My Horrifying revelation: Hillary = George W.
Thu May 08, 2008 at 09:02:13 AM PDT
This is not a fun diary to write, not because I'm such a huge Hillary supporter-I'm not. I've been the Obama for President band wagon since I met him at a Senate fund raiser in 03. However, there was a time when I sorta liked, Hillary, not personally but I did have respect for her intellect, her skill as a politician, a person, and, more importantly, her effectiveness a standard bearer of the party..
Now? Not so much. I've had an ugly though slowly forming in the back of my mind for about a week now that was crystallized by today's news that Hillary has loaned her campaign 6.4 million in the last few weeks
Friends, it pains me to say this, but Hillary Clinton, once the hope of our party, has become the Democratic version of George W. Bush.
Harsh words, I know. but hear me out:
Now let me first be clear about what I mean by that:
I don't mean she's as dumb as W; since she appears to be able to speak in complete sentences I think she's already demonstrated her mental superiority to our current president.
And to be fair, She's certainly not as evil either. So far as I know, She has neverpersonally ordered a mentally ill detainee to be tortured; solely so she wouldn't have to retract a public statement.. Therefore whatever her faults and whatever tactics she's employed on the campaign trail ; she is demonstrably morally superior to Mr. Bush.
SO what DO I mean? I mean that in the most crucial area of all, her ability to lead and govern wisely, Hillary has recently given every indication that she shares all the worst qualities of George W's disastrous leadership style.
She has his same dangerous tendency to take complex policy questions and apply a process of Reducto ad Stultum to them. No matter how complex the issue, she likes to condense them into a few emotional hot button bullet points and a personal anecdote or two. In the process, like the president, she wipes away gray areas and nuance and lowers the tone of all political debate in this country to the level of bad Saturday morning superhero cartoons.
And most dangerously she has the same stubborn tunnel vision that W. has used to such devastating effect for the last 8 years. When she has made up her mind; she can happily ignore the contrary advice of experts, commentators , academics, fellow politicians etc and steam forward on her own. She has, in spades , W's idiotic determination to lead, even if it means marching straight off a cliff, while people all around her are screaming at her to stop.
Think I'm overstating the case? Being a bit too harsh perhaps? Well fair enough. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. So, ladies and gentlemen of the Jury, permit me to offer People's Exhibit A: The moment that set this train of thought in motion:
It started, for me, with the Clinton Campaign conference call on May 1, 2008 (jump to about 36:30) during the call, when a reporter noted that a broad spectrum of ideologically diverse economists had condemned her gas tax rebate plan. Therefore, he asked the campaign, could they could point him to an economist that SUPPORTED her on the Plan?
and Her campaign's answer put a cold chill down my spine and gave me wicked déjà vu
In essence they said (I’m trying to transcribe from audio) :
"being president requires leadership and there are times when the president takes a position that will be supported by a consensus of quote-unquote experts and times when these quote un-quote experts will oppose what they are doing . Mrs. Clinton believes this is the right policy...and the job of a leader is to lead"
(in other words NO, they really couldn't site an economist that supported their position)
when I heard that, all the hairs on the back of my head stood straight up; so I tried to figure out why that answer disturbed so much. Then it hit me: Try substituting the words "Iraq" for "gas Tax" and "weapons inspectors" for "economists". Suddenly have the decision-making process that led us to war. An ideologically broad spectrum of intelligence analysts opposed W's contentions that Iraq was dangerous and needed to be invaded; but W believed was the right thing to do, and since "the job of a leader is to lead" ; Bush led. Now, the fact that he led us straight into an unmitigated disaster? Well, that lesson seems lost on Team Clinton.
And I might have been able to let that go as the spouting of an over-eager campaign manager, if Hillary hadn't removed all doubt just a day or so later. When she echoed some Bush's most infamous war rhetoric
"Do they stand with the hard pressed Americans who are trying to pay their gas bills at the gas station, or do they once again stand with the oil companies?" she asked. Saying she’ll put the question to them soon in the form of legislation, Clinton said "I want them to tell us, are they with us or against us when it comes to taking on the oil companies?"
"With us or against us"? Really? Those are the only two choices on an question of economic policy? And, if those ARE the only choices, does "2000 Senate candidate Hillary Clintonwho called a $0.043 repeal (as opposed to the $0.18 one she's now proposing) :
'a bad deal. and a potential bonanza for the oil companies '
Do we chalk up 2000 Hillary as "with us" or Against Us"
And it's important to get those label right because the evil beauty of the "with us or against us, rhetorical device is that it utterly eliminates any possible middle ground. It and makes criticism or reasoned debate impossible. After all, if you don't support her idea, you are "against us"; and why should we listen to anyone like that?
(And who precisely IS "Us" anyway? If, like me, you think her gas tax rebate is a stupid idea, am I still an "Us" even though I'm "against Us" thus making me a self-loathing "Us"?. Or perhaps simply by being against I’m automatically a "them" rather than an "us"...it's all so terribly confusing.)
"okay" , I can hear you saying "her rhetoric MAY just a bit W-like these days; but that's a campaign for you; it doesn't mean she'll govern that way does it?"
Fortunately I saved my Pizza De Resistance for last. Consider this:
As of Tuesday, nearly every political expert is unanimous in the opinion that there is no plausible scenario for a Clinton victory. It's not merely unlikely, but nearly physically and mathematically impossible. There is absolutely no reasonable end game in sight that leaves her on top. Yet Clinton has made it clear she’s still running. She continues to drain her coffers and pour money, time and people into a conflict she can't possibly win causing serious collateral damage to the very people she claims to be fighting for.
Tell me THAT doesn't sound familiar.
Permalink | 52 comments