WHY NO Hillary Clinton ?

[sunfarstar]

I believe that women may be more adept at politics. Why not?

[mykittyhasaboner]

shes a bourgeois politician, woman or not. nothing is going to improve because a woman is president.

[The Red Scare]

I'd rather have an inept bourgeois politician in the White House than an adept one.

The adept ones are the most dangerous because they're the ones who know exactly how to promote the interests of their ruling class constituency.

[wallflower]

I hate to sound condescending - that is not at all my intent - but have you ever considered that she's a capitalist?!?! Woman or not, no bourgeois cappie's going to get my vote.

[Everyday Anarchy]

I believe that women may be more adept at politics. Why not?Why do you believe that women are more adept at politics?


I think this is just a troll.

[RedAnarchist]

Why do you believe that women are more adept at politics?


I think this is just a troll.

No, he just has trouble making his point in English.

[sunfarstar]

She is in the universities of this, but her husband when the United States President. She spent in the White House

[#FF0000]

She is in the universities of this, but her husband when the United States President. She spent in the White House

She may know what she is doing, but that is useless to the lower class as long as she's supporting capitalism. At the very core of it, the reason leftists do not like Hilary is not because she is a women or because she isn't qualified. It is because we are opposed to capitalism, and politicians such as Hilary support it.

I hope that clears it up for you.

[Everyday Anarchy]

No, he just has trouble making his point in English.Oh my bad, I saw the Blog Entries: 1 and thought that it said post count. My apologies.



I'd rather have an inept bourgeois politician in the White House than an adept one.

The adept ones are the most dangerous because they're the ones who know exactly how to promote the interests of their ruling class constituency.That's a really poor way of seeing things. You want the least qualified and worst possible politician to be elected because you think only then will the working class rise up? I understand that "good politicians" (as oxymoronic as that may be) only put a Happy Face on capitalism, but wanting a bad president is not the way to go about things. Honestly, if you believe that capitalism truly and inherently is oppressive no matter the politician, then it shouldn't matter to you or the working class who gets elected.

[sunfarstar]

Politics is a matter of opinion has indicated that she might be able to choose the road of the centre-left, because it is a radical green than red. As a female, she was a disadvantage. I am unfair. She is a qualified politician. People I change direction is to please rethink.

[oujiQualm]

Actually in almost every way imaginable Hillary is a rightist. Under the Clinton's leadership the democrats have become a 2nd Republican party. Now They receive more from defense contractors than even the Republicans.

Clinton is dispicalbe in every way. She was in a key position in the Dem party and was a far more important Bush-Iraq enabler than Lieberman. The media went after Lieberman as a lightningrod strategy.

[oujiQualm]

Hillary is a rightist . Nobody has taken the Corporate Dems so far to the right than the Clintons. In fact they have taken the dems so far to the right that it is easy to overlook how far the democrats have moved to the right since say the 1960s. WHILE IT IS IMPORATANT NOT TO BE NAIVE ABOUT LIBERALISM, IT IS JUST IMPORTANT TO CONFLATE LIBERALISM OF TWO DIFFERENT HISTORICAL PERIODS. This ahisorical conflation, represents cynicism, and is historically inacurate.

[which doctor]

I thought sunfarstar was banned along time ago for trolling, I guess we kept him/her along for the laughs.

[RHIZOMES]

She's pro-capitalist. She voted for the Iraq War and is pro-gun control. Among many other things. Why should we vote for her just because she has a different set of genitalia than the usual American President?

[midnight marauder]

Moved to Opposing Ideologies.

[RHIZOMES]

Back in Politics again. Why?

[Dimentio]

Politics is a matter of opinion has indicated that she might be able to choose the road of the centre-left, because it is a radical green than red. As a female, she was a disadvantage. I am unfair. She is a qualified politician. People I change direction is to please rethink.

Good president = Bad for the people.

Bad president = Good for the people.

Bush has managed to radicalise a large segment of the American population, while the liberals would rather create some sort of stability again.

[RedAnarchist]

I thought sunfarstar was banned along time ago for trolling, I guess we kept him/her along for the laughs.

We unbanned him a while ago.

[Dros]

Hilldawg = cappie.

Hillary is like our version of Hu Jintao or Zemin.

[anti-authoritarian]

I believe that women may be more adept at politics. Why not?
1979-1990 Britain suggests not. The fact that she's a woman doesn't detract from the fact that she's a bourgeois politician.

[nanovapor]

Hillary Clinton, Obama and Mccain are neoliberals, not an alternative and solution for most americans, only socialism can save USA, not neoliberalism:

The main points of neo-liberalism include:

THE RULE OF THE MARKET. Liberating "free" enterprise or private enterprise from any bonds imposed by the government (the state) no matter how much social damage this causes. Greater openness to international trade and investment, as in NAFTA. Reduce wages by de-unionizing workers and eliminating workers' rights that had been won over many years of struggle. No more price controls. All in all, total freedom of movement for capital, goods and services. To convince us this is good for us, they say "an unregulated market is the best way to increase economic growth, which will ultimately benefit everyone." It's like Reagan's "supply-side" and "trickle-down" economics -- but somehow the wealth didn't trickle down very much.

CUTTING PUBLIC EXPENDITURE FOR SOCIAL SERVICES like education and health care. REDUCING THE SAFETY-NET FOR THE POOR, and even maintenance of roads, bridges, water supply -- again in the name of reducing government's role. Of course, they don't oppose government subsidies and tax benefits for business.

DEREGULATION. Reduce government regulation of everything that could diminsh profits, including protecting the environmentand safety on the job.

PRIVATIZATION. Sell state-owned enterprises, goods and services to private investors. This includes banks, key industries, railroads, toll highways, electricity, schools, hospitals and even fresh water. Although usually done in the name of greater efficiency, which is often needed, privatization has mainly had the effect of concentrating wealth even more in a few hands and making the public pay even more for its needs.

ELIMINATING THE CONCEPT OF "THE PUBLIC GOOD" or "COMMUNITY" and replacing it with "individual responsibility." Pressuring the poorest people in a society to find solutions to their lack of health care, education and social security all by themselves -- then blaming them, if they fail, as "lazy."
Around the world, neo-liberalism has been imposed by powerful financial institutions like the International Monetary Fund (IMF), the World Bank and the Inter-American Development Bank. It is raging all over Latin America. The first clear example of neo-liberalism at work came in Chile (with thanks to University of Chicago economist Milton Friedman), after the CIA-supported coup against the popularly elected Allende regime in 1973. Other countries followed, with some of the worst effects in Mexico where wages declined 40 to 50% in the first year of NAFTA while the cost of living rose by 80%. Over 20,000 small and medium businesses have failed and more than 1,000 state-owned enterprises have been privatized in Mexico. As one scholar said, "Neoliberalism means the neo-colonization of Latin America."
In the United States neo-liberalism is destroying welfare programs; attacking the rights of labor (including all immigrant workers); and cutbacking social programs. The Republican "Contract" on America is pure neo-liberalism. Its supporters are working hard to deny protection to children, youth, women, the planet itself -- and trying to trick us into acceptance by saying this will "get government off my back." The beneficiaries of neo-liberalism are a minority of the world's people. For the vast majority it brings even more suffering than before: suffering without the small, hard-won gains of the last 60 years, suffering without end.
Elizabeth Martinez is a longtime civil rights activist and author of several books, including "500 Years of Chicano History in Photographs."
13101310Arnoldo Garcia is a member of the Oakland-based Comite Emiliano Zapata, affiliated to the National Commission for Democracy in Mexico.
13101310Both writers attended the Intercontinental Encounter for Humanity and against Neoliberalism, held July 27 - August 3,1996, in La Realidad, Chiapas.

nanovapor


I believe that women may be more adept at politics. Why not?

[The Intransigent Faction]

..Because the fact that she's a woman doesn't have any bearing on her being a good or bad candidate?
The fact that she's a bourgeois politician does. She represents corporate interests too much. She's also a bit too socially conservative for my tastes (see "Family Entertainment Protection Act" for one). I'll conclude this for now by pointing out that she insists on defining her political stance with something as vague as "progressive". Progress for whom? Certainly not the workers...

[Schrödinger's Cat]

Hillary Clinton does not have any fervor that would come with being a Leftist. At the very least we should look into alternatives like Dennis Kucinich, who would throw the bourgeoisie on a loop.

[The Intransigent Faction]

Hillary Clinton does not have any fervor that would come with being a Leftist. At the very least we should look into alternatives like Dennis Kucinich, who would throw the bourgeoisie on a loop.

What of Ralph Nader? Is he worth considering?

[Awful Reality]

Comrade Sunfarstar- it is sad that so much of what you say is misconstrued due to language barriers. I apologize on behalf of the thread.

We, as Marxists, want a president who will further the workers' movement. Hopefully, that is the one who will allow revolutionary conditions to develop.

Obama represents much more of a "radical" portion of the left. And when the workers see that his "politics of hope" will be worthless under the same bourgeoise representative system, more and more will break away from it. Thus, I support Obama.