That’s a common feeling about her. She keeps trying to compromise to the right to gain support. As a result she has lost respect on the left, and the right still hates her.

Britain once had a female prime minister, she didn’t say ‘vote for me ’cause I have fallopian tubes’ she said, vote for me because I will do this. Although I don’t agree with many of Thatcher’s policies, she was a real leader. And people respected her, not because she was a woman, but because she did her job.

Hillary is the opposite, she never lets us forget that she is a woman, and that women are the only thing that matter to her. I would rather see a real democrat with genuine policies instead of Hillary, with no policies but a funny gimmick to woo the female voters.

Women who vote for Hillary because she is a woman, listen: You are being sexist. I didn’t vote for Bush because he was a man, I didn’t vote for Bush because he is an idiot.

Second.

The lefty blogosphere isn’t nearly as concerned with “electability”(which is one of those words that get used a lot, but doesn’t mean all that much) as the NYT thinks it is. Or as the NYT is, maybe.

The problem isn’t that Hillary is a Repubican but that she doesn’t support the issues which caused me to support the Democratic candidate in 2004. I’ve already mentioning her position on the war (which is more Republican, and which was the opposite of Kerry’s on the actual decision to go to war as opposed to the IWR vote which is greatly misunderstood).

Many of Clinton’s ideas are not Republican but are still undesirable. Her health care policies are certainly not Republican, but I would prefer the Republican position of blocking everything as opposed to a plan as bad as her old plan. On social issues, I suspect that deep down she is more socially liberal, but it also appears she will back away from principle whenever politically expedient.

If only there were still moderate Republicans left who could win the nomination. Giullani looks like the only moderate on social issues with much of a chance, and he has many negatives including support for the war. If nothing else, just recalling him back at the Republican Hate Fest over Labor Day of 2004 is enough to make it hard for me to vote for him.

If only Arnold Vinick from West Wing was real. I’d support him in a minute over Hillary (and possibly over several other Democrats). Even the old talk of amending the Constitution to allow Arnold to run looks like it would improve our choices at this point (plus this would give Democrats the chance to consider Jennifer Granholm).

Janet, I share your vague gut feelings. To the extent that I can articulate mine, it’s something to do with issues of integrity and moral courage, and depth of commitment to change the country. A friend once told me that he’d followed her career since 1970 and had yet to figure out what her center was. I’d add that, whatever Hillary’s center may prove to be, it seems more deeply hidden than ever. Related to the “center” issue, I’m also fed up completely with the Clintonian triangulation M.O. . Another part of my feelings has to due with selflessness. For me, Hillary’s quest feels more like the next career move than a true , deep, heartfelt need to make our country a better place. Not that the latter is absent from Hillary necesssarily: it’s just that it feels to me like the career stuff could be the main thing. She seems to be doing a good job in the Senate. But basically, when I look at Hillary as presidential candidate, and especially when I consider the rather alarming people who seem to be promoting her candidacy and working on this campaign, she seems to me to be all about political-business-as-usual. And that’s not what I want at ALL. Our country is in desperate need of a real leader, who’s in this for the highest and best reasons.

As for me? There’s something about Hillary that bothers me and I cannot even say exactly what it is. Add my gut feeling to the fact she supported the war. I was in the streets of Seattle protesting the Iraq war before it even started. I knew Pandora’s box would be opened–why couldn’t she see that then or realize it later?