When smart bloggers take risks, sometimes they gain nothing
I never was a Clinton fan, though I defended him from the witchhunters with Ken Starr manning the dunking stool. He seemed pretty likeable at times and was incredibly smart, but he never lived up to his potential in office, he sold out workers (NAFTA) and the working poor, and by allowing the execution of a retarded black boy to demonstrate he was tough on crime, he demonstrated a callousness that ate at me and in 1996, I voted for Nader.
But when he entered office, I still had enormous respect for Hilary. The attacks on her in those days were clearly motivated by sexism against a strong woman. And I’ve always felt bad for her because of what she had to endure because of her husband’s philandering. Not only the betrayal, but the further acts of stereotypical sexists who blamed her for her husband’s infidelity.
But then I saw her blow an issue that 70% of the country supported: healthcare. That took her down a big peg, in my estimation. As a Senator - a position I would have voted her in had I lived in New York, she also voted to go to war against Iraq.
I supported Kerry and Edwards in 2004, though both also voted yes on the illegal war. For Kerry, it was his record prior to that vote - especially on Iran Contra and the BCCI scandal - that convinced me. For Edwards, it was his support of the poor. And I enjoyed the attitudes and efforts of both of their wives. And for both candidates, it also helped that their election would hasten the end of the illegal president, the worst in US history.
Both of them have since wised up on Iraq and have acknowledged their mistakes. Hilary hasn’t. She still won’t support the withdrawal of our troops. She comes across like a Likudnik, easily overlooking 50,000 dead Iraqis.
Now, the best things I can say about Hilary are: she’s a strong woman. She’s been a good mother to Chelsea. She’s done some good for her constituents as a Senator. But she falls well short of the standards I seek in a President. And the alternative won’t be GW Bush.
I have and will retain, enormous respect for Peter Daou. But his work will not convince me to support Hilary. There’ll be Nader or some Independent, or maybe I’ll have to consider a real Green (which I never felt Nader was). I wish we could have a woman president. But I require a qualified one. I’m with Molly Ivins on this one. Speaking of which, is Molly available?
June 27th, 2006 at 8:14 am
I’m not a Clinton fan, but that “allowed the execution of a retarded black boy” is a bit much. Ricky Ray Rector had sub-normal intelligence because when he was about to be apprehended, he turned the gun on himself and effectively gave himself a lobotomy.
June 27th, 2006 at 12:38 pm
Damn right. MOLLY for president. Hilary Clinton, not so much. She doesn’t seem to have any principles she won’t sell for a two-point gain in the polls.
June 27th, 2006 at 6:02 pm
Kevin and Brainster, I do not accept capital punishment for any reason whatsoever, so I do not care how Ricky was brain damaged, the Governor should have intervened. If it were Hannibal Lector himself, I am against capital punishment.
As for Hillary, she is a complete disappointment. She is a pandering, centrist and has lost a moral compass to guide her to a victory. She lost out on her beloved flag-burning bill, something that really irked me about Wesley Clark.
Her war stance is unwavering and atrocious. I listened to her live from Baghdad a couple of years back and she was like Laura Ingraham or some other right winger who travels to the green zone, gushing about all the progress while never going into the war torn neighborhoods are visiting hospitals where Iraqi babies were blown up and surviving on the minimal care.
I will suffer whatever the consequences before I vote for her and allow her to destroy the party. I would rather have them lose and have four more tortuous years to try to get their act together then have her eleceted and destroy them for good. Come to speak of it, maybe that would be the best thing so we could start fresh.