As long as you're going to base your dislike of a candidate on controversial issues that they may or may not have been apart of, why would you ever, in all decency, skip over the issues surrounding every president ever.
It's generally irrelevant to bring up Whitewater, because it's filed under one of those 'conspiracy' tabs, just like how people supposedly steal elections every 4 years.
I don't care if you think the deaths are 'convenient', the point is it was never proven; I'd like you to watch a documentary called Hunting the President. Of course, documentaries are usually controversial (hi2u communist weasel Michael Moore), but it provides another perspective on the situations you so enjoyed bringing up.
The idea that you would base your vote on a trial which you simply believed was forced by the Clintons makes your ideology suspect purely on the grounds that you can logically argue against the evidence presented, as well as for it.
The fact is, regardless of your opinion of things that may or may not have happened, you have to view a candidate from how they have represented you in the past, how they're projected to represent you, and their competence in performing the job.
As far as I know, Hillary has almost always cosigned bills with a member of the Republican party, including his craziness Tom DeLay, which strikes me as odd given how often people seem to call her tilted all the way left.
By the way, enforcing video game statutes is a right-leaning attitude towards government, but those who talked about it knew that from the start.
Too much of what people bring to the table to bash Hillary is either completely wrong or personal opinion based on preconception that you got from god knows where.
She has campaigned for universal health care (in the 90's, but the idea that a 1st lady could even get the ball rolling on something like that was nigh unheard of). She has accomplished many minor goals, but senators can't really accomplish major goals in a political climate like the one today. She is on several committees and chairs some, and makes at least a marked attempt to seek out and work with members from the other side of the aisle.
Where did the hormonal bitch thing come from anyway? That's what really baffles me.
All that being said, I don't necessarily support her in terms of my views on specific issues, but her ability to lead is a pretty stupid thing to question, especially when espousing Barak Obama in her stead, considering he has basically nothing to his name except a book deal. Fascinating book by the way, but he needs to make up his fucking mind on how to solve problems (read the book).
By the way TsingTao, to list her being female as a point of suspicion makes you arguement seem more like tripe than it possibly is. Next time, leave gender politics out of this, it's pretty apparent they are capable of the same leadership we are.
Edit: rough drafts and spelling escape me