Web Letters: Hillary Clinton

By Ellen Chesler

This article appeared in the November 26, 2007 edition of The Nation.

November 8, 2007

Write a Web letter about this article.

What's a Web Letter?

Web Letters are continuously published e-mails from real people, signed with their real names. No registration is required. Each article page on The Nation includes a Web Letters link.

Read the best Web Letters on this page.

We're committed to publishing your comments as they are received. We place a red star () on the best submissions and may edit your e-mail for length or content. Your e-mail address will not be published or shared with any third party without your consent.

If you prefer, you may submit a letter to the print edition only.

We look forward to hearing from you.

  • EC: "The stakes could not be higher. The treacherous reign of Bush-Cheney has seriously weakened our democracy. The Democrats must win in 2008."

    Translation: all you progressives, get in line! Remember the alternative is much worse.

    EC: "We must take back the White House with a candidate who adheres to core progressive principles but is also able to build coalitions and sustain majorities across ideological and partisan divides."

    Translation: principles are principles, but only to a point.

    EC: "She stumbled momentarily in the seventh round under withering personal attack by six angry men."

    Translation: she's so feminine!

    EC: "Next time out, she will definitely need those flashy boxing gloves her AFSCME endorsers provided afterward."

    Translation: don't blame her if she shows her bitchy side now!

    EC: "But she will prevail, just as she did in her Senate races...taking thirty-seven of the forty-one "red" counties in New York that George W. Bush carried two years earlier."

    Translation: now, you progressives -- you understand why she's been poking a stick in your eye all this time?

    EC: "Indeed, she may be the most electable of the Democrats--and not because she 'stands for nothing,' as the chattering classes often allege."

    Translation: she doesn't stand for "nothing," she just sounds that way.

    EC: "Rather, Clinton wonkishly acknowledges the complexity of issues and modestly admits to not having all the answers."

    Translation: so don't blame Clinton if she consults with the people who give her money!

    EC: "She has learned to respect people with whom she disagrees and to succeed within a system that requires compromise."

    Translation: just because she ignores you doesn't mean she doesn't love you.

    EC: "But what of Clinton's core convictions? A common canard, often repeated in these pages, is that she's not a true progressive. But actions speak louder than words."

    Translation: now I'm going to list for you all the great things she's accomplished and ignore all the bad ones.

    EC: "Her voting record measures up well on scorecards..."

    Translation: is that progressive enough for you?

    EC: "Indeed, Clinton has been an outspoken advocate for raising the minimum wage."

    Translation: let's lead with the strong suit! That's the biggest political risk she's taken!

    EC: "Though a longtime supporter of free trade, she endorses policies that enforce stronger labor and environmental standards abroad, and she voted against the Central American Free Trade Agreement."

    Translation: ¿se habla español? After all, we can't tell a Mexican citizen from a Costa Rican citizen when they're out doing the landscaping.

    EC: "Her green energy agenda..."

    Translation: we're already out of things she's done; now we're into things she will do.

    EC: "Influential as First Lady in passing the Family and Medical Leave Act..."

    Translation: there are literally so few accomplishments on which she invested significant political capital as a Senator, we have to go all the way back to First Lady.

    EC: "Universal healthcare is, of course, her signature issue."

    Translation: ignore the $2.7M in donations she's received from the health care industry through September as reported in the NYT. This bears no relationship to them now earning a seat at the table. She's just going to be President for "all the people," that's all.

    EC: "Understandably sensitive to concerns about security, Clinton argues nonetheless that we can be safe and free."

    Translation: hence her support for outlawing flag burning.

    EC: "Clinton deserves special praise for her impassioned opposition to Supreme Court nominees John Roberts and Samuel Alito and to Attorney General nominee Michael Mukasey."

    Translation: she was too busy campaigning to filibuster.

    EC: "Some progressives cannot forgive her Iraq War vote, no matter how forcefully she now condemns the futility of the American effort and calls for a responsible withdrawal of our troops."

    Translation: a residual force of 60,000 combat troops through at least 2012 is what's "responsible."

    EC: "Clinton has the experience and stature to lead in the diplomatic talks she endorses with states like Iran and North Korea."

    Translation: as long as they agree to what we want as a precondition, we'll talk.

    EC: "Recent clamor over a nonbinding resolution on Iran--which most Democrats supported and Barack Obama did not even vote on--should be understood as little more than disingenuous political theater."

    Translation: never mind that Bush went to Iraq on little more than this, and has since thrown the complicity of Democrats in our face since the occupation started. Never mind that Hillary claimed she "learned something" when Bush twisted her last vote into war.

    EC: "And one more thing. I am supporting Hillary Clinton because I think she is the best candidate for this job, but I shamelessly want her to win because she is a woman."

    Translation: I was going to support Mickey because he was a mouse, but he's not running.

    Duane Galensky

    Beallsville, PA

    11/20/2007 @ 2:19pm


  • Ellen Chesler, you are correct when you say you shamelessly want Hillary to win because she is a woman. Clinton is indebted to the military--no matter what she says about ending the war, she is made powerless by taking their funds. She can't change healthcare--of all the candidates, her campaign has taken the most funds from the health industry that blocked her healthcare plan the first time. This says the woman has no integrity. She is the corporations President. They don't care about humanity in general and women specifically. You are voting for another Bush.

    Deborah Coleman

    Wailuku, HI

    11/17/2007 @ 6:40pm


Most Read

Issues »

Most Emailed

Issues »

Popular Topics

Blogs

» The Beat

Key Committee Pick Signals Obama-Pelosi Direction | Waxman gets Commerce chair, amid signs of focus on healthcare, environment, consumer protection.
John Nichols

» The Dreyfuss Report

That Iranian "Bomb"? Relax. | Obama has lots and lots of time to deal with this problem carefully and rationally.
Robert Dreyfuss

» State of Change

House Progressives Choose Grijalva, Woolsey | House caucus organizes for 111th Congress.
John Nichols

» The Notion

A Clinton Administration? | Given the Obama appointees so far, you might think Hillary had been elected.
Tom Engelhardt

» Capitolism

Criteria for Treasury | What do we want in our next Treasury Secretary?
Christopher Hayes

» Passing Through

Should GM Survive? A Wall Street Analyst's View | Maybe they should just let it die.
Jane Hamsher

» Act Now!

Take the Joe Lieberman Pledge | In America, it's never too early to start preparing for the next election.
Peter Rothberg

» Editor's Cut

Smart Defense | Rep. Barney Frank is leading the charge to end the Pentagon's weapons spending spree. Is anybody listening?
Katrina vanden Heuvel

» And Another Thing

Election Updates --Good News and Not | Details on some ongoing stories
Katha Pollitt