Crossposted from MY LEFT WING
The title caught my eye, so I read this diary, Neo-Progressives, with interest -- especially the preamble:
...What is now apparent is that we have a whole lot of "neo-progressives," people who have no hesitancy in supporting mainstream Democrats in the name of defeating Republicans. Neo-progressives cannot resist the temptation to support the lesser-evil as a pragmatic strategy, justified in the name of saving the country from yet more years of Republican dominance...
What came to mind was a question...
What's so neo -- or, for that matter, progressive -- about that?
And an answer...
That's just old school bullshit liberal politics. Don't get me wrong -- I'm not pointing fingers here; I'm an old school bullshit liberal, myself.
I am not comfortable calling myself a progressive, so I don't do it; I am a liberal. But most of the people I've met who call themselves "progressives" seem to be pretty average liberals -- just like me -- adhering to a pretty reasonable, rational and average liberal belief system, but willing to vote for a Democrat they don't like and who isn't liberal, when that Democrat the only viable option on the ballot running against a Republican. Let's face it -- there are DAMNED few circumstances when even the worst, most "conservative," practically Republican (DINO) Democrat isn't a damned sight better a candidate -- as far as being of service to liberal ideals -- than the most liberal, practically Democratic (RINO) Republican.
A RINO may vote our way on a few of our key issues, but when push comes to shove, especially in a political climate like the one that's developed over the past 20 years, partisanship seems almost ALWAYS to take precedence over ideals and practical benefits. Which means we might get this hypothetical RINO's vote (let's call her Olympia, for our purposes) on a couple of issues (say, reproductive rights and minimum wage), when it comes to those votes when it would REALLY matter, goddamn if she won't throw her lot in with her party over her principles -- Every. Motherfucking. Time.
So, yeah, I'll probably vote for the Democrat, virtually every time. He may be a slimy, appeasing, conservative, Republican-ass kissing dickweed (Let's call him Joe Ben um, Evan, for our purposes, shall we?), but at least I can count on his vote when it... Oops. Well, you know what I mean.
I'll vote for the Democrat on a ballot in almost any case, except when that Democrat is a sure loser. If it's a foregone conclusion the Democrat will lose, then I just might step outside the box and vote for someone else on the ballot -- or a write-in.
For instance: If Hillary Clinton is the nominee in 2008 for the Democratic Party, then I will vote for someone else. I am absolutely convinced she will lose in a major landslide if nominated, and since I believe that to be the case -- and since I live in California, where it really won't matter HOW I vote -- I will NOT throw away my vote on a compromise that makes me physically ill to contemplate.
But that's not the only circumstance under which I will not vote for Hillary Clinton.
Even if she DOES have a chance of winning and even if my vote WOULD count in California... I will not vote for her. I cannot vote for her. Voting for Hillary Clinton would go against every fucking principle I have.
I will vote for a socialist, a third party candidate with leftist leanings, or write in my own name before I vote for that appeasing, centrist, unscrupulous, vanity-riddled asshole.
That's right, you heard it here: Maryscott O'Connor will not vote for Hillary Clinton even if she is the Democratic candidate on the 2008 presidential ballot -- EVEN IF THE POLLS HAVE HER NECK AND NECK WITH THE REPUBLICAN. I hate her, I hate her, I hate her -- and I WILL NOT fucking vote for her.
So, if she is the nominee -- well, that's pretty much when I will be excoriated every time I write anything at DKos about it or, I think, anything else. I will be, officially, Nader Scum. Not that I'll vote for Nader -- but you know what I mean? The Nader voter of 2000, misguided as she was, was doing what she felt was right -- and given how much as I excoriated them, I have a feeling karma will be a bitch in Ferragamo stilettos.
There is, of course, one way in which I can be spared the agony of having the shoe on my other foot, however: Democratic primary voters can opt, en masse, to ignore the propaganda they've been fed by every media outlet and intellectually deficient pundit, blogger, political adviser and Democratic party hack on the planet... and vote for someone else. ANYONE else. Hopefully the SAME someone else, so there is NO argument about who the Democrats of this country do NOT want as their president, other than the Republican: Hillary fucking Clinton.
And, of course, there is ONE more way in which I can be spared the torment of being persona non grata at my favourite blogs, as well as a leper at the Democratic buffet of 2008; whether I am voting for the Prominent Third Party Candidate of 2008 or writing in my own name, I fully expect to receive exactly the sort of treatment I gave in 2000 to Nader voters. It's only right and proper -- karma and all that jazz, dontcha know. But I digress...
What is that last scenario in which I'll be spared my karma and we all can be spared the ignominy of a Hillary Clinton Democratic presidential nomination in 2008? Well, Jesus, it's so fucking simple, it's staring us all in the face -- and it's staring HER in the face, too, you know. It's so very simple. Just to mix it up a little here, throw in a little 80s pop culture, let me quote the most appealing computer persona since Hal9000:
The only way to win... is not to play.
With one decision and declaration, Hillary Clinton can win immeasurable respect and gratitude of untold millions. If she officially and irrevocably withdraws her name from consideration for any nomination by any party for President of the United States of America... she will win the hearts and minds of all those Democrats who loathe her. And believe me -- there are a LOT of us out here.
I just hope Senator Clinton realises how deeply disliked, to put it mildly, she really is -- by people in her own party, never mind the Republicans, who will be more united, more cohesive a voting bloc that has been seen since the Reagan juggernaut of 1984... If the Senator recognises the futility and inevitable humiliation and defeat her candidacy would bring the Democratic Party, to say nothing of liberals the land over, perhaps then she will take the only step possible for her renewed hope of ever being a beloved Democrat, rather than a barely tolerated one.
I don't know if she even IS aware of how polarising she is among people in her own party; just how much of the actual truth are people at her level of existence actually allowed to experience, when it comes to their own popularity or lack thereof? Does she visit blogs as she eats her tuna sandwich at her desk? (Heh. What IS a working lunch when you're a Senator, anyway?)
Well, I've flung the epithets and slung the mud, but perhaps my own displeasure with Hillary Clinton needs spelling out. Despite our many areas of agreement (on social and economic issues ranging from reproductive rights to various Constitutional interpretations) and in addition to our areas of disagreement (on the war in Iraq, flag burning, video game violence -- well, it actually IS a rather long list....), there is one thing about Hillary Clinton that drives me crazy, makes my teeth hurt when I look at her and my head ache when I listen to her, one thing that I think is ALSO the main reason many others despise her -- Republicans, Democrats, independents, Christians, Jews, Muslims, Wiccans. What is this horrible thing about her that brings together so many disparate types in their mutual loathing of this politician?
She's a FAKE.
You know what I mean? She lacks authenticity, there's a fancier way to put it. She seems calculated, calibrated, opportunistic, fake fake fake. I say "seems" because, of course, I do not know the woman personally, and even if I did, I certainly wouldn't be able to see into her heart, a talent so often claimed by GWB I often wonder why he doesn't just have the Guantanamo prisoners get echocardiograms and determine their guilt or innocence THAT way... But I digress.
All I know is what I see and hear from Hillary Clinton, and everything I see and hear from her sounds fake, phony, false, mendacious, bogus, fraudulent, affected... am I getting through to you, Mr. Beale?
Hillary Clinton has the stench of unmitigated equivocation about her. If she isn't actually phony, I pity her, because that's what she seems, and since I don't have the actual truth from her heart and mind, all I have to go on is her words and actions -- and the way in which she has gone about using them. And what I see and hear is prevarication.
So... Whether or not Hillary Clinton is an authentic phony, so to speak, she faces an insurmountable obstacle in her quest for the Presidency, if she so quests, which I'm afraid she does: People don't LIKE her. And she does little to aid herself when she bellows into a microphone when giving a speech, or labours in vain to ingratiate herself to the mighty middle by appearing on the various news channels with their manufactured journalists and tabloidal news crawls.
Whether or not she is a good politician is a question to debate another day. But one thing seems inarguable: she is a bad candidate.