Hillary Clinton is in. She announced this today in an Internet video, titled “I’m in.” The press say the liberal lady is off and running. Oh please, Hilary Clinton is a conservative. The former First Lady is not a Progressive. She is not the reincarnation of Eleanor Roosevelt, though I had hoped she would be. Let us review her record.
In my desire to support a Progressive candidate, I can quickly rule out the Senator from New York.
I have long thought that the possibility of her running for President of the United States of America was a Republican plot, a Conservative plan. She would be their dream contender. Missis Clinton is a divisive candidate. She has long been considered a person people love to hate. Simultaneously, there are those that think of her as a celebrity. They cling to her side. The First Lady has some allies though perhaps, more enemies. With such a fractured fame Republicans can and will massacre her and likely, the Democratic Party.
The select few that appreciate Missus Clinton are coastal residents. Among these, some think she is swell. Actually, there are Conservatives that truly like her. They fund her and follow her lead, or is she cementing theirs.
Conservative media mogul Rupert Murdoch will host a fundraiser for liberal New York Sen. Hillary Clinton, the Financial Times reports.
The mating ritual of the unlikely allies has been under way for months. Clinton set political tongues to wagging last month by attending a Washington party celebrating the 10th anniversary of Fox News, the cable news channel owned by Murdoch.
The endorsements Missus Clinton receives are from the elite. Her backers have millions, perhaps, billions. They write checks to her campaign regularly. I believe in abundance and want this for all. However, it seems to me, there are those with big bucks that lean left; yet, their sway is very slight. These affluent advocates crave limited liberal policies. They support open-minded options, as long as they do not detract from their expansive executive powers. Thus, these wealthy wonders like, some love, Hillary. They long to secure the connection to her ever-charismatic husband the former President, Bill.
Rarely does Senator Clinton express or act on the ideas espoused in her book, It Takes a Village. Oh how I long for a glimmer of liberalism from the author, the legal eagle, that I once thought wonderful. I am ecstatic that Missis Clinton supports Net Neutrality and that she dared to co-sponsor the bill preserving our right to free speech. However, my heart hurts when I assess other stances this woman takes.
Please let me expound.
Hillary goes conservative on immigration
By Charles Hurt
The Washington Times.
December 13, 2004Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton is staking out a position on illegal immigration that is more conservative than President Bush, a strategy that supporters and detractors alike see as a way for the New York Democrat to shake the “liberal” label and appeal to traditionally Republican states.
Mrs. Clinton — who is tagged as a liberal because of her plan for nationalized health care and various remarks during her husband’s presidency — is taking an increasingly vocal and hard-line stance on an issue that ranks among the highest concerns for voters, particularly Republicans.
“Bush has done everything he can to leave the doors wide open,” said Robert Kunst, president of HillaryNow.com, a group dedicated to drafting Mrs. Clinton to run for president. “Hillary is the only one taking a position on immigration. She will win that issue hands down.”
In an interview last month on Fox News, Mrs. Clinton said she does not “think that we have protected our borders or our ports or provided our first responders with the resources they need, so we can do more and we can do better.”
In an interview on WABC radio, she said: “I am, you know, adamantly against illegal immigrants.”
“Clearly, we have to make some tough decisions as a country, and one of them ought to be coming up with a much better entry-and-exit system so that if we’re going to let people in for the work that otherwise would not be done, let’s have a system that keeps track of them,” she said.
Unlike many pro-business Republicans, Mrs. Clinton also has castigated Americans for hiring illegal aliens.
“People have to stop employing illegal immigrants,” she said. “I mean, come up to Westchester, go to Suffolk and Nassau counties, stand on the street corners in Brooklyn or the Bronx. You’re going to see loads of people waiting to get picked up to go do yard work and construction work and domestic work.”
So much for a global village, a planet where we work together for the greater good! Rather than “protect our borders” I continue to ask, why not help to create a surplus for all people in all nations. Nature does this. Mother Nature cultivates growth continually. It is only man that thinks of scarcity and then establishes this mantra. I have written on this topic often. Hmmmm, I thought Hillary once did!
Since Missis Clinton arrived in Washington District of Columbia as a Senator, I have been disillusioned.
Clinton has worked hard to take the edge off her reputation as a card-carrying liberal. She has collaborated with congressional conservatives on some pieces of legislation, called for a “common ground” on abortion and cut a political figure some on the left see as decidedly un-liberal.
Clinton, who made her debut in the Senate Armed Services Committee four years ago, has never voted against any major Iraq military spending legislation. She has also taken two high-profile trips to Iraq – journeys that may have helped to strengthen the credentials of a senator with no military background or experience.
Clinton, who says she’s “always been a praying person,” has moved into the territory John Edwards had hoped to claim as the moderate Democrat who cares about the average American.
Ah yes, I remember. Was it not days ago that Hillary, the “elder statesman” traveled to Iraq and returned, telling her fellow hawk, President George W. Bush what she thinks. Possibly, in anticipation of today’s announcement, she quelled her earlier desire for escalation in Iraq. However, I am sorry and I surely am, Hillary Clinton is a chameleon!
Let us look at her recent reflections on Iraq and contrast these with her consistent votes. More importantly, realize she does want to send more troops to Afghanistan! She is a warrior and wants a concerted effort towards escalation. She only argues where soldiers might be sent.
Senator Clinton takes many troublesome and discordant stands. Apparently, Hillary wants to divide a region. No, there is no desire for global unity for the woman that states “It Takes A Village To Raise A Child.” Senator Clinton seeks to build walls. Mike Odetalla writes
Dear Hillary Clinton: Yes, It Takes a Global Village, But Minus Physical and Mental Walls
Dear Hillary,
My name is Mike Odetalla. I am a Palestinian/American and a father of three, who was born in 1960 in my ancestral village of Beit Hanina, which is a suburb of Jerusalem, and according to internationally recognized laws, conventions, and resolutions, is considered part of the occupied Palestinian Territories that were invaded and captured by Israel in the 1967 war. I was a child of war, having lived through the 1967 war, whereby my mother, my siblings, and I were forced to flee our home and seek refuge in the scorpion-infested caves that populate the hills that surrounded our village.
During the first night of the war, our family and the other 20 odd women, children, and the elderly, which included my 6 days old nephew, barely escaped getting blown to bits by an Israeli fighter jet that circled over head, its metallic body glistening under the full moon lit sky, which then proceeded to fire a missile into the mouth of the cave a mere few moments after my mother grabbed us, imploring the others in the cave to follow, as we scampered into a nearby olive grove, clinging to each other for comfort as the flash and deafening thunder of the blast rang in our years.
We spent the next 20 odd days moving from cave to cave as my mother and the other women tried to sneak back into the abandoned houses in our village, managing at times only gather flour and precious water for their children. Jews celebrate Passover by eating unleavened bread, which signifies their hurried Exodus out of Egypt whereby they took and baked the dough before it had time to rise. My mother baked our bread in the same fashion since we also did not have the luxury of waiting for the bread, as we were on the move, trying to stay one step ahead of the Israelis.
In 2002, when my American born children were old enough to fully understand and comprehend, I took them back to the hills of Beit Hanina and the to the very same caves that I huddled in with my family 35 years prior. We retraced our steps as we fled our homes in that June moonlit night, stopping in front of the cave whose mouth was destroyed by the Israeli fired missile.
It was important for me to show my children and tell them of my experiences as well as the experiences of their grandparents on their mother’s side who were ethnically cleansed from their homes and lands by the Zionist founders of Israel in 1948, forcing them and more than 750,000 other Palestinians to become homeless refugees, living in squalid conditions in refugee camps. Their grandparent’s home in the village of Lifta still stands today, even though their grandparents are not allowed to move back, contrary to UN Resolution 194, and other internationally recognized Laws, and conventions that deal with the refugees Right of Return to their homes.
I know that these details might not be of importance to you, but they are very important to me and to the millions of other Palestinians, especially in light of your recent trip to the Holy Land, whereby you reiterated your support for the Apartheid wall that Israel has been building to imprison my people into discombobulated walled off ghettos and in the process, steal their precious lands.
You stood with your back to the concrete wall and had the audacity to say to the Palestinians people, “This wall is not against the Palestinians. This is against the terrorists. The Palestinian people have to help to prevent terrorism. They have to change the attitudes about terrorism.”
Your words proved yet again that neither you nor anyone else in our government has any grasp of reality of what is actually happening in the ground in Palestine. The victim is once gain placed in the unenviable position of having to guarantee the security of his oppressor, while being denied his own basic human rights and security or for that matter, the freedom to of movement in his or her own town or village.
Contrary to what you, dear reader, may wish to believe, I am not against Israel or Pro-Palestinian. I am an assertive pacifist. I want no war. For me, physical combat is not an option. Unlike Hillary or George W., I do not see those dissimilar to me as enemies. I consider others my teachers. I thrive for I think, mutually, we are all mentors.
Gurus are vital for our growth. We all need good guardians. Many of us find these in our family homes. However, some do not. Abusive circumstances can lead even the most christian [or Christian] among us to turn to divorce. The Religious Right is in favor of laws making divorce more difficult. Rather than consider in depth counseling for couples, pre and post marriage, some organizations propose that we merely make the dissolution of nuptials less possible. The zealots among us care not for familial distress. They only seek to secure the construct of “domestic tranquility.” Perhaps, an image of unity is the optimal. As organizations such as the Family Research Council espouse
Life and love are inextricably linked and find their natural expression in the institutions of marriage and the family. Government has a duty to promote and protect marriage and family in law and public policy.
They look to the esteemed Senator Clinton for greater support.
For example, the Family Research Council questions what message no-fault divorce laws provide about the sanctity and permanence of marriage. “What are we communicating when it is easier to divorce your wife of 25 years than it is to let go that employee you hired two weeks ago?” We have undergone a significant shift, they contend, from a culture of marriage to a culture of divorce. And Hillary Clinton has been quoted showing support for some form of divorce reform: “I think getting a divorce should be much harder where children are involved . . . Divorce has become too easy because of our permissive laws and attitudes.”
While I agree with Hillary Clinton wholeheartedly and I even embrace the idea of divorce law reform, I do not think we can be so black or white. Circumstances dictate the need for deliberation.
I am a child of divorce. I feel the pain of parental separation deeply. Even decades later the split effects my soul, my sense of stability, and perhaps esteem. Nevertheless, I know that who I am today is who I would wish to be. Much of what was in my birth family was not the best. It did not benefit me as much as what came later did.
I totally believe in family, in the strength of a union. Even same sex unions can be wonderful, contrary to Senator Clinton’s strong reservations against these. Still, I acknowledge that people make mistakes. Life is a progression. Lessons are learned. Years ago, I might have endorsed Hillary for President. After studying her acts and realizing her rhetoric, this woman will not get my vote!
Hillary Clinton, Not my Candidate of Choice . . .
Betsy L. Angert
BeThink.org or Be-Think
She will never get my vote in any primary
Dear refinish69 . .
You are a breathe of fresh air. At Daily Kos, many seem to be supportive of her.
Hillary is Repugnant Lite and I don’t think she could get elected even if she does win the nomination. I have said it before. As long as Bill is alive, she does not stand a snowball’s chance in hell of getting elected President. Bill Clinton will never be allowed back in the Whitehouse as a resident in any capacity.
Hillary’s voting record makes her too conservative for me to supprt as a presidential candidate. The last thing we need is a dc insider of her caliber as President. Of all the candidates who have announced so far, John Edwards has my support. He at least is not spouting platitudes or kissing Republican ass.
And I… Any friend of Rupert’s is certainly no friend of mine.
Dear refinish69 . . .
As I have I am undecided. Kucinich is a possibility for me. I do love that Edwards went to New Orleans and showed the true divided America.
Time to research is needed.
I’m a yellow dog Dem and there’s no way I’ll hold my nose to vote Hillary. In another thread i cited the positioning and packaging of Hillary as the new Iron lady Thatcher.
From The Sunday Times, UK – a Murdock property. Say no more.
“Hillary runs for the White House as `new Thatcher’
We have a news flash for Terry. People will see right through this package. You just lost a whole segment of voters. The other side will point out Maggie’s baggage – wars and hard times ahead.
At least what we suspected all along is confirmed. Clinton is a hard conservative. Bye, bye Hillary. You may surround yourself with all of Bill’s people but your campaign will collapse.
This isn’t surprising after she got in bed with Murdock awhile ago but it sure is disgusting isn’t it.
What kind of deals do you suppose she made with that vast right wing conspiracy she used to say was against her/Bill?…maybe she has Stockholm syndrome. Nah, she just decided to play the odds and go with the big money the same way she is courting the ‘religious voters’ now. She hired someone to specifically craft her speeches to talk more about faith based initiatives and to get her religion and ‘moral values’ into her speeches…funny I didn’t know you had to be religious to have ‘moral values’..and we sure as hell know that having or talking about religion doesn’t mean jack-shit.
Dear idredit . . .
I cannot help but wonder. if someone is that tough are they truly loving and caring. Are Margaret and Hillary different philosophically? I think an overall attitude correlates to how a person feels about people and their circumstances. This feels similar to the oxymoron “compassionate conservative.”
I like to think that I am assessing Missis Clinton’s, the Senator’s policies. However, this quote you offer takes me elsewhere.
Thank you for another great diary. I’m with you on this one, for sure. Hilary doesn’t speak for me.
.
Instead of following Murtha‘s brave lead!
George let me take over command
(was signed Hillary)Hillary is not leading, but lagging and dependent on poll results, which worked for Bill btw in his candidacy for president.
The Democrats’ Athena only differs from Bush on the details
She falls back on the old “there are no quick and easy answers” ploy to give an aura of thoughtfulness to a dishonest and constantly shifting position on the war. While insisting that we should not “allow this to be an open-ended commitment without limits or end,” she reassures the War Party by distancing herself from John Murtha and others who want an orderly withdrawal in a relatively short time: “Nor do I believe that we can or should pull out of Iraq immediately.” She hails the elections as the signal that we can start the withdrawal process sometime “in the coming year,” but not completely: we must leave behind “a smaller contingent in safer areas with greater intelligence and quick strike capabilities”–a tripwire, in short, in the form of permanent bases.
author Justin Raimondo
"But I will not let myself be reduced to silence."Dear Oui . . .
Phew!!!!
Thank you Betsy – so much of the information you’ve shared in this diary was new to me, and truly valuable as a reference.
I really appreciate your writings, and you’ve strongly confirmed my previous assessment of HRC.
good night and best wishes…keep on writin’ 🙂
Dear Anomalous . . .
Wow!!! Your kind words mean much to me. I have no words. I thank you.
I was happy to offer the references. Might I share one I discovered later. This for me, says much of the “liberal lady.” I thought the left supported unions . . .
Yikes.
Hard work deserves positive validation, Betsy. 🙂
Not to mention…your timing couldn’t have been better. Earlier this week, Mr. A and I were debating the merits of HRC and where she ranked on the left-right political spectrum. According to his (MSM) resources – HRC is pretty darn liberal, and certainly NOT a centrist. I presented a somewhat different perspective, with much thanks to you. 😉
Thanks for another fine source…which I felt compelled to share with Mr. A the second I saw it. (Funny thing…I’ve been hearing crickets from the living room ever since I handed over a print out of your posts. Considering the subject matter, that’s a very fine sound indeed.) 😀
g’night,
-A
could actually make choices based on what’s right,
rather than having to weigh the political fallout– Geena Davis.
It is a fantasy.
Reality?
What Ms. Clinton is doing.
I wish it were otherwise.
But it’s not.
Reality?
We do not have a single viable candidate for national office who makes political choices based upon what is “right”, although I am firmly convinced that many of them…Hillary Clinton among them…are running on a platform that is at its base moral.
Even George Bush “believes” in what he is doing.
So did Hitler.
Of course, we also have our cold, hard thieves…Cheney… and those who simply crave power the way a plant craves sunlight…Giuliani…but openly basing a Presidential campaign upon what is “right”…?
Ludicrous on the face of it.
Not in this culture at this time.
The spin addiction has been spun too deeply into the psyches of the voters and the power of the Corps cannot be openly defied by any candidate lest they suffer the “AAAAARGH” fate. Look what happened to Dean if you doubt this.
“Right”, “wrong”…however you perceive ANY of the candidates, there is only one thing of which you can be sure.
They are not telling the whole truth about their plans should they win.
Bet on it.
And then there we are, forced to treat their pronouncements like the gnomic statements of some oracle.
“I wonder what THAT really means…???”
AND…since this simple truth seems to elude the majority of even the most intelligent and perceptive observers, please consider what is going on in the dim bulb world of Sleeple Voter Central.
The voters…the vast, sleeping middle…are being yanked this way and that by only one thing.
How the candidates are portrayed in the mainstream media.
Who will win?
The one with the best spin machine.
Unless of course like myself you believe in John Coltrane’s dictum. “The Creator Has A Master Plan.”
Or to put it another way, that the universe still has a use for us.
At which point, you can either step back in the full confidence that the right person will win, or you can step in and support whichever candidate seems most likely to BE that right person.
That is, one of the candidates that can indeed win.
Which boil down to four, right now. And barring surprises, will indeed remain four for quite a while.
McCain, Giuliani, Obama, Clinton.
For me, this is a no-brainer.
McCain? Militarist.
Giuliani? As crooked as the day is long.
Obama? Talented, but lacking experience and political finesse.
Clinton? Please refer to the condition of the world in general and the U.S. in particular during the first 6 years of the previous Clinton’s administration for more on that and then compare it to where we are today.
A no-brainer.
Waste your efforts for Kucinich if you wish.
Support ANOTHER militarist if you wish.
Clark.
Pine away waiting for Gore to step into the ring…which he is NOT going to do unless Clinton sinks like a stone, the probability of which is about zero barring illness or a completely unforeseen scandal.
Biden?
Please.
Even his hair transplant didn’t work.
Nope.
We are stuck with Hillary.
Let us pray that she has not collapsed morally, and support her.
Dive in.
So it goes here in the empire.
So it goes.
AG
We are stuck with Hillary.
You may be, I’m not.
Let us pray that she has not collapsed morally,
LOL!
and support her.
No.
Dear the other colleen . . .
that was exactly my reply at My left wing!! I thank you!
should be following the MSM spin. They don’t put Edwards in the equation either. It’s Hillary or Obama to you and them. You really surprise me.
What about Edwards? He’s been doing what’s “right,” caring about the poor and working class, fighting for people against corporations for his entire adult life? He’s building a stealth campaign based on people working together, being a real leader with ideas, instead of making it all about his personality/ego.
Hillary thinks her NAME is going to sweep the primaries after Edwards has been glad-handing in Iowa and New Hampshire for two years? Does she really think her much-touted “support in the black community” is going to help when the primaries come to North and South Carolina where Edwards is a “native son”?
Now she’s got an ass like McAulife comparing her to “Margaret Thatcher”! Heaven help us! I don’t want an “Iron Lady” for our first female president — I want Geena Davis!
“Following” the MSM spin?”
I am not “following” it.
I am observing its power and telling people what is about to happen.
I have not even been able to get the people on the left blogs to turn their goddamned televisions off and de-hypnotize themselves. The media rules the voters of America.
I am saying it is Clinton and/or Obama because THAT IS WHAT IS BEING FED INTO THE MINDS OF THE MASS OF SLEEPING AMERICANS.
I wanted Dean to start a third party in 2004.
He did not.
I wanted him to run as a Democrat in this election.
He did not.
I wanted Russ Feingold to run.
He did not.
They were the only two major politicians who were vocally opposed to this whole rotten system with the credentials and personal charisma to have a chance.
So it goes.
Edwards?
Give me a break.
He could be Jesus Christ and without a thorough mastery of the ins and outs of national politics, a LONG-time connection with Big Brother Business (If they do not trust you not to upset their applecart, you haven’t a chance.) and positive national media spin he would get exactly the same attention he is getting now.
None.
Now we are left with the inside pros.
So THAT goes as well.
Hillary Clinton is using exactly the same tactics that were used to get Bill elected (Minus his charisma, a part soon to be taken over by a younger actor, Obama.), and exactly the same tactics that she has used to get twice elected to the Senate in NY. (Elected by the overwhelmingly red upstate voters, not just NYC.) She has amassed a warchest of more than sufficient size to finance her entire campaign already, and more will come to her as she runs. MUCH more. When running for the Senate, she was getting Republican money. BIG Republican money. I will guarantee that she has the best organizations in place that money can buy in every state in the Union, and as far as the Democratic nomination is concerned she is virtually unstoppable unless something entirely unforeseen happens like illness or real, serious scandal.
Yes, McAuliffe is an ass.
But the Margaret Thatcher meme?
Hell, sjct.
She’s already running for PRESIDENT!!!
She’s after the right wingers, now.
If she loses the nomination, it will be to a Democratic loser. And it will be BECAUSE of Ratpublican opposition, channeled through the media that they still control.
And if she wins the nomination but the Democratic Party is in any way seriously split over her candidacy, she is likely to lose the election to the likes of McCain or (PLEASE no!!!) Rudy Giuliani.
If that happens…we are though.
8 more years of BushCo or worse?
Not me.
I personally believe that she is a serious reformer who has donned Rat’s clothing. A serious reformer who knows how to play the game better than her opposition. Hell, if she becomes President and only does one thing…successfully rams home her long-dreamed of universal healthcare system…she will have improved life in this country more than any President since FDR.
She has (correctly, in a tactical sense) written off the real left…most of us …in order to win.
That’s politics.
The left has consistently lost in the U.S. since FDR. Who ran pretty much the same game as Ms. Clinton is running.
The only even MODERATELY “left” Presidents since FDR have been JFK (BANG!!!) and Bill Clinton. (SQUISH!!!). And they BOTH won by minimizing their left wing agendas.
Do I wish that the situation were otherwise?
You bet I do.
But it is not.
Do not confuse the messenger with the message.
AG
Do you have any comments on the video? The video actually compelled me to at least consider her as a viable candidate. And no, I am not a Hillary supporter, but I am now ready and willing to listen.
one video, no substance – “I’m in and I’m in to win” – does not a campaign make. This is a career move.
That was not in the video. I recommend you view it again.
Hillary can tak the talk but I highly doubt she can walk the walk. She is too conservative and America Deserves better. We have seen what Conservatives do to America. Let’s get someone who actually cares.
She isn’t even doing much of the ‘talk’, certainly not as far as any progressive ideas go..her ‘bold’ talk is simply rehashed rethug talk-same shit different day in other words.
The “I’m In, and I’m in to Win” quote is at her website, No? Isn’t that the headline bite and soundbite being repeated?
Have you seen my comment in this thread citing Murdock’s paper, The Sunday Times, UK that “Hillary will be presented to America as another Margaret Thatcher?”
Any idea the havoc Maggie-the Iron War-hawk Lady- brought to Britain? It was Maggie who elbowed Poppy Bush to ‘show some backbone’ (Btw, not my words) and throw Saddam out of Kuwait, that was after she had her war with Argentina over a few uninhabited islands in the Atlantic – btw, America played the logistics roll and other help in that too. Not to mention the havoc to the economy, busted the unions….and programs suited to the working stiff. and
poor.
Need we say more?
While I think it’s terrible framing, the article has Terry McAuliffe talking about essentially creating a Thatcher-esque persona for Hillary – not adopting her policies and positions.
You’ve got to realise that Thatcher was incredibly popular, was extremely well-positioned with female voters and other key groups, and had at election time an enviable reputation as a woman who was strong and intelligent enough to take on the male establishment and beat them at their own game – my reading of the article is that this aspect of Thatcher’s success is what McAuliffe is trying to get across.
Of course he’s an idiot because liberals especially will never be able to disassociate Thatcher’s “image” from what she actually did, because after 30+ years of history we judge these two as one and the same.
Hardly gives you confidence in McAuliffe!
I’m not American, but after nearly 10 years of following American politics closely now, I can understand entirely why Hillary is far from being most liberal’s ideal candidate, but I’m pretty appalled that many wouldn’t vote for her against a Repub candidate. Can’t help but conclude that many liberals have bought into (unintentionally or not) the prolonged and viscious attacks on Hillary – her record is no worse than many other Democrats, and she’s way better than most Repugs. She is far more desirable than McCain or any of the other Repub likely 08 candidate.
I say this, and I’m a Green Party member, just for some perspective.
McAuliffe’s opinions, especially having been released in that particular paper, is so much commentary of the obvious.
HRC likes the analogy. HRC intends a Reagan/Thatcher administration. HRC is inamicable to labor rights. HRC is an international militant disguised as domestic frumpish gentry. HRC has little interest in the structural stability of the US economy. HRC is an instrument of global capital, and she stands unapologetically for military adventurism.
As you do have the luxury of Green Party in some parliamentary system elsewhere, I’m sure you can appreciate the false choice of “desirability” that HRC represents here — as Thatcher represented in the UK 20 years ago, given England’s institutional inequalities of class and in wealth distribution.
The franchise in the US is designed to funnel ideological diversity and money to two choices. When the two choices are undifferentiated, except by their race or sex or some other intimate factoid connoting their trustworthiness, voters have no choice. For the choice of government is already decided.
re: HRC. I think that 10+ years of a bunker mentality amongst Dems against a rampant neoconservative movement, backed by all the major global capital in the world, has left the Dems with appalling voting records and a lot to do to rebuild credibility.
Obviously like most people the last period would have been much more bearable if there’d been at least in your country and mine an opposition voting on principle. They didn’t. They voted to survive, and/or got even more firmly entrenched in the game.
Now many are starting to try and rebuild credibility. I’m fortunate in that I can vote Green, and if that’s not a successful primary vote, direct my preferences down the line. In this way even if Labor (our equivalent of Dems) gets in, they know it was on a strong flow of Green preferences, and must shift accodingly to the left.
So now we are back to your rock or hard place. We could argue all day about HRC and what she might or might not do economically etc., but I’m pretty sure she wouldn’t tie AIDS money to abstinence programs in Africa, wouldn’t start a pre-emptive war, and would pass much more progressive policies domestically on health, education and environment than McCain ever will.
Frankly from outside, the active support of the American military industrial complex is absolutely par for the course, whichever flavour has been voted in, so if that’s the choice your left with again (ie HRC wins the Dem nomination), personally I’d be focussing on what minor gains can be made, and one major one – getting a woman for the first time into the presidency. The impact of that message globally would be simply tremendous.
To each is entitled his or her own opinion of a candidate’s intentions is indeed a powerful rubric, where you are, where preferences are publicly acknowledged and constitute legitimated minority leverage — in the chambers.
Here, preference has not much evolved from a collection of anamolous voter “issues”. Candidates select which issues with which to dress their credibility for election. They can and do as quickly shed them with the season.
I think, ironically, that the convenience of Bush’s deceits and HRC-type conceits may well be seen in hindsight as the catalysts that forever altered the bipartisan illusion.
The growth of independent, unaffiliated, voters over the last 15 years or so is phenomenal but under-reported. The other day, I discovered independentvoting.org and stayed a while to explore. That it has no blog is a novelty, among other peculiar features and quasi-politicized statements selected there.
What I find most fascinating however is that someone has come to identify with a bipartisan factoid and would organize a number of people around the potential to arbitrate election outcomes rather than promotion of a particular candidate.
The mission statement is coldly antidisestabishmentarian:
Thanks for dropping by. Your inference aside, I did read the article IN FULL, found it exceptionally strange Terry would want to present Hillary to Dems and Independents in America “as another Maggie Thatcher” Foolish of him to have thought the article would not be picked up here in the U.S.
Not to worry, The Party will need ask itself where will the 58% go if Hillary is nominated?
I’ll repeat. Hillary’s campaign will collapse.
perhaps re-reading the article would show that you had, I think, got slightly the wrong end of the stick – which is pretty understandable when someone says “Thatcher” and “Female Democrat” in one breath.
I have zip influence obviously, but fwiw I have extremely mixed feelings about HRC. It’s hard not to be excited to see a woman run. I think there’s some merit to the argument that the vilification of progressives, and her husband’s administration in particular by an ascendant neoconservative movement saw her choose what was then the centre ground, which now looks decidely right in many instances. The question that arises for me is was that purely political expediency as part of helping Democrats survive the onslaught- and in which case can it be forgiven; and will she now shift decisively to the left.
There was an interesting diary up at the orange place a few days ago about her voting record and Edwards, and as much as I really like Edwards, and believe he is a ‘changed man’, his voting record was less progressive than Edwards – go figure.
The obvious solution is for to lose the primary. It’s progressives saying they wouldn’t vote for her in the 08 election that kind of freeze my blood.
Can’t help but conclude that many liberals have bought into (unintentionally or not) the prolonged and viscious attacks on Hillary – her record is no worse than many other Democrats, and she’s way better than most Repugs.
That must be it. ‘Liberals’ who dislike HRC (and Pinochet’s good friend, Thatcher) are stupid and easily influenced by right wing propaganda. Glad to clear that up.
Her record is that of a triangulating DLC tool, the fact that her record is no worse than that of many Democrats is a large part of the reason I am no longer a Democrat. Well that and reading the posts of Democratic party operatives for a few years.
and frankly being that defensive doesn’t provide much EQ evidence to support your cause.
Lord knows, progressives are still dismantling the effects of 10+ years of effective rightwing propoganda, I hardly think it’s extreme to suggest that perspectives about HRC are worthy of re-examination through that lens.
That wasn’t defensiveness, that was contempt.
Dear myriad . . .
Currently, there are many other Democratic options. We need to be selective. Not voting for Hillary when we have a chance to choose a better candidate does not correlate to voting Republican. The Presidential elections are a long way off. There are many choices. The primaries solidify our platform! Hers is not mine.
my comment was regarding those who have stated that if Hillary wins the Dem nomination they wouldn’t vote for her. Given how crucial GOTV is in the USA, staying at home or voting for a minor party is going to have the same effect, as we’ve seen. Without a viable electoral system that supports third parties, I would hope if Hillary gets the Dem nomination, progressives will be able to vote for her. Because McCain is a far more frightening prospect from here, particularly on foreign policy.
Dear louisianagirl . . .
I worry. The warm fuzzies are nice. They remind me of George w. speaking of “mindfulness” though he never is.
Her winning ways bother me. These sound like Bush slogans. Her desire to put more troops in Afghanistan frightens me.
Perhaps you are as I am. I believe people are basically good. Hence, I am easily swayed by a persona. I trust that personally, I might even enjoy time with Dick and George; however, do they represent me or lead our country down a path I would wish to travel. No!!
I trust that Hillary might be a pleasant conversationalist. That is not what I am looking for in a President.
I offer this comparison. Worthy Woes for President Bush, State of the UnionPlease share your comments if you would.
I thank you!
My mother is a lifelong Democrat and a resident of NY. A couple of months ago, I brought up the idea of Hillary running for Pres and she was ecstatic. She loves Hillary. Sadly, I think it is more because she is a woman and once was seen as progressive. I think we will find many people who still believe like my mom does.
I think Hillary is a snake. She has no real personal beliefs anymore, rather she only espouses what she thinks people want to hear. I have been known to say that should she get the nomination, I would not vote for her, but hopefully, I will not have to make that choice.
There was one time that I really liked Hillary, but since she has thrown away her values, I cannot support her now.
I just hope we can get through to all the women like my mom who think they are voting for a progressive Democratic candidate when they vote for her.
More than a few years ago when I was a little dumber about politics I remember telling myself that I would vote for a woman-any woman-who ran for president ‘just because’. Sadly or not so sadly maybe I grew up a bit more and while I truly wish I could vote for Hilary the idea of doing so makes me cringe and I won’t be able to and you know, that really pisses me off.
Dear chocolate ink . . .
I too might revel in voting for a woman; however, not just any woman. I am grateful for your wisdom!
Hillary owes me a creme filled pastry, the one I spit all over the windshield this morning on the way to work.
I knew she was gonna do it, but when it came on the radio, I had to clean the inside of my windsheid…
and I don’t want her hubby to fix me one either ; )