I'm A Dodd Supporter Who Won't Vote For Hillary
Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 10:39:34 AM PDT
I wish Christopher Dodd were still in the race. Not only would I have voted for him but he raised the bar for Democrats when dealing with a multitude of issues, from immigration reform to the Constitution. While Edwards was demonstrating his belief in the Imperial Presidency's right to decide whether or not to go to war saying "I would not" rather than Congress has the right to wage war and Senator Clinton was notoriously lying to people on drivers' licenses for immigrants, Dodd stuck to a reasonable framework for executive leadership.
But I Digress. Dodd is no longer in the race. I would vote for any Democratic candidate against Old Lord McCain in the general but this party would be damned stupid to nominate Hillary Clinton.
Unlike this diarist, I do not excuse war-mongering and outright lying from presidential candidates. That diarist was fond of bringing up the Cold War, although he seems to have little understanding of the depth of the Washington Consensus. There's only a whole chapter in Zinn's A People's History as well as many other resources, but I digress again.
Barack Obama is way too much of a hawk in my opinion, but he's also more sane about it than Miss Kyl-Lieberman, who had absolutely no reason to vote for potentially destroying Iran other than the fact that she wanted to make herself look tougher that the so-called spineless Democrats. It was a borderline-assault to the right of the people of Iran to expect to live and an insult to Democrats after 50 years of Joe McCarthy, Dick Nixon soft on Communism horseshit.
This quote from the Clinton apologist explains it all:
I have every confidence that if she is elected and she has a genuine majority in the Senate she will behave in a manner truer to her liberal views because she will be acting from power not seeking it
Great. 50 plus recs for a strategy reduced to: let's let our Democrats lie and fake their way into power so that they can then magically change themselves and become the people we think we're voting for.
Barack Obama never had to dignify Robert Novak's nauseating column in which it was revealed Democrats like Clinton voted for the AUMF because they didn't want to look weak in spite of widespread understanding in Washington that the CIA didn't have evidence of a threat from Saddam.
Unlike Senator Clinton, Barack Obama isn't the 2nd largest recipient of Jack Abramoff money to George W. Bush's first. Unlike the non-starter Rezko, a lot of Clinton's money scandals are grounded in truth enough to cast doubts on her integrity in a general election.
Despite Senator Clinton's whopping 7 years in the Senate in which she passed little legislation, Barack Obama passed one of the biggest ethics reforms in the Senate.
Climate change, poverty, the war. None of these things can be effected as long as corruption waits in the hallway to greet our legislators and presidents. It is dishonest to promise to take away the tax breaks for the oil companies et al while only competing with Obama's money through taking massive donations from organized lobbies.
War-mongering, corruption. The two most important issues for the general electorate and Senator Clinton flunks both of them, not to mention her high negatives, her vindictive personality, and her obvious willingness to say and do anything "not illegal if they don't say so" tactics, as demonstrated in the Nevada caucuses and her race-baiting surrogates.
Permalink | 14 comments