i share their concern about her vote for the iraq war, but hillary clinton is working hard for our country and deserves our support in 2006 and beyond.

something about their letter feels presumptuous, too. i wonder if they would ask a male candidate to do the same:
dear sir; we know you have a good heart, so please give your campaign contributions to these more deserving candidates. sincerely; a bunch of dudes

I'm fed up with Democratic cowardice masquerading as pragmatic politics. I'm with The Nation on this: no candidate for president who does not oppose Shrub's war of aggression will get my support. Period.

Jami - as one of the "dudes" that signed the letter I must say you have it wrong. I feel the same whether it is a female or male candidate. Hillary doesn't need the money for her Senate campaign, she doesn't even have an opponent. There are a number of important races locally and nationally that need support and Hillary right now is not one of them. If she wants to be the leader of the party then she needs to show she can lead, unfortunately right now she has not done that.

Yes, Jami, it would be the same if she were "male" This is not about gender, it is about priorities, putting money where it is needed, and taking a strong stand against this evil war and the deceit, distortion and lies that brought us into it.

I for one have backed it up with $100 contribution to the "Fighting Dems" https://secure.actblue.com/contribute/page/thefightingdems Dan

Great work John. Nicely worded and to the point. No BS. I hope Hillary is smart enough to listen. Gordon Squadron13 Aviation Museum

Hillary Clinton... is there anything good you can say about her? Certainly she has betrayed the left ideologically. Certainly her positions are worthy of contempt from progressives.

On the other hand, maybe she knows how to become President and I don't? And if she does, that would be fantastic... a huge improvement over any conceivable Republican alternative. Because deep down you know that if she has power she won't be afraid to exercise it on behalf of some progressive causes.... and probably to a greater degree than Bill ever was.

And if she has to be a craven triangulating boot licker to power... well that's contemptible, but will you and I find ourselves saying in 2008 "well I have to admit, she knew how to become President of the US ... and maybe I didn't"?

We have to be open to that possibility that her path of accepting the imperialist American military/ surveillance state is the only path to power open to anyone at this point in our history. That's sad, but this is one screwed up country these days.

We don't have to support someone who chooses her path. We sure as hell don't have to give her our money at this stage. I'd be the first to tell her that I don't care for her brand of politics or her positions. I also want to believe that my oppositional politics could persuade the public... but I don't know that with certainty.

Hillary is focused on power... the opportunity to exercise power... and saying what you need to get there... never mind how that may complicate your ability to govern once you gain it.

Her strategy is to court the center and trust that people like me will have no realistic alternative in the general election. Not necessary a bad idea.

As a political proposition, I'm open to the possibility that she and her husband have won quite a few more elections than I have, and may have a better read on what 'mericans want and will vote for than I do.

So go away Hillary. I'm not interested. I hate the fact that you don't think you have to say anything to please me or progressives. But you may have correctly calculated that you don't, and when it comes down to you versus the son of Dick Cheney... well obviously I'll vote for you.

I don't like being taken for granted... but I like what the Republicans are doing to this country even less, and if you have an electoral strategy that will enable you to do something about it, well that's a sad comment on our politics, but it's better than nothing.

Hillary doesn't need the money for her Senate campaign, she doesn't even have an opponent.

actually she does. in the democratic primary.

Perhaps it's strange, but I respect and agree with the letter, while at the same time don't really have a problem with Senator Clinton trying to raise money in our state. Would I give to her campaign? Nope, she's not my representative, and as pointed out in the letter she has adequate funding already. But in theory, I don't have a problem with a candidate reaching outside of their constituency to raise campaign funds.

As to Hillary's support for the war, well that's just disappointing but not too surprising. The good Senator is just trying to represent her constituents, so if their views are sometimes contradictory or internally inconsistent it will be reflected in their representative.

Ideally I would love to find a candidate with whom I agree on every issue - such a candidate would truly represent my views, but probably not the views of many of my neighbors. We all have to make compromises, especially when we have at most 2 choices (GOP or Dem).

So I applaude the conviction of those out there who say they will never support a candidate who supports the invasion/occupation of Iraq. Personally, I'm a little afraid that if I had to choose between someone like Senator Clinton and say, Frist or Santorum I'd vote for Clinton if I thought she had any chance of winning.

My disappointment in Hillary goes back to Oct. 2002 when she gave a very insightful speech detailing why the case for war in Iraq was bogus, then announced she was going to vote for it anyway. She was no doofus bamboozled by Bush regime spin. She did the wrong thing with her eyes wide open. This was not just cowardly, it was immoral.

My disappointment in the Democratic party in general can best be summed up by this opinion in Raw Story:

The lyin'-ass boyfriend party

This puts to rest the "They'd filibuster Alito if they could grow the nads" meme. I'm not happy with my political party at all and I'd like to show Hillary myself when she rolls up to the Hilton Friday night.

Has anybody heard of any public actions planned in protest?

Nader,

If Hillary is the Democratic nominee by June 2008, then we can discuss whether she would be preferable to Frist or Santorum (or Allen, Huckabee, or McCain). Until then, however, we can focus on getting a Democratic nominee who agrees with the majority of Americans that the solution to the debacle in Iraq is timely US troop withdrawal.

We need a leader, not a triangulator. I nominate Russ Feingold (although John Edwards and (gasp) Al Gore are looking pretty good to me as of late).

Even if I wanted Hillary to run in '08, she has NO chance. I used to subscribe to some right-wing spam lists. Whenever nothing else was going on, they would fire up their regressive troops with the Horror of the Hillary in '08. Believe me, if gay marriage was the cultural wedge issue in '04, Hillary would far surpass its effect all by herself in '08. Her nomination would guarantee a GOP victory in '08.

I too support Sen. Clinton on many things, but I simply cannot support anyone who supports this war.

In the spring, I'll be hosting four town halls, one of which will be entitled "War in Iraq: a Local Response." It will be March 8 in NE Portland at a location to be determined. Check www.leg.state.or.us/shieldsc or www.chipshields.com over the coming weeks for more information or you can call my Legislative Assistant Regan Gray at 503-231-2564.

Salvador- I fully agree that you should stand behind whomever you truly support. My statement goes out more to the DLC triangulators who think that Hillary will win by embracing that magical middle. I don't think she will, and that she is much more likely to guarantee high turnout by the same regressives who supposedly got all fired up about voting for their homophobia in '04. She is also not appealing to the steadfast leftists, as you can tell from the comments on here. I admire and respect Hillary, but I just really don't think she's electable.

On the most important issues Hillary is neocon-lite. I could never support her.

Hillary or Jeb?

Hmm....

If these Swifties are so swift, why don't they run for office?

Hmm...

Jami: Dude! Dudettes Anne, Lori, Elaine, Bettye and Rhonda signed the letter so who's the presumptuous one here?

My dad, my step-dad and I all signed on with Veterans for Kerry and we all feel the $100s of billions and thousands of lives being wasted on the war in Iraq and the distraction from catching Osama is a defining issue. Hillary needs to take a stand... and whatever it takes to get her to take that stand, we're for it.

Veterans for Peace chapter 72 (www.vfpchapter72.org) will be out in force to oppose Hillary as she has shown herself to be a warmonger. You can add the whole membership of VFP 72 to your list.

We are all wearing the blue dress now except the stains are blood stains.

I invite all of you veterans to join Veterans for Peace. See the webpage link or email info at vfpchapter72.org

Grant E. Remington, President Veterans for Peace Chapter 72 US Army 1967-1970 RVN 1968-1969

MarkC would support Edwards who voted for the war, and Feingold who thinks our country needs bunker-buster nukes.

Svejk says: "My dad, my step-dad and I all signed on with Veterans for Kerry..."

Exactly. If you're not Hillary Clinton (that is: male), you can get away with whatever pro-war votes you want. If you are Hillary Clinton, you can do the right thing for progressives 99.9% of the time, and still they b****, with no information whatsoever about her voting record and the bills she's introduced. You know the 12 "liberals" who were always voting in the minority for the right thing, like Edward Kennedy and John Kerry? It also included Hillary Clinton most of the time.

And have you heard these guys' hero Bob Hackett talk about "illegals" lately?

No candidate is perfect. All I ask is that people get informed before they whine and gnash their teeth and destroy their own good candidates. And I still suspect people treat Hillary the way they do because she's a she. I hope to be proven wrong more substantially.

She seems to be trying to steer a course by a navigation screen on her steering wheel, which abstractly represents the landmarks and guideposts across the terrain around her vehicle.

She might better forget all the signals and 'message-sending messages,' and just check her internal guts, try to remind herself where whe found meaning to go.

This has nothing to do with Hillary being a 'she'. Hillary is being a lot of things that amount to 'non-committal' (or worse) - when and where it counts.

I listened to NPR during the entire Iraq debate, and recall Sen. Byrd's stirring "... and I will not commit that sin again" when comparing this vote to his vote in favor of the Gulf of Tonkin resolution in 196?

I recall my utter dismay at John Edwards' 'Yes' vote, and my real disappointment at Sen. Clinton's vote, though it was tempered by her caution to the President to 'use this power wisely'.

So much for that...

I wanted to believe, too - but I knew better. Russ Feingold knew better. Robert Byrd knew better. Howard Dean (I know he didn't have a vote) knew better. But many who should have, and did have a vote, either did not know better, or worse, were playing presidential campaign politics.

This is not an Us vs. Them/Boys vs. Girls thing. There is room for disagreement, but for many reasons, Hillary has raised cause for concern. Just because she's a woman, doesn't excuse her from principle. We've waited this long. I'm willing to wait a little longer.

And for the 3 people who may not have seen this yet, here's one other woman's reasoning for not supporting Hillary. She says it far better:

Molly Ivins I will not support Hillary Clinton for president January 20, 2006

http://www.freepress.org/columns/display/1/2006/1304

John Calhoun:

That is some awesome power you wield. Speaking on behalf of a "majority of Democratic activists in Oregon" and all. From 50 names to a majority in just three sentences. Short run for a long slide.

I hope there's not some prick on a liberterian website pretending to speak on my behalf.

It's a personal attack to question whether 50 signatories (and all the Democratic Activists John's ever met) do not constitute a "Majority of Democratic activists in Oregon." If Howard Dean said the same thing, he'd be guilty of the same ego trip.

The Deputy National Political Director will be using your petition as a coffee coaster by 9:00 a.m. tomorrow, assuming he didn't round file it before then. If you're lucky, he'll mention it to Sen. Clinton on their way back to PDX...(we've got a petition from 50 Oregon Vets who think you're a warmonger: they wish you would grow a spine and not be so moderate. Oh yeah, they want you to donate the proceeds of this event to the State Party). You'll know if they kept it because you'll all get a form letter asking you for a donation (completely ignorant of the fact you asked HER for money!).

But folks, this is a crazy time to be drawing lines in the sand and the more we do it, the more likely we are to face four or eight more years of this mess in Washington.

There are those who believe that it is the failure of Democratic Party leaders to draw lines in the sand that has led to the stunning electoral defeats that the party has had in national elections over the last 12 years.

When the Republicans were out of power in the early 1990's, they didn't regain it by alienating their base. They regained power by embracing and activating previously marginalized groups that were a natural part of their constituency, and by articulating a clear vision for the kind of America they wanted to build.

I'd like to suggest that the Democratic Party in 2006 is at a similar crossroads to the one the Republican Party was at in 1994. We have lost all three branches of federal government. We are losing on more policy issues at all levels of government than we are winning on. And the party as a whole is teetering on the brink of irrelevence at the national level for a very long time.

It's probably not an exaggeration to say that there has not been this serious a crisis for a major political party since the Whigs imploded in the middle of the 19th Century.

Einstein said (and President Clinton often repeated) that one definition of insanity is to keep trying the same thing over and over again in the hope that the outcome will be different the next time. It is with that lesson in mind that I would like to assert that the choice that the Democratic Party faces is simple:

Do we want a party that continues to keep grassroots activists at arms length and embraces failed policies of triangulation and equivocation in an attempt to appeal to mythical middle-of-the-road voters, or do we want a party that clearly articulates a vision for this country; embraces its natural allies on the progressive side by taking their concerns seriously and giving them a seat at the table; and that above all else, places principle ahead of political expedience?

Sen. Clinton to support Alito filibuster, press secretary says

RAW STORY Published: January 27, 2006 Senator Hillary Clinton (D-NY) will support Sen. John Kerry's effort to filibuster ...

I am also disappointed at Hillary's run to the right. Having been someone who admired and looked up to her, I wonder if she hasen't completely sold out.

On the other hand, maybe there is so strategy. I don't know...it's just mading to watch her become so right wing on some issues.

Hey Paddy, I too would like to see Democrats win elections and I also have to tell you that sometimes Dems make it real darn hard not to say bad things about them. Hillary as Pres Candidate, lessee now, Republican Lite with all the Dem baggage...there's a hot idea. That's just plain pragmatism, she's poison.

no chuck, calling her "poison" is poison. she was among the first ten people to support kerry's filibuster. she's good, she's strong, and i'd like you to picture the country she'd lead before you say one more bad thing about her.

i still think hillary herself is a gender issue. african countries have female presidents. us? not so much.

but i suppose that's a distraction from the more important issue raised by this letter: the self-attacking democrats engage in. in justifying his spying on american citizens without a warrant, president bush declared us all enemies. even red-staters. let's fight republicans, then, shall we?

(of course not. instead we should fight amongst ourselves over whether we should fight amongst ourselves.)

My personal take on Senator Hillary Clinton is that she would probably be one of the weakest Democratic Candidate for President because of all the baggage that should bring into the process. I believe that is the reason that the Republicans continue to say she would be tough candidate to beat. They would beat her to death with negative attack adds. She would be easy compared to what they did with Senators John Kerry and Max Cleland, both American patriots and heroes.