I'm praying the ballyhooed implosion of the Clinton campaign is real. I hope that the former First Lady gets beat in New Hampshire, trounced in South Carolina, and that she withdraws from the race after losing every state on Super Tuesday. But it's not because I hate her personally like the right wingers do, on the contrary, I like her and I hope she remains in the Senate for many years to come. But there is no way in hell I want her running my country. After 8 years, or more, of Bush/Cheney we don't need more of the same which is what we'd get with Hillary.
What's that? You don't believe me? You say she'd be different than those thugs? Well kid, I hate to bust your bubble, but she's not that far removed from them. She's been in bed with the multi national corporations for years, just like Bush. She's "strong on defense," which means she'll never see a weapons system she won't approve over social spending any day, just like Bush. She is not prepared to take the use of nuclear weapons off the table when it comes to the Middle East, just like Bush. I'd also wager she'd do nothing to restore the balance of power between the branches of government and that she'd take more power for the Executive branch, just like Bush has.
But what really clinched my dislike of her being President was during one of the early debates. Obama said he would, during his first few months as President, travel around the world and talk to the heads of state of the so called axis of evil countries. Hillary snapped back quickly and said he was naive and that she would not waste time by talking to our enemies, among whom she included Hugo Chavez.
Now the last time I looked Chavez was legally elected, Venezuela is after all a democracy, and so is Iran by the way. Also the last time I looked we were not at war with Hugo and his country. So it struck me as odd that Mrs. Clinton would say she would not talk to enemies like Hugo Chavez. Then it hit me, she thinks Chavez is an enemy of ours because he does not let US corporations rape his country and screw his people over any more. So since Hillary is in bed with the multinational corporations and she will do their bidding before she does what's right for the people of this country, then of course to her Chavez would be an enemy.
But Chavez is not my enemy, nor my country's enemy. In fact, he should be considered a hero to working class and poor people for his reforms and for his refusal to let the disaster capitalists run roughshod over his country. If Hillary was more like Chavez and less like Bush/Cheney then maybe I'd support her. But as it stands right now, I'm voting for Kucinich because he's the only candidate who is truly for change in Washington DC and he's the only one who's on my side. Hillary sure as hell isn't.
17 comments:
"Hillary snapped back quickly and said he was naive and that she would not waste time by talking to our enemies, among whom she included Hugo Chavez."
I remember that. Hilary's voice was really shrill as she spoke. I felt the same way you did.
And I think that she has many evil corporate masters.
Well at least Hillary's finally gettin some if she's in bed with SOMEBODY!
Ok, not the thoughtful, reasoned and intellectually stimulating kind of comment you've come to expect from me. Sorry.
The feminist in me wants to support a woman for president--but as smart as I think Hillary is, she is NOT the woman for the job. You're right--she sold out long ago, and while she'd be a slight improvement over Chimpy (at least she speaks English fluently), she would not be as good as Edwards. Many people are claiming that her hawkish posturing is just that, posturing--but I want someone who'll tell the fecking TRUTH for once, not pander to the reich.
Well said, Doctor. It seems to me that the rethuglicans would be overjoyed to have Ms. Clinton win the democratic nomination. Two rethuglican candidates in one election!
I have always had the utmost respect for Hugo Chavez. He stood up in front of the world and called Dubya "the Devil" - this guy speaks the truth and is not afraid to do so. He also sticks up for the working class people - something Dubya and his criminal cronies would never do. Somebody else for whom I have the utmost respect - you, Dr VonMonkerstein (you gorgeous simian). Let's run away and swing in some trees.
Dr Monkey! My good man, I mean simian. What a brilliant post you have written for our brains to feast upon.
You have said many clear and important things and in general I could not agree with you more.
As a resident of NY I can tell you that many of the things she has done (but not ALL!) as a senator are really good.
Hillary gets a lot of sh*t for the wrong reasons... Because she is "Hillary" for one, which is when people get lost in their feelings about here (I just don't like her they say, but why? they can't tell you. bs!)
She gets crap for being Mrs. Clinton. I saw Joe Scarborough ranking on her this morning when I was on the treadmill and I wanted to throttle the guy.
However, while I might defend her from the League of Hillary Hating Idiots With No Real Reason, I have my own criticisms of her.
You enumerated many of them here. My biggest gripe with her is all the AIPAC money she is tied up with. Now sadly, there is not a politician in DC who is not tied up with AIPAC, but she is in deep. Can you spell Kyl-Lieberman???
I also agree that she went off the shrill deep end when Obama said that months ago. This whole "talk tough" I won't speak to our enemies is horse-manure!
That said, I think that one must really study Hugo Chavez and South American politics more deeply to see the real picture.
He is at one level well intended and he has done things for the poor, but make no mistake, he does have the personality that could lead to despotism. It is really about Hugo in the end.
I like that he won't play baby-games with the US power structure and I think he has good intentions for the poor, but he has also not done all that he appears to do.
To lionize him - and I am not saying you have - to lionize him is an issue all its own.
Poor South America is such a big cluster f*ck and mostly due to the rape and pillage of it by first the Spaniards and then in our time by us. It is a big f-ing mess, I can tell you from having been to Peru and Bolivia, just from my own brief experiences.
However, I see Hugo at the other end of the continuum and what may be needed, both here and there are people who can be a bit more balanced.
And I still don't support Hillary, but will vote for her if she is the Dem candidate and if there is no viable third party available.
I would not rule out voting Bloomberg if he ran as an independent. It would enter my mind at the least.
I will shut up now!
You rock Senor Chango. You rock
This is a clear explanation of the problems I have with Hillary.
I feel exactly the way you do about Hillary.
I would never stay home from an election, and thus if the dem nominee were Hillary, I would vote for her but I would not canvas door to door, attend rallies or work a call center for her, or sit as a poll watcher on election day, things I did do during the Kerry campaign. I sometimes think her high poll numbers came from hopeful republicans who lied to the pollsters (opposite side of same coin for Giuliani, my dream repub candidate for his easy defeatability).
I'm with you 100%, Dr.
I don't know where these die-hard Hillary supporters are. I have yet to talk to one of them. Are they hiding?
Chris - my friend has a blog and she is a real supporter. If you want to read and share your thoughts with her, I will give you the blog address.
you are aware of my obsession with hugo and corporate personhood no doubt? kudos to you monky!
Can you imagine if it were Kucinech vs. Paul? Now that would be an interesting race for the White House. This may be a stupid question but why do you only have two political parties? That doesn't strike me as overly democratic.
And Hugo's been known to rock my world, as does Fidel on occasion. Did you hear that Naomi Campbell has interviewed him for the British GQ?
franiam- I'd be interested to read it. After reading my comment again, I noticed it sounded unnecessarily snotty. However, it is true, of the people I associate with, both live and on the internets, I don't encounter many big Hillary backers. I'd be interested to learn more.
Ha ha -just saw this post after I had made that comment about "Hillary jokes" for the haircutting post!
I really don't like Hillary, she's often a target of the righties!
Hillary is like Repub lite-a "Demo" for those who have a harder time with being a liberal!
to piggyback onto micgar's "target of the righties" thing, if Hillary's elected it will just intensify the polarization and nothing will get accomplished.
If she had fantastic ideas and could get them accomplished, I'd overlook this fact. But I can't stand 4 to 8 years of ugliness for nothing.
If it is looking pretty decisive as to which current front runner is ahead enough, so that my state's primary wouldn't throw things one way or another - I'll vote Kucinich since he's the only one who actually spoke out against the war and voted consistently against it and funding it.
Not because I think he would win or is the best candidate, but as a message vote about the war.
The other front runners (which I'll define generously Obama, Clinton, Edwards) are all a bit tainted in that regard - since none of them spoke and voted consistently in a way I approve of on the war issue. Yes, Clinton was consistent, just consistently wrong.
If it's close between Obama, Clinton or Edwards- I'll probably go Obama first choice and Edwards second. Depending on how the race is running. Whoever is standing the best chance against Clinton gets my primary vote. If they are against each other as the leaders - I'd have to think about it more.
I have problems with each of them, but rank Clinton as the one I have the most problems with.
But frankly in the General, I'd vote for any of the above.
Post a Comment