In defense of Senator Clinton

Let me start by saying I am not at all happy with many of Senator Clinton's votes. Not at all. I am also not a Democrat, because I think the Democratic Party is made up--for the most part--of cowards and Republicans.

If someone doesn't want to support Clinton for president because of her voting record, fine. Only go find a Democrat whose voting record you can support: I guarantee you that Waxman, Kucinich, Boxer, and Waters will not be nominated, nor will Howard Dean.

Kerry was nominated, and he was an umitigated disaster, yet Democrats still defend his candidacy.

So why I am here to defend Clinton? Because much of the attack against her potential candidacy isn't based on her voting record (which, by the way, isn't all bad). It is based on the fact that she is a polarizing figure, and that she has "baggage."

Oh, please. If you visit the message boards, you will soon discover that the same people who think Clinton has too much "baggage" to be nominated for president are the people who think Bill Clinton would be a great nominee. It also didn't bother them too much that Kerry had a lot of baggage--fake baggage, I might add, that could easily have been dispensed with if the Democratic Party had half a brain. The "anyone but Hillary" crowd has no logical way to justify its dismissal of her.

If you have a candidate who is viable and can raise money and you don't have the brains or the guts to take the offensive in an election, then stop your boo-hooing and go home. It doesn't matter who the Democrats nominate: The Republicans will trash him or her, and the Democrats will retreat into la-la land.

Of course, the other old standby is: The country isn't ready for a woman president. This is how the Democratic Party has always treated women and minorities: We think you're mighty fine, but we're not ready to put you in the show ring. And that, I think, is Senator Clinton's major piece of "baggage."