It seems like many groups absolutely love her, while others loathe her. Both, at times, fairly unfounded imo.

And as if all politicians aren't calculated, at least to an extent?  Everyone should read "The Last Campaign," about Harry Truman and the 1948 Election.  Specifically, read the part about how Truman worked really hard with advisors, researchers, consultants, etc. to APPEAR natural. And it worked!  I'm not saying that Hillary Clinton's my candidate for President - as I've said a million times, I remain neutral while waiting for Al Gore or Wes Clark, and also while concentrating on Virginia 2007 - but some of these criticisms just strike me as distorted, ignoring all the other candidates' similar "issues."

The search for authenticity leads to the Tao te Ching (The Path of Integrity). Culture follows trends until they collapse the culture in its own imitation of authenticity (Strauss and Howe). The fourth generation, rising now in blog, returns to necessity. I saw the essential moment as Bosnia and Rwanda when Bill Clinton stood in front of a TV camera to say "I don't know what to do." Beside him was Elie Weisel, who told him what to do. The singular figure I saw rising out of that moment was Wesley Clark and this moment will be talked of in his upcoming biography I am sure. From then until now we have not known much to do in many ways - expecially in Iraq and Iran - and only Wesley Clark has told us what to do. It takes a long time to cross the river from inauthentic pressures and illusions chased over the generations, but when we turn, we will turn to Wes Clark.

Hillary is too  much the money candidate, the candidate of the big money bosses, if you will, to appeal to the diverse, scathing, and at times intelligent discussion on most of the blogs. She scares me with her vagueness on Iraq and her militarism on the GWOT. Does anybody believe we're going to settle the Middle East through conflict or colonization? Whether it be war with the Iranians or between the Israelis and Palestinians? She reminds me of when Richard Nixon said he had a secret plan to end the war in Vietnam and it ended five-six years later. I wouldn't vote against hHillary in the general, but it's sad that she feels so compelled to believe 16 years of Clintons are good for the U.S.

I've never heard anyone say "I don't like Hillary's policy on X." I can't help but wonder if they ever got that far. Clearly she is being held to a different standard, and more importantly, it seems it is one that is simply unachievable for any male or female that needs the fortitude to suceed in politics. Here's my take:

Male: ambitious, watchful.
Female: "opportunist" (or b*tch)

Male: responsive, attentive to constituents
Female: "pandering to individual groups" (like voters?)

Male: smart, savvy
Female:  "overly strategic" "political maneuvering."

Male: experienced
Female: "an inside-the-Beltway politician."

Male: well-versed on the issues, "nuanced Iraq policy,"
Female:  calculating

The advisors around Clinton, James Carville, he's a man, still thinks 1. you got to appease the South to win any presidential election. 2. You only need 18 states to win a presidential election and pick off two of your oppenents. When Howard Dean said we got to set up our organization in the red states as well as the blue. That strategy known as the 50 state strategy is why the Democrats are saying to Bush, who's your daddy now. That's why I oppose Clinton as president. 

Know I like Pelosi because she started in a man's world of politic so she had her ambitions scaled back,now without sounding sexist,its for this reason I like her, because all she wanted was to be Speaker of the House.  This assured a Democratic win because her democratic predecessor, Richard Gephardt was more focused on his campaign for president even though the US hasn't elected a Representative since Garfeild, and he compromised the nation to be led into Iraq because of it. We now have Pelosi politicians running the party, and the world is better off for it.

Bill Clinton tailored his campaign to the results of focus groups in his bid for a second term. The strategy was to avoid sticky issues and talk about so brainer topics like a chip on home computers to keep kids from viewing pornography. This was a conscious approach which was also adopted by Tony Blair in England.

It seems that Hillary is using the same advisors. That would explain why she didn't come out against the Iraq war until its unpopularity came to the point where it would be reflected in a focus group as a majority opinion. I think this reactive method of forming policies is not true leadership.

Andrea Chamblee is so correct in her post about the comparisons of the very same traits held by men and by women.  And women in politics or in any field of endeavor that is mostly male-dominated are held to a different standard. 

For years Republicans have gone after Hillary for no other reason than she's a smart, stong, and very professional woman and that drives some men - and some women, too - crazy.  But what I hate to see are members of my own Democratic community taking the same prejudicial approach toward her.  That makes me realize that even within our own Progressive community, many still have biases against women, even though they would never admit it and/or perhaps don't even realize it. 

I would like to see any criticisms of her or any of the other candidates be specific to their stand on the issues rather than these non-specific personal charges of being 'too calculating', or 'too pandering', or whatever.  Lowell is correct when he says that all politicians are calculating, to various extents, and well they should be if they plan on winning. 

NMM is for all practical purposes a feminist = equality between men and women = judged based on abilities

NMM is also against affirmative action

NMM also supports anti-gay discrimination

for the same reasons

if you guessed libertarian you win a prize

I used too many words in the third one

it should read something to the effect of

is against discrimination of the GLBT community