Why am I not surprised to read this morning, that Hillary Clinton has donated $5,000 to Joe Lieberman's campaign? (link:
http://news.yahoo.com/... Similarly, she has also donated the same amount to conservative Dem, Diane Feinstein, who certainly doesn't need the money.
Buy why is Hillary donating to a party traitor like Joe Lieberman? I have some thoughts on this below the fold...
While Hillary has also donated to more liberal members of Congress, I think it is extremely telling that she has lined up behind Lieberman. It tells me several things;
One, that she cares not a whit about the party itself, but cares a lot about Hillary Clinton. While not as shocking perhaps as Obama's appearance at a Joementum fundraiser last month, it nonetheless tells me a lot about what she thinks about the progressive wing of the party, which is, we can go to hell, and take our complaints about Joe Lieberman with us.
With Hillary's embrace of the Marshall Whitman wing of the DLC, her support of the Bush regime's continuing plans for world domination, her fealty to AIPAC (where she recently appeared for the umpteenth time), and her seeming readiness to put her ambitions before the needs of this nation, I have great concern.
To her credit though, she also donated to Bernie Sanders, who, while not a Democrat, is certainly one of the more progressive, if not the most progressive member of Congress. This political schizophrenia, is confusing to this ancient Democrat. Why? Because she doesn't seem to have any philosophical loyalty, and seems to be trying to lock up alliances with all branches of the party.
While some may see this as astute politics, and a good thing, I do not. Whether it be Hillary, or anyone else who shifts with the political winds like she does, how are we supposed to feel confident in what she would do, say, as a Senate leader, or even president, if we can't discern what her core philosophy is? Is she a liberal, a centrist, or a corporatist embracing DLC'er? How would we ever know, and if we don't know, how could we vote for her?
As an example, and an instance where this might produce anxiety, might be the case over Iran. Would she support the Bush junta neocons and their AIPAC inspired foreign policies, or would she opt for diplomacy? How, given her ambitions, could we count on her to represent the greater interests of this nation, rather than her own?
I'll admit, that as much as I like Bill Clinton, I dislike his wife, but not for the reasons so often quoted by "Hillary haters". I dislike her, because she doesn't fight, and she hasn't yet gone on to the Senate floor to directly challenge the criminal behavior of this administration in any meaningful way. But more than anything, I am simply not convinced, that at her core, is anything but ambition, and a willingness to sell any values she does have, to satisfy those ambitions.
My grandfather used to have a saying (back in the day when politicians still met often with their constituents); "If they won't look you in the eye, don't vote for them". That said, when Hillary's eyes are constantly moving from left to right, and back again, over and over, how in the hell can we ever have the chance to "look her in the eye"?