Reply #118: I was a Hillary fan for years -- until the Bush administration. [View All]

As recently as 2004, I was a great supporter and fan of Bill Clinton. There is no doubt he was a much better president that GWB.

But, my attitude has changed. The Bush administration's excesses heightened my awareness of the terrible effects that corruption are having at all levels of our society. Corruption is the most important issue for me. All the other problems we have as a nation can be met if we can get rid of or at least drastically reduce the corruption. And, as I look back, I can see that, although to a lesser extent, the Clinton administration harbored and protected corruption and was willing to compromise on human rights in order to protect corruption. Clinton does not represent change in so far as corruption is concerned. Nancy Pelosi has taken some action in this regard, but has taken impeachment off the table. And, it seems to me, that the corruption of the Bush administration cannot be remedied except through impeachment --- of both Bush and Cheney and also of Rice. Mind you, by impeachment, I mean the process of the House. Whether they would be convicted in the Senate is not so important. The important thing in my opinion is to get the facts about the corruption before the American people. And I do not think that Congress can overcome Bush's claims of privilege to get its subpoenas enforced unless it brings criminal charges. That is why I see impeachment proceedings as a necessity at this time.

The Clinton administration did not adequately protect our right to privacy. I was unaware of this at the time, but learned relatively recently from a German website that Clinton had requested that the European Union change its laws to allow eavesdropping on electronic communications way back in the late '90s. The excuse at that time was the need to protect copyrights. That was Clinton. That was pre-Bush. As we have seen, for whatever reason, Nancy Pelosi and Reid have been ineffective in Congress when it comes to protecting our rights to privacy under the American Constitution.

Also, the trade agreements that are causing Americans to be dependent on cheap, foreign labor, although begun under Reagan for the most part, were not curtailed or improved under Clinton to any significant extent. In fact, Clinton negotiated and entered horrendous trade agreements himself. Clinton does not represent change in so far as significantly changing our trade policy or improving America's ability to be economically independent. Pelosi and Reid again are ineffective. More blame is placed on Pelosi than on Reid because Democrats are less than a majority in the Senate. Pelosi, in contrast, has a sizable advantage over Republicans in the House, but has been incapable of marshaling her majority into voting for Democratic, liberal/progressive measures. The Republicans were able to achieve unity on major issues when they had the majority. Nancy Pelosi has been ineffective in that regard in the House.

With regard to the environment and energy independence, there again, Bill Clinton's administration did not do nearly enough. And I do not see that Hillary will change. Nancy Pelosi is doing nothing about this. She has enormous power but apparently refuses to wield it in favor of energy independence and adequate protection of the environment. We need drastic measures in those regards. I would like to see a parity between money spent on the War in Iraq and money spent on the environment and the development and subsidization of alternative energy sources. If we spent as much on clean energy and the environment as we do on war, we would be much safer. Hillary and Nancy are not not championing this kind of parity, and Hillary could withhold money for the Iraq War in exchange for equal money for the environment and energy independence.

So, my problems with Hillary and Nancy have nothing to do with the fact they are women and everything to do with their policies and their unwillingness to take strong stances on issues that matter to me.

In addition to everything else, Hillary's voice and laugh grate on my nerves. I have a great deal of musical training, and I hear emotion in voices. Hillary's voice and laugh betray her cynicism and her arrogance. I do not like the sound, not because she lacks a musical gift but because of what I hear about her in her voice. That is rather personal to me. I realize that others may disagree on this point, but I expect that many people who dislike Hillary and Nancy will agree with me on my other points. In contrast, I like Nancy's voice and her demeanor. I wish I also liked her performance as Majority leader in the House.

I am, by the way, a woman. I support Edwards, but also approve of and would support all the candidates except Hillary in the 2008 election. Hillary could still persuade me to support her, but she would have to stand stronger on corruption and the other issues that are so important to me.