the Congressional race in 1974, but in November 1976 was elected Attorney General of Arkansas. This required the couple to move to the state capital of Little Rock.<61> Rodham joined the venerable Rose Law Firm, a bastion of Arkansan political and economic influence,<62> in February 1977,<63>

Following the November 1978 election of her husband as Governor of Arkansas, Rodham became First Lady of Arkansas in January 1979, her title for a total of twelve years (1979–1981, 1983–1992). Clinton appointed her chair of the Rural Health Advisory Committee the same year,<72> where she successfully obtained federal funds to expand medical facilities in Arkansas' poorest areas without affecting doctors' fees.<73>

In 1979,<74> she became the first woman to be made a full partner of Rose Law Firm.<75>

Clinton continued to practice law with the Rose Law Firm while she was First Lady of Arkansas. She earned less than all the other partners, due to fewer hours being billed,<85> but still made over $200,000 in her final year there.<74> She continued to rarely do trial work,<74> but was considered a "rainmaker" at the firm for bringing in clients, partly due to the prestige she lent the firm and to her corporate board connections.<74> She was also very influential in the appointment of state judges.<74>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillary_Clinton

[JVS]

58. So you're saying that the OP is incorrect and/or misleading?

[dkf]

61. I just don't see how she does it if Bill was a nobody.

I'm sorry.

I am sure she would be doing very very well in life, don't get me wrong. But she would not be running for President.

[JVS]

62. I agree completely

[sb5697]

17. Sounds like Clarence Thomas' "pull yourself up by your own

bootstraps" mantra to me.

[journalist3072]

19. Huh? How did Clarence Thomas enter the picture here?

This is in response to another thread I saw here on DU this evening, basically saying Hillary wouldn't be where she is today, if she hadn't married Bill Clinton.

This is my response to that.

[sb5697]

26. And you can't see the parallels? She did NOT get where she

is without benefiting from her marriage to Bill. That's just false innuendo. Oh and no one pulls themselves up by their own bootstraps. Everyone needs help from someone.

[journalist3072]

29. No, it's not.....You think she's tried to benefit from being married to Bill Clinton?

I guess having Kenn Starr investigate you just because you're Bill Clinton's wife, is a real benefit, huh? I guess having to read that your husband had sex with another woman, right after you all came home from Easter service, is a real benefit, huh?

Seems more to me like over the last few years, her marriage to him has been more a burden than benefit.

[sb5697]

37. Irregardless of any of this you suggest she didn't benefit and

would be where she is on her own merits I find that as false Clarence Thomas saying what he said. And I have to agree with the posters concerning her winning in New York, it was based solely on who she was and who she was married to nothing else. She had NO track record to suggest she would even be successful in public office (in fact just the opposite given that debacle with health care).

One more thing she had her own legal and public screw-ups to deal with (whitewater, travel gate come to mind) so don't blame all of the legal and public embarrassments on Bill.

[EFerrari]

20. It would be easier to give her credit for her own experience

if she didn't keep blurring the two careers herself.

But, you know that.

[rodeodance]

23. Thank you---and a 5th to the GREATEST

[earthlover]

25. You speak of things from the 70s....but no way Hillary would be elected Senator from NY

without having been first lady. Hell, she wasn't even from New York!

[journalist3072]

27. Please read my response above to the person who tried to pull that same pathetic BS meme...

[rodeodance]

28. Name Recognition is always a factor

[sb5697]

41. Nor did she have any credible experience in public office.

[NoodleyAppendage]

31. Hmmm...bulleted "fact point" list in post. It's almost as if a campaign planned this response...hmm

Bill Clinton didn't make her, but she did benefit professionally from being married to him. It's just a hard fact and one you can't just wave away.

BTW - do you think that Hillary is winning the media argument on "her own merits," or have you noticed that her husband has been making campaign coordinated attacks on the opposition? I guess his helping out here is independent of any gains she makes right?

No WOMAN is an island.

J

[JVS]

32. Without her husband she would very likely be a successful lawyer, but her becomeing a senator...

would have been very unlikely.

[JackRiddler]

36. The problem is not "how she got there" but "where she is," which is a lousy place.

I can see the case that she made Bill's career, and not vice-versa, as in the old joke.

Which, if anything, is another strike against her.

[OHdem10]

39. Amen I say. HRC is her person.

[JVS]

60. is not

[lumberjack_jeff]

43. I'll be glad when we can all return from fantasyland

She wasn't elected Senator for NY because she gave a commencement speech at Wellsley. :eyes:

[dkf]

46. Actually, the question should be would Hillary be running for President

if Bill had never been President either.

Lets say he had lost...that he was a complete loser and had not won any election ever.

Would Hillary Clinton be running for President today?

[lastliberalintexas]

47. I am not a Clinton fan in any way, but

even I admit that she is terribly intelligent and qualified on her own merits. In fact, the joke among many DC Dems in the early 90s was that Bill Clinton got where HE was because of Hillary. :)

[dkf]

48. I do agree that she is intelligent and qualified on her own merits

But I also say that there are quite a few intelligent and qualified women and men for that matter who are her equal or better. I would say that Al Gore is probably more intelligent and qualified than she is.

The difference between them and her is that she married Bill Clinton, who we both know is extraordinarily talented in a way that is beyond intelligence.

I have never said she was unintelligent.

[LibDemAlways]

49. Who outside of her previous employers and

the people of Arkansas ever heard of Hillary Clinton until Bill ran for President in '92? She became a public figure because of him.

No denying that she is an accomplished person, but you can't separate her from her husband and diminish his influence. He said it best back when he first ran. With them you get a 2-fer.

[fujiyama]

50. Hillary is sharp, bright, and talented in her own right

and may have possibly won a senate seat had she not married a future president.

But currently there are nine female senate Dems serving, all of whom have varying accomplishments of their own.

Don't doubt for a second that her name recognition goes a LONG way in being who she is. After all, she counts her own years of being first lady as "experience". She got that experience because of Bill.

[Stephanie]

51. As a journalist, may I recommend that you proof-read your threads?

It would help in your career if you got the words right in the headline. No thanks necessary. :hi:

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

57. Right. Just like Dubya got where he is on his own "merits".

[FrenchieCat]

59. Mighty thin, that list.....

and she did get elected Senator because Bill Clinton was her husband. Are you kidding? :wow:

[Hailtothechimp]

63. How much of her "experience" comes from being at his side?

Seroiusly. Do you think her U.S. senate victory, in New York where she had never lived before, was a result of her accomplishments alone? That's frightenly deluded.

[VotesForWomen]

65. message to women from nay-sayers: never sacrifice anything for your husband's career; you will get n

no respect, recognition, or gratitude in return. you will be viewed as a glorified domestic servant who contributed nothing at all to your husband's success. you can work side by side with him for 30 years to help him get to the top of his career, and then be told that it is only by his sufferance that you enjoy any of the rewards of that career.

[Elspeth]

77. A good reason never to get married

But then, it's hard to get elected because you're not...married.

[B Calm]

72. Did you mean to say ON her own merits?

It's bugging me...

[conspirator]

73. Hillary will win because the CORPORATIONS want it n/t

[Captain Hilts]

97. Then how come she leads in negative press coverage? nt

[conspirator]

102. Negative coverage is just a strategy. The key word is COVERAGE

A great roman emperor once said talk good or bad, but talk about me.
Do you think that the "Iron my shirt" stunt wasn't good for Hillary?
Edwards and Kucinich wish they had any coverage negative or otherwise.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

79. You're Absolutely Right. She's Intelligent, Strong and Politically Talented.

I'm proud of her accomplishments and know full well she's earned them on her own merits. I'm hoping, that in the end of it all, she's rewarded with the greatest prize of all.

[Jamastiene]

80. You can't tell this bunch that.

They aren't ready to hear it. They still think a women can't do anything without a mayyyyan to hold them up and do it for them. Goddamn bunch of sexist, homophobic trolls have overrun the place.

But...
I thank you for your effort. :thumbsup:

[Vinca]

81. Without taking a thing away from her accomplishments, I think it

would be highly unlikely she would be a leading candidate for the presidency without Bill Clinton. She wouldn't be garnering the attention. She wouldn't have the 800 lb. gorilla in the room. Most likely she'd be warming the bench with Biden, Dodd and Richardson by now. It's not qualifications that get you in this position . . . sadly. It's a combination of charisma, money and who you know. If we weren't such a shallow bunch, we'd have all our money on the 3 bench sitters who are more qualified than Clinton, Obama and Edwards combined.

[DadOf2LittleAngels]

84. Without Bill

Hillary would have less experience in government than Obama or edwards....

She cant tout her white house 'experience' as a plus and the talk about how she is standing on her own all at the same time.

[Iceburg]

86. k&r

[JAbuchan08]

87. and when she voted for the IWR it wasn't because her husband was a former president

[DemCam]

88. Thanks for reminding us...

the fascination with Bill Clinton does clutter some minds. Those of
us who have really followed Hillary through the years know better.

[never_get_over_it]

96. Uh huh yes she did BUT

she is a serious Presidential candidate and Senator from NY BECAUSE her name IS CLINTON

that's why Barbara Boxer - is not a serious contender for President today along with any number of women who have had similar political accomplishments as Hillary Clinton....

Hillary Clinton is where she is today because she is married to Bill Clinton - it does not mean she didn't work hard or isn't smart or isn't whatever - the fact remains she would not have become a Senator from NY had she not been the First Lady when she ran she would not be a serious Presidential candidate etc etc etc

It doesn't ' mean she didn't work hard to get Bill where he got - BUT it CAN NOT BE DENIED that the CLINTON name is a HUGE benefit to her

I believe that Clinton and Mayor 9-11 had BIG leads in national polls until recently because they both had huge name recognition.....

btw - the freak in chief would not be pResident if he wasn't Pappy Bush's son
Nit Wit Romney probably wouldn't be where he is today if it wasn't for his father

there are probably a million other examples....

[Hutzpa]

98. Huh huh...on her backbone n/t

[0007]

101. Maybe it was Monica Lewinsky that got Hillary notoriety!

God Bess Linda Tripp.

A gift for Bill