This was just funny to me. New campaign strategy for the Hillary Clinton campaign.

Picture from The Washington Post

MILFORD, N.H. — In the spirit of the season, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton passed out candy canes to reporters here on Saturday. Then she took numerous questions. All this just one day after Clinton sat down for a rare off-the-record session with her traveling press corps in Manchester on Friday night.

Playing a little Mrs. Santa Claus with the media? Perhaps.

Well her husband likes to pass out cigars and Hillary likes candy canes. Only Bill likes to use his cigars in private.

Hillary Clinton is not the best candidate for too many reasons to count. here are some of my reasons not to support Hillary Clinton for President.

1. This is one that is not brought up often if it has been brought up at all. Right now it is important to negotiate with Muslim countries. Whether we do tough negotiations or soft negotiations, we will have to do some type of negotiations with these Muslim countries.

They don’t even allow women to go to school or show their face. They are not going to negotiate with a woman president. This is not sexist. I believe the US is ready for a woman president. The problem is that the countries we are having to deal with are not ready to negotiate or deal with a woman president.

2. She does not address the issues. She spent the first part of her campaign telling everyone that she was the obvious leader in the polls and used that to respond to any candidate who asked her questions or attacked her positions. She just responded, “They are only attacking me because I am the frontrunner.”

Well, now she doesn’t have a commanding lead as she did before and still doesn’t address the issues. She has turned to personal attacks on the other candidates, especially Obama. And now it’s candy canes. There is no real direction in her campaign and there is no substance to what she has to say on important issues.

3. Her voting record as a senator is one George bush is proud of. She has voted for everything that Bush wanted. She is a democrat in name only. Here are some of her votes.

Abortion Issues (An area where she does vote as a democrat)

10/18/2007 Prohibiting Funds for Groups that Perform Abortions NV no position
09/06/2007 Prohibiting U.S. Assistance for Groups that Support Coercive Abortion NV no position
03/17/2005 Unintended Pregnancy Amendment Y Pro-Abortion
10/21/2003 Prohibit Partial-Birth Abortion bill N Pro-Partial Birth Abortion
10/21/2003 Prohibit Partial-Birth Abortion bill N Pro-Partial Birth Abortion (Even many who are pro-abortion are against partial birth abortions)
06/21/2002 Military Abortion Amendment Y
Pro-Abortion

Agriculture Issues

12/13/2007 Cap on Farm Subsidies Y (Wants limits on farm subsidies)

Immigration

10/03/2007 Border Fence and Customs Appropriations Y Pro-Border Fence
07/26/2007 Border Fence and Customs Appropriations Y

06/06/2007 Denying Legal Status for Immigrants Convicted of Certain Crimes N

Vote to pass an amendment that would prohibit undocumented immigrants convicted of aggravated felonies, domestic violence, stalking, violation of protection orders, crimes against children, or crimes relating to the illegal purchase or sale of firearms, from gaining legal status.

Hillary Clinton voted no to prohibiting immigrants convicted of major felonies from gaining citizenship.

06/06/2007 Law Enforcement Review of Z Visa Applications N
Vote to pass an amendment that would require information from applications on Z visas, which are renewable three year work permits, to be turned over to law enforcement under certain circumstances.

05/25/2006 Immigration Reform Bill Y
Highlights:
- Allows immigrants who have lived in the U.S. for the past five years to be eligible for U.S. citizenship as long as they pass a background check, pay all back taxes and fines, maintain a job for six additional years, learn English, and pay a fine (Sec 601[245B])
- Requires any immigrant who has lived and worked in the U.S. for two years to register with the Homeland Department and must then leave the country three years after registration in order to apply for a visa and pass a background check (Sec 601[245C])
- Provides funds to increase the number of port-of-entry inspectors, Immigration and Customs Enforcement investigators, and border patrol agents (Sec 101(a)(1-4))
- Allocates funds for a “virtual fence” along the southern U.S. border and for vehicle barriers on the Tucson, and Yuma, Arizona, border (Sec 102(a) and 106(a)(b))
- Provides financial assistance for tribal, state, and local law enforcement within 100 miles of the US border with Canada or Mexico or in high impact areas (Sec 153(a))
- Includes interior enforcement provisions against undocumented immigrants thought to be involved in gang-related crimes, terrorism, fraud, immigrant smuggling, sexually offensive crimes, or denied entry by other countries (Sec 201-205)
- Establishes criminal penalties to immigrants who illegally enter or are present in the U.S., those who employ undocumented immigrants, and those who participate in undocumented immigrant harboring or smuggling (Sec 274(a)(1)(2)(b) and 275(a))
- Requires the Electronic Employment Verification System to be implemented and used by employers to ensure that undocumented immigrants are not employed and makes it illegal to hire or continue to employ undocumented immigrants (Sec 274A (d))
- Creates a guest worker program (H-2C visa program) allowing no more than 200,000 immigrants annually to enter the U.S. and fill vacant jobs for a three-year admission period with the possibility of a three-year extension granted by the Secretary of Homeland Security after proof of employment and proof that the job can not be filled by an American (Sec 403(a) [218A])
- Exempts widows, orphans, minor children, spouses, and students with advance degrees from the annual cap of 480,000 for family sponsored immigrant visas (Sec 501(a)(d)(2), 504(a) (iii), 506(a) and 507(a)(3)(iv))
- Establishes the Agricultural Job Opportunities, Benefits, and Security Act of 2006, which allows immigrants to receive permanent resident status through the Blue Card Program if they prove agricultural employment in the U.S. for two years prior to December 31, 2005(Sec 613(a))
- Requires the Secretary of Homeland Security to develop a surveillance and strategy plan in order to observe and secure U.S. land and maritime borders (Sec 111,Sec 112)
- Calls upon the U.S., Canada, and Mexico to develop a visa policy and an information exchange plan to track individual immigrants who enter each country (Sec 113)

Education

07/20/2007 Student Loan Lender Subsidy Cuts and Student Grants Y

Estate Taxes

08/03/2006 Death/EstateTax and Minimum Wage Bill of 2006 N

Jobs and Economics

05/23/2003 Jobs and Economic Growth bill N
Highlights:
- Accelerates the child tax credit to increase in 2003, instead of 2006
- $20 billion of the $350 billion would go towards state aid, including Medicaid
- Eases the marriage tax penalty by making the standard deduction for married couples twice that of a single filer through 2004
- Increases the expensing allowance for businesses from $25,000 to $100,000 for 2003 through 2005

Hillary Clinton voted no.

05/15/2003 Jobs and Economic Growth bill N

Twice

05/26/2001 Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act, 2001 N
05/23/2001 Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act, 2001 N
Highlights:
- Creates a 10% tax bracket that applies retroactively to 2001 and provides immediate tax rebates for individuals who fall within the 10% range
- The 28%, 31%, 36%, and 39% tax brackets will be reduced incrementally to 25%, 28%, 33%, and 35% respectively by 2006
- Doubles the child tax credit, to $1,000 per child, over a ten year period
- Increases dependent care tax credit to offset child care expenses
- Increases the standard deduction of married couples to double that of single taxpayers by 2005
- Increases the annual limit on contributions to Education Savings Accounts (ESAs) from $500 to $2,000, beginning in 2002
- Phases out estate, gift and generation-skipping taxes gradually until January 1, 2011, at which time estate and generation-skipping taxes are repealed, and the maximum gift tax rate is 40%
- Increases annual limit on contributions to personal Investment Retirement Accounts (IRAs) incrementally to $5,000
- Permits tax-free withdrawals from IRAs for charitable purposes

Again Hillary Clinton voted no, twice on this bill.

Election Reform

10/16/2002 Help America Vote Act of 2002 N
HR 3295: A bill to require States and localities to meet uniform and nondiscriminatory election technology and administration requirements applicable to Federal elections, to establish grant programs to provide assistance to States and localities to met those requirements and to improve election technology and the administration of Federal elections, to establish the Election Administration Commission, and for other purposes.

03/21/2001 Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act - Union Amendment Y
Vote to table [kill] an amendment that requires that unions and corporations disclose to and obtain permission from their members and shareholders for the use of funds for political activities.

So Hillary Clinton does not believe that members of unions and shareholders in corporations should have any say in how the union or corporation donates money to campaigns or uses funds to make political statements.

Civil Liberties and Civil Rights

09/20/2007 Expressing Support for General Petraeus and All Members of the Armed Forces N
Vote to pass an amendment to reaffirm support for all men and women of the United States Armed Forces, to strongly condemn any attacks on General David Petraeus and all members of the US Armed Forces and to specifically condemn Moveon.org’s advertisement about General David Petraeus.

06/27/2006 Flag Desecration Constitutional Amendment N
Vote to pass a joint resolution proposing a constitutional amendment that authorized Congress to ban physical desecration of the U.S. flag.

Iraq War

12/18/2007 Iraq Withdrawal Amendment NV (did not vote yes or no)
10/01/2007 National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 NV
Vote to pass a bill that sets authorization limits for Defense appropriations in fiscal year 2008 at $653.22 billion.
05/24/2007 Emergency Departmental Supplemental Appropriations Bill of 2007 N
Vote to concur with the House amendments to the Senate amendment and pass the bill, which makes emergency appropriations to certain departments for various purposes, including the war on terror and Hurricane Katrina efforts, and which raises the minimum wage and adjusts certain business taxes.
11/10/2005 Detainees at Guantanamo Bay Amendment N
Vote to adopt an amendment that requires the Secretary of Defense to submit procedures for determining the status of detainees held at Guantanamo Bay to the Committees on the Judiciary of the Senate and the House.

09/26/2007 Expressing the Sense of Congress Regarding Federalism in Iraq Y
Vote to adopt an amendment that expresses the sense of the Senate that the United States should support a political settlement in Iraq that would create a loose federal system, and that the Iranian Revolutionary Guard should be classified as a terrorist organization.

09/26/2007 Expressing the Sense of Congress Regarding Iran and the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps Y
-Expresses the sense of the Congress that the United States should officially designate the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps of Iran as a foreign terrorist organization and assign it to the list of Specially Designated Global Terrorists.

Hillary Clinto backs George Bush on Iran.

Environment

10/30/2003 Healthy Forests Restoration Act of 2003 N
Vote to pass a bill that would authorize $760 million a year to reduce forest fires, and limits judicial reviews of environmental protection rules.

Family and Children Issues

07/25/2006 Child Custody Protection Act N
Vote to pass a bill that criminalizes the transportation of pregnant minors across state lines with some exceptions.

Gun Issues

07/13/2006 Firearm Confiscation Prohibition Amendment N
Vote to pass an amendment prohibiting the use of any funds appropriated in the FY2007 Department of Homeland Security Act from being used to confiscate legal firearms during states of emergency or major disasters.

So Hillary Clinton supports the coinfiscation of legal firearms. It does not matter the reason, we are talking about our government having the ability to confiscate weapons purchased by US citizens legally. Anti-Constitution stance.

Health Issues
03/17/2005 Medicaid Amendment N
Vote to adopt an amendment that would convey the goals of future Senate legislation concerning Medicaid and that such legislation shall not:

Highlights:
- shall not Undermine the role of Medicaid
- shall not Cap benefits or shift financial burden to states
- shall not Take steps to retract the Federal guarantee of insurance coverage that Medicaid provides

Hillary Clinton voted no to these protections for Medicaid.

06/27/2003 Medicare Prescription Drug Benefit bill N
Vote to pass a bill that would add prescription drug benefits to Medicare.

Legal Issues

03/25/2004 Unborn Victims of Violence Act 2004 N
Vote to pass a bill that would make it a criminal offense if a fetus is injured or killed while carrying out a violent crime on a pregnant woman.

Those are just some of the vbotes Hillary Clinton had as a Senator. Want more candy from Hillary?

The Rest of Hillary Clinton’s votes are here

“This is one that is not brought up often if it has been brought up at all. Right now it is important to negotiate with Muslim countries. Whether we do tough negotiations or soft negotiations, we will have to do some type of negotiations with these Muslim countries.

They don’t even allow women to go to school or show their face. They are not going to negotiate with a woman president. This is not sexist. I believe the US is ready for a woman president. The problem is that the countries we are having to deal with are not ready to negotiate or deal with a woman president.”

Yeah the American voters should definitely take into account the feelings of oppressive regimes when voting for their own head of state.

So you would rather remain arrogant as the world already sees us anyway?

You’d rather ignore the fact that who you vote for also has to be the best choice to deal with current foriegn policy issues?

Hillary is not the best candidate to deal with current foriegn policy issues because we are dealing with the middle east and yes, unfortunately, we do have to take that into account.

Regardless if you feel that you SHOULD have to take it into account or not, the fact remains that we do have to the attitudes of countries we have to negotiate with or deal with into account.

If you choose to ignore them, then you are burying your head in the sand.

I suppose the Jewish are also ruled out as well as women?

I always find it amazing when someone reads the very first paragraph of a post with this much information in it and focuses all of their efforts to argue that one point.

Besides the fact that hillary clinton is a woman and you want to vote for her for that reason, do you agree with all of her voting record I took the time to put into this post?

Is there an argument you have in support of Hillary besides she is a woman and you want a woman president?

You seem to think I’m anti-women because of what I wrote. I submit you are pro-women whether their voting record is good or not.

It’s not a popularity contest. it’s a presidential election. And yes we do have to consider things you might not think are politically correct.

This country has done a lot in recent years to make sure they are politically correct. Laws have been passed just so politicians can appear to be politically correct.

Politically correct is fine is we are just talking about whether something we say miught insult someone. But when talking about important issues, politically correct takes a back seat.

If you are against illegal immigrants getting a full pardon, you are called a racist when that issue is not about race but about US law.

If you are against the war in Iraq, you are labeled unpatriotic and that you do not support the troops. I am a veteran and against the Iraq war. I do support the troops. So the association is ridiculous.

If I mention that we should consider how other countries will deal with a potential president, for whatever reason, it doies not mean I am against a whole segment of the population that person represents.

What? If I do not support hillary clinton, I am anti-women? I didn’t vote for Leiberman so I’m anti-semetic? If I don’t vote for Obama, am I against blacks too?

I said in that paragraph that the US is ready for a female president. I think we are also ready for an african american president. But I won’t vote for either of them just so we can have one.

Every individual who gets elected should be liable for their voting record. People listen too much to what politicians say instead of what their voting record says.

If I am against the war in Iraq, then anyone who voted for it is not on my list of potential candidates to vote for.

They can make whatever excuse they want about why they voted that way. They can say they won’t do it next time. But their record shows their true colors.

Hillary says now it was a mistake to give bush the power she helped give him to wage war in Iraq. Then when he started to do the same stuff with Iran that led up to the war in Iraq, she voited in support of that too.

So you have hillary who votes over and over again for things that will lead to more war in the middle east. Couple that with the fact that the middle east does not treat women well or respect them and you get a situation that might not be the most desirable for the US.

If you cannot see beyond gender and race as my reasons for this, then go ahead and vote for a woman president just so you can have a woman president whether it’s good for the country or not.

At no point have I supported Clinton, she wouldn’t be my first choice for President. I wont be voting anyway.

The first issue raised in this article is sexist, it suggests that she is unfit for office based solely because she is female.

The rest of the points may be perfectly valid and well articulated but unfortunately creditability is lost by opening the article with such claptrap as “We can’t vote for her because they oppress women in the middle east”.

You seem like an intelligent person so please don’t insult me and degrade yourself by using the tired “so your calling me sexist because I don’t vote for her??????!!!” we both know thats not what I am saying.

When I vote in a election I do it based on policy, you are the one suggesting that gender should be taken into account.

Chrissie I really do appreciate your comments, so don’t take it the wrong way, but I think I have to refresh your memory.

My post says “They are not going to negotiate with a woman president. This is not sexist. I believe the US is ready for a woman president. The problem is that the countries we are having to deal with are not ready to negotiate or deal with a woman president.”

It does not say “she is unfit for office based solely because she is female.” nor does it say “We can’t vote for her because they oppress women in the middle east”. Both of which you stated in your comment as if you were quoting from the post you read.

When quoting it is helpful to quote the actual text written rather than the spin you want to put on it to make your point.

Since I added a whole lot of other reasons including Hillary Clinton’s voting record as reasons not to vote for her, then in no way can you say I said don’t vote for Hillary JUST because she is a woman.

Once again for anyone who misses it. If you actually read that post, you cannot possibly summarize it as me saying do not vote for Hillary Clinton just because she is a woman.

I’m sorry if repeating that sounds condescending, but your repeated attempts to summarize the post as anti-women and your misquotes make me clarify it more than once.

Ok I will quote myself.

“The first issue raised in this article is sexist; it suggests that she is unfit for office based solely because she is female.”

Notice that I specifically say the “first” issue.

Now let’s look at what you quoted.

“They are not going to negotiate with a woman president. This is not sexist. I believe the US is ready for a woman president. The problem is that the countries we are having to deal with are not ready to negotiate or deal with a woman president.”

You see you are not saying “Hilary has the wrong attitude to deal with the Middle East” you are saying she is the wrong gender. Believe it or not writing “This is not sexist” doesn’t change the fact that it is sexist.

When you start electing officials based on the human rights records of other countries you’re in trouble. My Jewish remark was not merely a cheap shot it is a very valid point. Some of these countries are also extremely anti-Semitic so why draw the line at women? Once we start voting based on the prejudices of other countries where exactly does it stop?

I have not once attempted to summarize this post. I have merely objected to one of the issues you raised.

No apology necessary for repeating yourself. To be honest I am a little confused. In your first post you talked about me burying my head in the sand and talked about arrogance (not sure why). Your second post you talked, amongst other things, about me supporting Hilary (again not sure where that came from) and your third post you have seemingly accused me of altering your text which I can assure you I didn’t.

Not altogether sure were you repeated yourself in all that although ironically I do realise that I am repeating myself.

So again I shall rephrase my point.

If you think Hilary’s policies are right, vote for her.

If you think Hilary’s policies are wrong vote for someone else.

Please though regardless of what oppressive regimes may or may not prefer do not let issues of race/religion/gender come into it.

We’ll have to agree to disagree then.

Just because I don’t support the iraq War, it does not mean I don’t support the troops.

Just because I don’t like George Bush, it doesn’t make me a liberal.

Just because I am against amnesty for illegal immigrants does not make me a racist.

Just because I believe that electing a woman president at this time does not make me a sexist.

People are so busy these days trying not to say something that might be construed as not politically correct even when they have a valid point.

I simply refuse to put political correctness or fear of being thought of as politically incorrect ahead of real issues.

You don’t see a woman president dealing with the middle east a valid issue. I can deal with that. It’s your opinion. I stated mine.

Condaleeza Rice has made no advances in the middle east at all as secretary of state while bill clinton and colin powell did. I guess that will also be considered a sexist remark in your eyes.

But stating fact does not make you a sexist or a racist. Facts are simply facts.

“But stating fact does not make you a sexist or a racist. Facts are simply facts.”

Of course I never disputed that certain middle eastern leaderships may have problems dealing with a woman.

That isn’t the issue, it is the conclusion you draw from this which is the problem.

Economies work better when slavery legal.

Food is more plentiful when the starving are left to die.

Those with leaning disabilities and mental health issues put a huge strain on government resources.

These are all facts from which some very disturbing but logical conclusions can be drawn.

The line you choose to draw when following this line of thought is on your on consience.

It would be incredibly sad if even one US citizen allowed the first issue you raise to effect their vote in any way.

Wow, I think we set the record for the largest number of analogies used in one thread between the two of us.

Voting one way or the other because of that first issue is not nearly as sad as many reasons people vote for a candidate.

Some vote for who they think will win like they are in a contest and get a prize for being on the winning side.

Some don’t vote for a candidate because the media said that candidate had no chance to win and they didn’t want to “waste their vote”. If you are the only person in the country voting for the candidate you thought was the best candidate, you did not waste your vote, you did your duty.

There are people who vote one way or the other based on what their spouse tells them is the right way to vote.

Others let their friends influence who to vote for.

Others simply vote all republican or all democrat just because they “belong” to one party or the other. That belong word should really bother people, but it doesn’t.

Then there are women who pick a candidate because they are handsome and have a wonderful personality. I’m sure if a pretty woman ran we would get men who vote for her because she’s pretty. Until we have a candidate that is I can’t tell you for sure that is true.

Others vote the way their union or other organization tells them to.

Others vote for a candidate because the latino groups say they are the best. Others do it because african american groups tell them they should. Others vote for women because women’s organizations tell them they should.

There are a lot of stupid and sad reasons people vote for candidates that have nothjing to do with issues at all. At least my statement had a reason beyond the sexist reason you seem to think I have.

People really need to make up their own mind and vote as an individual. That’s the bottom line.

This was a comment on another post I found relative to this one;

doug morrow
D. M.,
Chandler, AZ

My comment is since 1980 there have been two families in the White House influencing/managing the United States presidency. Bush 1 while as VP, to a currently lesser degree Mr. Clinton. With the potential for Mrs. Clinton to be in office for as much as 8 years a span of time from 1980 to 2016 would be the duration for two families to control the Presidency. Add to that a potential for President Bush’s second son to run for the position (a potential run in 2012) the presidency could go back and forth between the aforementioned groups until 2024. As ridiculous as it may sound how can two families control/affect the Presidency/VP for anything approaching even 16 years let alone 34 years? When will it end? How can we say we live in a country who the best leaders are in the presidency if such a situation/history exists. The major reason for not putting such individuals in office is the sheer nepotism/concern over who is really in control. Why do we not have a better choice of candidates? Mrs. Clinton affected policy while married during Mr. Clinton’s first eight years - who will be in control if she wins now? How can control be so closely held? Should not the process be critically examined by ignoring party politics as being as concerned about this process as our concerns should be over the environment? Mr. Bush’s position on the war (one which we knew or should have known was intractable - our Afganistan - needing to know how to get out before getting into it) and Mr. Clinton’s failed morality tests. When do we get the leaders we need instead of the leaders we deserve? You both can think of this as an oversimplification. Another question to you is why is the position of Presidency not one of intelligence, honor, integrity, morality, kindness, strength, ethics and other admirable traits which we should hold above special interest or party popularity? To say it is not then bodes the question why do these two families wield so much power and who is controlling them behind the scenes? Who really controlls our nation?