(What began as a response to an earlier diary that featured the above-mentioned musical question - HILLARY? - grew a bit much, so ...)
droogie6655321 wrote
Please tell me why I should Not. Support. Hillary. at Mon Feb 19, 2007 at 08:11:30 AM PST
He'd politely raised several different issues.
Me? I support Barack Obama. And there are plenty of other Democrats whom I'd favor for next year's nomination.
First, a deconstruction of droogie6655321's words, and a couple of semi-original thoughts. More beyond the jump.
First, some answers for droogie:
First, didn't Hillary propose Universal Health Care as first lady? Isn't that something a lot of Kossacks say they want? Am I missing something here? How was her proposal on healthcare inadequate and what has she said on the subject lately?
Ah, what the right wing dubbed as Hillary-Care. It began as a noble venture, but by the time it emerged from the behind-the-scenes wrangling, it was an ill-flavored combo that few liked. Between the CorporateWelfare for the big insurers, to the HMOs For EVERYBODY angle, there was something for everybody to hate.
As for her recent leadership? Virtually crickets, and not much else.
Second, it seems to me like she's proved she can face terrorism in a realistic way instead of using it as a political tool. As a senator in New York, she made sure funding went where it was needed and looked out for first responders to Ground Zero, providing them with health care tracking. At least, this is how I understand it. If I'm wrong, let me know.
The noise she's made on Iran strikes the wrong note. The solution to the threats faced by the US involve a gross shortcoming in diplomacy with allies, non-aligned nations, and even those who are nominally "enemies".
Her talking points could have been written by Abe Foxman. Not likely, but the words sure do sound similar.
Yes, she voted for the Iraq resolution. Yes, she's been unwilling to recant her vote. But she's not the only one who had problems using "The Google" back then, and I don't think her initial support for the war is anything to hold against her. There are plenty of Kossacks here (not me, but still) who supported the war initially only to come around and face the truth later.
Aye, she voted to enable Mr. Bush. Whether she was flim-flammed, or whether it was an attempt at shrewd political calculus, she blew it.
I'm tired - and doubt I'm alone - of public officials who refuse ownership of their mistakes. Repetitive claims that Iraq was Mr. Bush's mistake are disingenuous. Admission of error is something adults do. I'm not looking forward to another immature presidency.
She's been an opponent of the Bush tax cuts since the beginning and would not pursue a similar track. I see this as a good thing. A lot of our nation's problems today can be traced back to those tax cuts. Is there some other economic issue that Hillary doesn't meet the purity test on?
This differentiates her from other Democrats how?
While newly-elected Senator Webb has come out with guns blazing over out-of-control executive compensation, Ms. Clinton has been quiet, despite now serving in her seventh year in the Senate.
I don't like her record on issues like Free Trade and outsourcing. Either she doesn't know what she's doing on these fronts or she has the wrong motivations in mind. Either way, this issue alone is not enough to cause me to fail to support he should she win the nomination.
There are myriad viewpoints within the Democratic Party on TRADE issues. (GOP also.) A look at the behind-the-scenes folk, though, reveals that the most strident free-traders are four-square behind Senator Clinton.
The solution for the hemorrhage of American jobs and the failing middle class will require diplomatic engagement and review of trade agreements. The question will become this: Whom do you trust to take these actions?
I also disagree with her on the issue of censoring violent media. She, like Lieberman and others, were in a tizzy over "Hot Coffee." This is unfortunate, but again it's not enough to cost her my support.
I'm ashamed to see this become an issue. It's a case of more grifter's sleight-of-hand.
Violent media is a question that should be left to families, and, as appropriate, to local schools. The problem here becomes metaphoric, and both HRC and HolyJoe are playing the government-as-strict-father metaphor. We all should know by now that our side works best playing as nurturing parents/community. Leave strict father to Giuliani, McCain, Romney, and those folk.
She voted against the Federal Marriage Amendment twice. This wins her point with me. She also voted against the Flag Desecration Amendment. More points.
I agree with her stance on abortion, which mirrors her husband's. Abortions should be safe, legal and rare. We have to support a woman's right to choose while at the same time caring for that woman and her children -- which is something the fundamentalist GOP isn't interested in doing.
Points that the entire field scores. Democratic boilerplate.
She's quite popular in New York, I have read. It's pretty hard to fool a New Yorker, so I trust their judgment.
Evidence to the contrary:
- Rudy Giuliani
- George Pataki
- Michael Bloomberg
- Isiah Thomas (Knicks GM)
Now, taking all these things (and more) into consideration, please give me a good reason why I should not support Hillary if she wins the nomination.
Can't do. Won't do. I'll be ready to bust a hump and burn shoe leather to get her elected, if she and her old-boys network manage to convince enough primary voters and win the nomination. But it'll be a truly sad day for Democrats.
The biggest single reason to not support Ms. Clinton: Her ascent will mean that the beltway consultant class has beat back the revolution.
No, it's not about us. It's about folks like:
- Al From & Marshall Whitman at the DLC
- Paul Begala
- James Carville
- Paul Elmendorf
These folks are in the fight for their lives. A win by Obama or Edwards or Clark would, in all likelihood, be the final battle they fight against the progressive tide.
When the next Democratic President is elected, one of her/his first responsibilities will be the appointment of the next DNC Chair. Odds strongly favor that Ms. Clinton will not support Howard Dean's 50-state strategy, judging by the folk who've surrounded her.
An additional reason: Voter self-identification
Recent polls have shown a marked hemorrhage of GOP self-identifiers. There's a flow away from the GOP and conservatism. What the right needs to stop the bleeding? A unifying rally point. Senator Clinton's negatives are the prescription that'll cure their ills. I'd much rather see that patiet die, thanks.