Prog Blogs, Orgs & Alumni
Bank Slate
Betsy Devine
birch, finch, beech
Blue News Tribune (MA)
Democracy for NH
Live Free or Die
Mike Caulfield
Miscellany Blue
Granite State Progress
Seacoast for Change
Susan the Bruce
Tomorrow's Progressives
Politicos & Punditry
The Burt Cohen Show
John Gregg
Krauss
Landrigan
Lawson
Pindell
Primary Monitor
Primary Wire
Scala
Schoenberg
Spiliotes
Welch
Campaigns, Et Alia.
Paul Hodes
Carol Shea-Porter
Ann McLane Kuster
John Lynch
Jennifer Daler
ActBlue Hampshire
NHDP
DCCC
DSCC
DNC
National
Balloon Juice
billmon
Congress Matters
DailyKos
Digby
Hold Fast
Eschaton
FiveThirtyEight
MyDD
The Next Hurrah
Open Left
Senate Guru
Swing State Project
Talking Points Memo
50 State Blog Network
Alabama
Arizona
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Florida
Georgia
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Missouri
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
If I've learned one thing about Hillary Clinton during this primary year (and, it must be admitted, we've been at this for a year now) it's that she continues to be the most complex candidate in the race for me, and that perhaps despite all that's been said and written, I nonetheless understand very little about her.
This admission of mine is courtesy of two new state newspaper items. The first is the Keene Sentinel endorsement of Hillary (h/t gradysdad), which really surprised me. I simply assumed that a paper serving the southern Connecticut River Valley would go for someone further to the left, such as John Edwards. But the endorsement reminds me that, in many respects, Senator Clinton has a very progressive voting record (and really, everyone should check out the Sentinel's interviews with the candidates). From the endorsement:
At home, the new president will have to address the fact that comprehensive health insurance is now beyond the reach of an increasing number of Americans. The new president will have to redouble the country's commitment to veterans and their families, especially in light of the wave of wounded men and women returning home from Iraq. The new president will have to pursue an effective yet humane strategy to curb illegal immigration. The new president will need to restore an ideological balance on the Supreme Court, reflecting the wide range of beliefs in American society. The new president will have to ease the country toward energy independence, without killing off the economic engine that is the envy of the world. And the new president will need to reshape key regulatory agencies, such as the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, that have become dangerous appendages of the industries they are supposed to govern.
Would a Hillary Clinton presidency be responsive to those challenges? I have to think so, and strongly so.
But then there's the other side. The Concord Monitor blog notes that it was Condi Rice, not Colin Powell, that ultimately convinced Clinton of authorizing the use of force in Iraq, a position she continues to defend. This is, well, breathtaking to me, since every other candidate on our side (and including our two NH-Senate candidates) either has expressed regret for their Iraq war vote or support, or else demonstrated that they were against it from the start. I don't want to live in the past, but going to war on false premises is a black mark upon our nation so huge that it can't be glossed over. Indeed, this lone position on the Iraq is what ruled her out for me back when I set out to be a "decided" voter.
I confess I really can't figure her out, despite feeling that she would be an outstanding Commander in Chief.