Sadly, I've never been more right about anything in my life. And it just keeps getting worse...
With all of the Bush v. Gore controversy in 2000, many overlooked what had taken place between Washington & New York. Legendary Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan had decided to retire, and popular Rep. Nita Lowey was going to run to succeed him. However, in February 1999, Hillary met with Lowey and Sen. Charles Schumer about her pending decision to run for Moynihan's seat. Also on hand was former Deputy White House Chief of Staff Harold Ickes.
I remember reading this and thinking... New York?! Hillary has no connection there. Sure, maybe Arkansas or Illinois -- but as I recall, neither of those states had an open seat in 2000. Why did Hillary have to run in 2000, you ask?
Simple... during the campaign, Hillary was a sitting First Lady. She was able to make promises that no other candidate could make. In fact, the first alleged "promise" occurred in August of 1999 when President Clinton commuted the sentences of 16 members of FALN, a violent Puerto Rican nationalist group. Further, she had a wall of Secret Service that provided a layer of comfort for someone who, unlike her husband, is NOT a natural campaigner. Hillary did not want to be in any unscripted situations. This election was too important.
It was clear to me, in 2000, than the plan was for a SECOND Clinton White House. And in 2001, we saw the fruits of the campaign in the form of series of pardons -- several of which clearly were granted in exchange for either cash (Marc Rich) or votes (New Square in Rockland County).
Hillary battled accusations that she was using New York as a stepping stone to the White House, but she promised to finish her term. This made sense, as 2004 would be too soon, anyway. She'd have to begin in 2003, only 2 years after she first won her Senate seat, and Clinton fatigue might not yet have subsided. Plus, after 9/11/01, it seemed that Bush would be a perpetual "wartime" president and even though a Democrat winning in 2004 would derail her plans, it seemed unlikely to occur. She would simply continue to amass a resume that would help her in a national election -- triangulating her way to a "Yes" vote to the Iraq war and cozier relationships with big corporations.
And sure enough, John Kerry fell short in 2004 (with little help from the Clintons, of course). Bush continued his race to the bottom, and the country became hungry for change -- as evidenced by the 2006 midterm elections.
So where did that leave us in 2007? Seemingly, ripe for a Hillary Clinton presidency. I was very concerned that nothing and nobody could stop her -- that nobody would stand up to her triangulation, her sinister pursuit of power. Her only opponents looked to be a newly-populist former VP candidate and a freshman Senator from Illinois.
Luckily, it seemed that many other progressives saw what I did -- that Hillary did not represent any sort of break from the corporatist government we'd endured for 8 years, and that we had better options. And enough of us acted to push the primaries past Super Tuesday, when Hillary figured everything would be over.
And consider what has occurred since then. Bosnia. NAFTA. Northern Ireland. "Elitist." Magnequench. "Not a Muslim as far as I know." Gas tax. Disingenuous attempts to "count" invalid elections. And so on.
This is a person who has such a psychopathic hunger for power and a sense of entitlement that she will say and do anything to get elected. I'm continually amazed and appalled by the lengths these people will go. And my opposition to her is mainly based on this, more so than her policies (whatever they may be this week). I feel so strongly that we must reject this type of cold, calculating addiction to power.
And so I thank the other progressives who have seen what I have seen, and acted, as I have, to ensure we get a REAL progressive elected in 2008.