No Taming This Shrew-Hillary Finally Showing Her True Colors
“I think you’ll be able to imagine many things Senator McCain will be able to say.“He’s never been the president, but he will put forth his lifetime of experience. I will put forth my lifetime of experience. Senator Obama will put forth a speech he made in 2002.” - Hillary Clinton before the Texas and Ohio primaries.
And with that comment, Hillary Clinton proclaimed to the nation that if she can’t have the presidential nomination then the whole Democratic party might as well just vote Republican, because if the choice ends up being between McCain and Obama, well then Hillary thinks that four more years of Bush-like policies are A-OK for America.
Sounds like Hillary has Joe Lieberman for an advisor. If the Democrats don’t give you what is obviously rightfully yours to take, then the hell with them! Better to side with the law-breaking, torture loving, warmongering, Bush GOP than actually listen to the people of this country when they tell you that they prefer someone else for the top job.
Of course, when Hillary makes statements like the one above, it only highlights why so many Democrats-and so many Americans of all political flavors-have thrown their support behind Barack Obama. We don’t want a president who thinks that decades of experience in a crooked political system is a plus. We don’t want another president who refuses to acknowledge the reality of a situation, who thinks that she should just get her way because, by golly, it’s her turn and she’s due. We don’t want another imperialistic attitude sitting in the Oval Office, pretending that things will only be better with her in charge, that no one else (save the opposition party nominee) can quite handle the task. We don’t want another presidential election that boils down to a choice between bad and worse. And this time, we actually have a chance to change those dynamics by giving the nomination to Obama.
But for Hillary the equation is a different one altogether. For Hillary, the question isn’t who can better help to end corruption in government or who can give America back her reputation in the world or even who will inspire Americans to get back to building a better country and world. Nope, for Hillary the only question is “How can I win this thing?” And in answering that question, she shows that for her, winning is the only thing that matters.
Debate after debate has proven to voters that on many domestic issues, both Clinton and Obama share similar goals, varying mostly in the details of policy than in the necessity of movement. But under the surface is where the differences lie, and voters have figured out that where Obama seeks to empower us all, Hillary simply seeks power for its own sake-and for her own sense of personal destiny.
Since falling behind Obama in the delegate count, Hillary has pulled out all the stops to paint Obama as unprepared for the task of being president, hoping that by highlighting his so-called “inexperience” that voters will flock under her banner. It simply hasn’t worked. Even her primary victories in Texas, Ohio, and Rhode Island were slim victories and weren’t enough to even narrow the gap in the delegate count. But what Hillary seems to ignore at this stage of the game is the fact that many, many Republicans are less than satisfied with McCain as their nominee. These GOPers are now watching the Democratic race and asking themselves a serious question-could they vote for a Democrat? For many, if the candidate is Hillary the answer in a resounding “NO.” But if it is Obama, there are many who will jump ship and vote for a Democrat. At least they would if the vote was held today. But if Hillary-who they will never vote for in the general election-continues to portray Obama as a weak choice for Democrats, she is also hurting him for the general election and giving McCain a better shot of winning the prize. For someone who claims to despise the Bush Administration, stumping (even discreetly) for the GOP nominee who puts forth ambitions not so unlike those of Bush seems an odd way of telling voters that they should pick you. Especially Democratic voters who would rather sit in a pit of vipers than give the White House to another Bush-like contender.
Michael Gerson said it well in this Washington Post article:
“Though it is increasingly unlikely, Clinton may still have a path to the nomination — and what a path it is. She merely has to puncture the balloon of Democratic idealism; sully the character of a good man; feed racial tensions within her party; then eke out a win with the support of unelected superdelegates, thwarting the hopes of millions of new voters who would see an inspiring young man defeated by backroom arm-twisting and arcane party rules.”
Indeed. And what a presidential path to victory that is.
But as she keeps on campaigning against Obama, she keeps highlighting her own presidential unworthiness by trying to paint Obama as some untested, incapable hack who showed up at the last minute and fooled us all into taking away what was and should be hers and hers alone.
Like when she tried to throw light on a land purchase Obama made. Obama acknowledged that the deal was a bad idea and has taken responsibility for his actions. He’s not denying the mistake, not battling to have records hidden. And yet for Hillary Clinton, years were spent examining a little land deal called Whitewater, years which she fought and fought to keep the whole thing under wraps.
And this whole “experience” thing is a real laugh too, especially if you look back to the 1992 campaign of her husband. Bill Clinton was so overmatched by the senior George Bush when it came to government service and experience that the Clinton’s had to portray his candidacy around a different theme- something they called “change.” Funny how what seemed such a good idea in 1992 (and was a good idea by the way) is now some kind of harbinger of failure if Obama wins the nomination. And let’s be real here- Hillary isn’t all that much more “experienced” at being president that anyone else who has never been president.
And then there is Hillary’s tendency towards secrecy. In a move that likely inspired Dick Cheney’s own energy meetings, Hillary has yet to fully release the documents related to her own health care meetings in the early 1990’s. She has yet to release her income tax returns even though Obama has done so and even though when running for Senate in 2000 she screamed about how her opponent didn’t release his returns. A small bit of hypocrisy that reveals a lot about the candidate herself.
And now her latest flop is with regards to the Florida and Michigan primaries-she “won” both events, despite a pledge not to campaign and now wants those delegates added to her tally. Of course, she and all the other candidates knew well in advance that those states’ delegates were not going to count because of some disagreement with the DNC and the stat Democratic parties. Obama (and the others still in the race at the time) followed the rules and stayed out of the states, in Michigan no name but Hillary even appeared on the ballot. But now that she is losing what is rightfully hers, she wants to change the game and get those delegates in. Tell me again how Hillary would be a different, better president that Bush? After all, lying and cheating and ignoring the rules doesn’t seem to have made this country a better place in the last eight years.
And for goodness sakes, I’m not even mentioning her many corporate ties that make her incapable of legislating purely for her constituents, or her support for the war in Iraq, or her willingness to ignore the massive abuses of law perpetrated by Team Bush.
All grace and honorable when she was the presumed “inevitable” nominee, Hillary Clinton coming in second isn’t such a noble character. I suspect though that this is a more true representation of who Hillary Clinton really is, and of who she would be as president of this country.
And these are just some more reasons why I support Barack Obama.
(cross posted at Common Sense)
March 6th, 2008 at 3:23 pm
I think Obama’s lack of experience is a plus. A few years ago a car dealer in Santa Rosa, CA was running a help wanted ad for salespeople. The one prerequisite was that you could NOT have any previous experience in car sales. They had some sort of “unique” training program and they didn’t want anyone who’d been corrupted by previous experience.
I don’t know how comparable the 2 situations are, but I think Washington DC is such a cesspool that the less experience a person has, the less corrupted and business-as-usual s/he will be.
March 6th, 2008 at 4:01 pm
I agree that Obama’s lack of DC experience is a plus- and in a different way than GWB touted his lack of DC experience.
Obama has an impressive resume of real life experience that seems to be borne of both a real-life upbringing (unlike Bush) and a compassion for helping that predates political ambitions (unlike Hillary).
In practical matters, Obama’s experience outside of politics is valid and varied and important.
less time navigating the DC cesspool is a plus to me, especially in a candidate pledged to change that environment.
If you want more of the same, then Hillary is your gal. If you want to try and make things better, Obama is the obvious choice.
March 7th, 2008 at 1:30 am
Spot on Ken…
I sense a divorce when Hillary doesn’t make it.
As a Republican… I am enjoying Hillary’s breakdown every day.
As a realist and an American… I am scared shitless what we are turning ourselves as a country into…
March 7th, 2008 at 8:06 am
I have been making excuses for Hillary and her faux-paux’s but no damn more. I damn near bit off my tongue when I watched the clip of her saying that about McCain and Obama.
I never personally supported her, due to the fact that she is too right of center for me..but this crap takes the cake. And she had the audacity to scream when Obama talked about Ronnie Rayguns in glowing terms.
March 8th, 2008 at 11:42 pm
The one thing I complain about in this quote is the “torture loving” comment. I hardly think that “torture loving” is an albatross that you can convincingly hang around John McCain’s neck. He fought as hard as anything to assure that torture, indeed any treatment that was demeaning or inhumane, ended completely, utterly, and permanently. He did as much as any Congressperson can do to make sure of that. The rest lay at the feet of the Executive office. The one thing you can bank on is that a president McCain will never allow anything that even remotely smells of torture or cruel treatment to be used on any prisoner/detainee held by America anywhere in the world.
Since, at this point, the only GOP entry in the 2008 lottery is John McCain, I think you can and should lose the “torture lover” comment. It’s inappropriate to the present situation. Flail on him for supporting the war, supporting the surge even before the surge was suggested by Bush, for suggesting that peace-time US troops might be in Iraq for a hundred years. Those are, from your point of view, valid complaints. I’d really rather you flail on him for his anti-free speech Bipartisan Campaign Finance Reform bill or his support for amnesty for illegal aliens but I guess that’s not in the cards.
March 8th, 2008 at 11:53 pm
Dusty,
Hillary? Right of center? Right of you, perhaps but she’s not right of any center I’ve ever laid eyes on.
On what issues, in your opinion, is Hillary right of center? If you mean in supporting the Iraq war, you might want to consider that progressive lefties were all for American participation in WWI so support of wars in which American interests seem ephemeral at best can hardly be considered right of center. As for the rest, what part of national health care, “It takes a village”, and a Christmas ad touting all the big government “presents” she has in store for Americans if she’s elected sounds even remotely right of center to you?
March 9th, 2008 at 12:57 am
I don’t know about you but, “”Many of you are well enough off that … the tax cuts may have helped you. We’re saying that for America to get back on track, we’re probably going to cut that short and not give it to you. We’re going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good” [italics added by me] doesn’t sound very right of center to me.
Neither does, “”The unfettered free market has been the most radically disruptive force in American life in the last generation.” I’m just wondering when, in her lifetime, she’s ever encountered an unfettered free market, in this country or any other? Perhaps it depends upon what the definition of ‘unfettered’ is. Nor does, ““We can’t afford to have that money go to the private sector. The money has to go to the federal government because the federal government will spend that money better than the private sector will spend it.” Again, that’s not even remotely within binocular range of the right side of center, in my opinion.
March 9th, 2008 at 1:27 am
I don’t know about you but, “”Many of you are well enough off that … the tax cuts may have helped you. We’re saying that for America to get back on track, we’re probably going to cut that short and not give it to you. We’re going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good” [italics added by me] doesn’t sound very right of center to me.
Neither does, “”The unfettered free market has been the most radically disruptive force in American life in the last generation.” I’m just wondering when, in her lifetime, she’s ever encountered an unfettered free market, in this country or any other? Perhaps it depends upon what the definition of ‘unfettered’ is.
Nor does, ““We can’t afford to have that money go to the private sector. The money has to go to the federal government because the federal government will spend that money better than the private sector will spend it.”
Nor does, ““The other day, the oil companies reported the highest profits in the history of the world. I want to take those profits.” Perhaps reading a bit of Milton Friedman and Friedrich Hayek would give Hillary some notion of what it means to be right of center because that’s not even remotely within binocular range of the right side, in my opinion.
Then there’s, “Too many people have made too much money.” Imagine, if you can, anyone right of center making such a statement. I can’t.
Of course, economics is not the only area upon which one’s political position to one side or the other might be gagued. If you know of a domestic or foreign policy upon which Hillary is a righty on, I’m open to hearing about it but she seems solidly left of center to me.
March 11th, 2008 at 10:32 am
I’m not even sure that “left” and “right” are useful terms anymore.
There are folks belonging to both major parties that want to mandate too much of how their fellow citizens live their lives in areas that don’t affect their fellow citizens, with the differences being merely what rules they want to make everyone follow - these types all tend to advocate trampling some parts of the Bill of Rights, just not all the same parts. Too many Republicans want to tear down the wall between church and state, and this administration has pretty much scrapped habeas corpus and the 4th and 5th amendments; but too many Democrats want to toss out the 2nd Amendment. And then there are still a few folks in both parties who subscribe to more of a “if it’s not hurting me, I’d best mind my own business” philosophy.
There are people on the so-called left and the so-called right who auction their votes to the highest corporate bidders, and there are people in both parties who actually try to represent the ordinary voters of their constituencies.
Both parties have people who are in it for the love of power and put their parties or themselves ahead of the good of the country, and both parties have true patriots who put nation before party or self.
Our system appears to be just about broken at this point, corrupted by the combination of mass media making it necessary to spend fortunes to win elections, the disproportionate influence that gives to wealthy people and corporations, and the way legislators have gerrymandered districts to tilt the odds as far in favor of incumbents as they can. Maybe there’s hope in the way the Internet somewhat gives working and middle class people audible voices again, even though we can’t afford to buy advertising in the mass media.
I’m about disgusted with both major parties now, though - more with the Republicans at this point because, having been in control of all branches of government and the mass media for several years, they are at present the more power-drunk and corrupt, as the Democrats have been at other times.
The Founders foresaw some of this, and because of that, some of them tried to prevent the creation of political parties, seeing that the existence of strong parties would create inevitable conflicts of interest for officeholders. They were right. Lincoln foresaw the power of corporations getting out of control, and he was right, too.
So for me, the distinctions that matter about Hillary Clinton are not how far left or right she is, but how much respect she has for privacy and the entire Bill of Rights, and whether she shows greater loyalty to her own power, to her party, or to her country. In those regards, she isn’t much better than Bush.