"the Truth at any cost"

Sunday, August 12, 2007

Anyone but Clinton Club

I thought it was popular right now to hate Hilary Clinton, but apparently that must be among Republicans only, because she is starting to dominate the Democratic presidential race. Shucks. Just when I'm starting to come around to Obama.
Why do I hate Hilary Clinton? Because she is a woman? No. At least not consciously. Maybe this could become a series of posts I could write about why I cannot stand her. But for today, I'd like to give three reasons why I think it is frightening that she is ahead of anyone in the 'horse race', and why it is clear it can only be because people either a) want to be part of the history of making a woman president, or b) Are not paying attention.
I can't blame people for b). After all, it is early. But when a poller calls you and asks if you are voting in the primary, and you should either say 'no', or say you are rooting for anyone other than Hilary Clinton (and, let's go ahead and say Joe Biden too, because he is in many ways just like Clinton, but as he is lower than Kucinich in the polls, isn't much of a threat).
So why do I dislike her so much? If I don't cite enough examples of the three things I cannot stand about her below, just watch the debates, and you'll see it.

1."Anyone but Bush" --The Democratic party rode off of this in 2004, and yet Hilary Clinton is still applauded over and over again for answering any tough question by saying something about how much the 'current administration' sucks. Yeah, Hil, we know that. Along with this reason goes her basic argument for why people should choose her over the other candidates. Let's see this argument and analyze it:
a. We (the Democratic candidates) are all the same.
b. I'm winning.
c. I am experienced.
Therefore,
d. 'I'm your gal'.
Premise a., plainly false. All Democrats vaguely agree, the war is bad, but each one has their own proposal as to what to do about it. All Democrats vaguely agree on health care, but each one has their own proposal about what to do about it. Everything else, Democrats disagree on, to varying degrees. And this is true among the three front runners as well, so its even false if the premise is weakened to 'The leading Democratic candidates are all the same.'
b. So what? Should I vote for whoever is winning, regardless of whether I agree with them or not? Well damn, then my whole concept of voting is fucked up. I'd better remember this come voting time, if a Republican candidate is winning, I have to vote for them.
c. True; however, you are not the most experienced. That would go to Richardson, Biden, and Dodd.
B and C aren't that mistaken, however, it is A as a premise that pisses me off so much.
2. The lobbyist thing.
Everyone should really watch this video if they plan on voting in the primaries. Edwards challenges Clinton to stop taking money from lobbyists, and she just flat out says 'no, lobbyists represent real people.' (Hilary Clinton was the pharmeceutical company lobby's biggest recipient in 2006).
Although, to be fair, Edwards' hedge fund campaign doesn't seem much better. But at least he promotes public finance of campaigns.
3. 'I stay away from hypotheticals.'
This is what Hilary Clinton says whenever she is asked a hard question, along with, 'well, at least I won't suck as much as the Bush Administration.' What does this even mean, "I stay away from hypotheticals" ? Does it really make people think she is mature or a better candidate because she refuses 'what if' questions?
It is just a way to avoid making any campaign commitments!
Besides, how can you really even run for president, or debate for president, if you really are oppose to answering hypotheticals?! Isn't pretty much every debate question framed in the hypothetical 'If you were elected President..."?
It is such a sleazy question dodge. I know that all candidates dodge questions, but this is somehow worse, because it makes her look 'mature' or 'experienced'.

Most people hate Hilary Clinton because she has changed her views on basically everything except health care. I agree. But I thought I would touch on some of the other things. Please vote for anyone but Hilary.

One final note: There is a new 527 I'd like to publicly support, called "Rock the Debates" (www.rockthedebates.org) and they are basically trying to get all Democratic and Republican candidates to commit to having a debate with ALL candidates with a mathematical chance to win the election.
I think its a pretty good cause for democracy, letting third parties call out the major parties in a debate. It won't happen, but why not try?

Labels: , , , , ,

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

<< Home