Hillary is under attack on all sides.  The Conservatives have never held her in any esteem, but the nutroots, the far left of her own party have found her unappetizing.  Her early support for the war left them with a deep distrust, fueled by the efforts Cindy Sheehan and her ilk.

She has been caught in numerous campaign exaggerations, she has had fund raising scandals, and her accent usage during speeches is nothing short of patronizing.  She is hardly a “lil southern gal”.

And that isn’t even addressing the drama that surrounds her Husband.

Her recent vote against the war funding is a good example of the tap dance she is constantly doing as she tried to be appealing to all. She knows this will alienate her from the moderates and the war supporters, so she mitigates it by claiming she was sending a message, which again leaves the sense to the nutroots that she is not sincerely in their camp.

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20070530/D8PEVA5G0.html

White House hopeful Hillary Rodham Clinton on Wednesday defended her vote against an Iraq war funding bill, saying she believes President Bush will begin withdrawing troops from Iraq soon.

The New York senator said she came to the conclusion while watching the president’s news conference last week in which he referred to the bipartisan Iraq Study Group report and its recommendations for the administration.

“He talked about it favorably for the first time I’ve ever heard him talk about it,” Clinton told The Associated Press in an interview during a campaign stop in Las Vegas. “That was to me a big signal that starting in the fall and toward the end of the year we’re going to start seeing troops withdrawn from Iraq.

“My argument is, why wait?”

Clinton initially opposed cutting off funds for the troops, but said Wednesday that she believed last week’s vote was cast in support of soldiers abroad.

“The best thing I can do to continue my very vigorous support of the troops is to begin to bring them home,” she told the AP.

She is parroting the mainstream Democrats there, and the military is not buying it.

But her drama continues, with her now facing accusations about free plane rides:

In an interview with the AP, Clinton defended her own acceptance of discounted rides on private jets. The travel, and payments to Clinton’s husband, have become the focus of a lawsuit against Vinod Gupta, a Clinton benefactor and chief executive of the data company, infoUSA. The lawsuit by company shareholders accuses Gupta of excessive spending and says he spent $900,000 worth of travel on the Clintons.

Clinton said she followed all Senate rules in accepting the trips. Senate rule require members to reimburse donors at the cost of a first-class flight.

She also has some serious issues facing her with her socialist agenda:

In both venues, Clinton struck populist notes, criticizing disparities between the rich and poor, bemoaning the diminishing middle class and complaining about soaring pay and benefits for chief executives in corporate America.

Considering many of her Hollywood donors are making more then CEO’s and considering how many rich Democrats there are (Edwards and Kerry for example) she is really not going to win too many friends with her income redistribution ideas.  She can hide it by targeting the CEOs but they represent a handful of people as opposed to the masses in Hollywood and DC.

She also has some books that are focusing on her this month:

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20070531/D8PF177O0.html

Clinton declined to comment on two unreleased biographies that, according to press accounts, describe the former first lady’s road to her candidacy in unflattering terms. She said she wasn’t familiar with the books.

Clinton acknowledged an assertion reportedly contained in one of the books: that she did not read a National Intelligence Estimate before voting to authorize the president to go to war in Iraq.

“I don’t believe that I did or that vast majority of my colleagues did because we were briefed repeatedly about everything that was in it,” she said.

I dunno, but one would think an elected official would feel it a responsible act to read what you are voting on.

Her attacks on the rich though are really what is the funniest:

http://lasvegasnow.com/Global/story.asp?S=6548294

For the fourth time in recent months, New York senator and presidential hopeful Hillary Clinton campaigned in Southern Nevada. Her first stop Wednesday was a meeting with members of the Culinary Union.

Sure, no rich people there….

Senator Clinton told members of the Culinary union that corporate America was trying to pull the rug out from under the middle class.

She said, “I have nothing against rich people… but what made America great is the middle class.”

Clinton credited the union movement with building the middle class. She said she thinks it should be easier to join unions and said she supports a union-supported method of organizing called “card check.”

Don’t get me started on unions.  It is not like they are one of the chief contributers to the skilled wage gap and inflation or anything…

Hillary is playing as smart as she can, but sooner or later her opposition is going to capitalize on her socialist agenda and her middle of the road stances.

This article from IBD is fairly telling:

http://www.investors.com/editorial/editorialcontent.asp?secid=1501&status=article&id=265416447464230

Sen. Hillary Clinton shared on Tuesday her vision of the U.S. economy under her executive stewardship. She should change her party affiliation — or the name of her party.

Speaking in New Hampshire, Clinton acknowledged that that instead of the “ownership society” that George W. Bush has promoted throughout his presidency, she prefers a “we’re all in it together society” where prosperity is “broadly shared.”

This is the sort of “it takes a village” rhetoric that tickles the ears of the left, and which can’t give up its romantic notions of a collectivist utopia.

Dreams of the left, however, always turn out to be nightmares, and the world has seen its share of all-in-it-together societies that have failed. The Soviet Union, East Germany, North Korea and the worker’s paradise/island prison of Cuba enter the mind right away.

Then there are the teetering soft-socialist systems of Europe, while socialist/communist power grabs now sapping the wealth and strength of Zimbabwe and Venezuela are contemporary lessons that can’t be ignored.

Given these examples, do we really want to turn America into another experiment in collectivism? Are we willing to trade hard-won freedoms for government-provided security? Would we be willing to force those who don’t want to participate into such a system?

Read the rest before you decide she is your gal.

Consider this section particularly:

Incredibly, many Americans would say yes to all three. An entitlement mentality has corrupted our nation and left-leaning politicians such as Clinton, as well as cynical chameleon opportunists, are skilled at exploiting the feelings of those who are driven by envy or guilt.

The root problem of a socialist — or village or nanny — state is that it robs people of their humanity and removes the incentives that bring economic progress. It produces a soul-draining apathy.

Food for thought, Comrade.

 Trackposted to Right Pundits, Perri Nelson’s Website, Azamatterofact, DeMediacratic Nation, guerrilla radio, Webloggin, The Florida Masochist, Colloquium, Conservative Cat, Pursuing Holiness, Blue Collar Muse, stikNstein… has no mercy, The Crazy Rants of Samantha Burns, The Pink Flamingo, Gulf Coast Hurricane Tracker, Right Voices, and The Yankee Sailor, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Trackback URI | Comments RSS