I'm personally averse to her for the same reason I hated Kerry: she voted for the Iraq War, Homeland Security Bill, and Patriot Act; didn't start opposing Bush seriously until his approval rate dipped below 40; and runs as a centrist, in accordance with DNC dogma.

I can't speak for anyone else, but in my case it has nothing to do with gender and everything to do with excessive conservatism and obsequity.

28 Democratic Senators voted for Joint Resolution 114 to invade Iraq including Clinton. 21 Democratic Senators did not. Any of the following Democratic Senators who voted for the Iraq war who are considering a run for the presidency such as Reid, Kerry and Biden should be equally pilloried. Otherwise, it's plain sexism.

Baucus (D-MT)
Bayh (D-IN)
Biden (D-DE)
Breaux (D-LA)
Carnahan (D-MO)
Carper (D-DE)
Cleland (D-GA)
Clinton (D-NY)
Daschle (D-SD)
Dodd (D-CT)
Dorgan (D-ND)
Edwards (D-NC)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Harkin (D-IA)
Hollings (D-SC)
Johnson (D-SD)
Kerry (D-MA)
Kohl (D-WI)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Lieberman (D-CT)
Lincoln (D-AR)
Miller (D-GA)
Nelson (D-FL)
Nelson (D-NE)
Reid (D-NV)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Schumer (D-NY)
Torricelli (D-NJ)

I take that back. 29 Democratic Senators voted for Joint Resolution 114. I forgot Maria Cantwell (D-WA).

48 Democratic Senators voted for the Patriot Act House Resolution 3162, 1 voted against it. That would be Feingold (D-WI). Landrieu (D-LA) was not present for the vote. I spy sexism.

Actually, the Presidential candidate I support is Feingold, largely on account of his vote on the Patriot Act, and his ability to reach out to moderate voters without compromising on the issues. If Boxer runs I might support her instead because her overall record is as liberal as Feingold's, but she voted for Patriot and Homeland Security, which is a serious problem for me.

The reason I criticize HRC more than the other moderate Democrats is that she's considered the frontrunner. When Pandagon talked about the possibility of a Kerry run, I trashed Kerry even more than I did HRC, because he's even worse than she is.

All Democratic Senators voted for the Homeland Security Act 2002 H.R. 5005 except Akaka (D-HI)and Biden (D-DE) who did not vote that day. These are the good guys:

Voted against Iraq War

Akaka (D-HI)
Bingaman (D-NM)
Boxer (D-CA)
Byrd (D-WV)
Conrad (D-ND)
Corzine (D-NJ)
Dayton (D-MN)
Durbin (D-IL)
Feingold (D-WI)
Graham (D-FL)
Inouye (D-HI)
Kennedy (D-MA)
Leahy (D-VT)
Levin (D-MI)
Mikulski (D-MD)
Murray (D-WA)
Reed (D-RI)
Sarbanes (D-MD)
Stabenow (D-MI)
Wellstone (D-MN)
Wyden (D-OR)

Voted against Patriot Act

Feingold (D-WI)

Voted against Homeland Security Act

None

What? The Homeland Security Bill passed the Senate 90-9.

Sorry my mistake the motion to proceed two months earlier was 90-0-6, final passage was 90-9-1.

Voted against Homeland Security Act

Akaka (D-HI)
Byrd (D-WV)
Feingold (D-WI)
Hollings (D-SC)
Inouye (D-HI)
Kennedy (D-MA)
Levin (D-MI)
Sarbanes (D-MD)

Feingold for Pres. It's interesting that Akaka and Inouye voted against the war and the HSA probably because Japanese Americans are especially aware war and internment are very bad news.

I don't know if it is about accepting cookies or not, but I can never seem to read Salon articles because the free ad keeps repeating instead of letting me into the site.

Think what you want of Hillary, but it seems to me that we don't completely appreciate how difficult her position is. Several people who post here want her to be the first woman president, but only on the terms and beholden to the values they set. How many of us can say that they could do her job in an effective manner and be the Democratic frontrunner without playing some amount of politics or compromising somewhat on their beliefs? I'm not a huge fan of Hillary's, but I respect the fact that she deals with issues that we can't fathom. She has also survived (succeeded very well?) so far in a business where everyone wants something from her to serve their own personal interests. It's nice to be able to criticize from the cheap seats, but I don't think you could pay me enough to change places with her.

In addition to her voting record, I don't like the idea of Hillary for Prez because of how she jumped in on the GTA "Hot Coffee" debacle. She said it should have been labeled "Adult" because it was possible (with special equipment) to hack into an "adult" sequence (which consisted of a clothed man and woman dry-humping) which makes about as much sense as saying an R-rated movie should be rated NC-17 because of scenes that were cut from it. To me that implies a tendency toward "won't someone think of the children!" hysteria and and inclination toward censorship. Never mind the fact that she voiced her opinion despite being clearly ignorant of the details, which is also worrying.
I'm also generally opposed to electing relatives of former Presidents, be it GB Junior or Bill's Ball & Chain.
I haven't liked any of the last few Presidential candidates and have primarily voted on a "lesser of two evils" philosophy. I avoid voting in ignorance whenever possible. I'm in NJ and neither of our Senators are affected by the 2006 election, but as both voted in favor the MCA (despite being Democrats) I'd sooner spit on them than vote either one back in when their terms are up.

The juxtaposition of Feingold and Clinton has provoked a thought in my mind: might it not be possible that male politicians have more liberty to be true to their political ideals? That is to say, I take it that Feingold and Clinton actually have *very* similar political ideals. However, if Feingold sits there and spouts leftist ideology, he's simply a leftist liberal. If Clinton does it, she's a shrill bitchy feminist. I can't help but wonder how much of this is responsible for her centrist shift. And if this is true (which I'm almost positive it is at least in some small part -- I'm *absolutely* ready to believe that it's much much harder to be a successful liberal female than a successful liberal male) then this almost kind of suggests to me that, yeah, the fact that she's a woman *just might* be enough to vote for her instead of a more liberal male.

Until the country *gets the fuck used to* the idea that women can be powerful and *are* powerful, women might be trapped to choose between ideals and success. If there's even a small chance that putting a woman in office could help finally shift things toward equality in politics, well, fuck, I'll even vote for Condi in that case.

Just my thoughts.

If I remember correctly,Inouye lost an arm fighting in Sicily during WWII,and would be expected to not want to start a war.Having been to one.

I am disappointed that Sen. Clinton has sold herself to the right (especially on the war and Patriot Act issues), but I am equally disappointed in great numbers of so-called liberals who have done the same thing.

I am not a Democrat, so she has not exactly shattered my expectations. I find I now have less and less in common with the Democratic Party.

However, should she be the nominee, there is a big chance I will vote for her because I think it is extremely important that a woman be elected president, provided she is not an actual right-wing woman (and, though I wouldn't cast a vote for such a woman, even that would be good).

I am firm in my resolve that I will not vote for any ticket with two white males on it.