Why I'm Opposed to Hillary Clinton

As this nomination process in the Democratic Party wears on, I become more and more angry with Hillary Clinton. Despite my angry post from a few weeks back, I wasn't always so opposed to Clinton. Back when she was inevitable she seemed quite likable and civil, and while I knew she was capable of shrewd political calculation, I had no idea just to what extent. Now that she's been backed into a corner she is showing her true colors, and frankly, it's a wee bit scary. Considering that the delegate math has only gotten worse for her since I last posted on this subject, it's becoming extremely evident that the only chance she has is if the superdelegates move en masse to overturn the pledged delegate trend towards Obama. There's nothing inherently wrong with this, the system was setup to allow the superdelegates to do just that in a situation like this if they wanted to, but I would be extremely disappointed with the Democratic Party if that is how this ends.

In my opinion, frankly, Hillary Clinton is a cold, calculating, vitriolic, stubborn and spiteful bitch. I haven't always been of this opinion, and many of you may think that this is no way to pick a president, but stay with me till the end here. Many people held this opinion of her long before this race ever got started, but seeing as I was only 3 when Bill took office, I wasn't really old enough to form an opinion of her while she was first lady, and since Bill left office, she hadn't really been in the news enough for me form one until this past year. My opinions are not based on some long held hatred for the Clintons such as many Obama supporters are often accused of, but rather on the disgusting win at all costs campaign tactics that have been used just in the last few months. Many have wondered in the past weeks and months just how the Clinton Camp can possibly keep making so many mistakes. Well, that's just the point, there's no way politicians as shrewd and experienced as the Clintons could make so many mistakes. Have you ever noticed that whenever Hillary does something that makes the media uneasy she winds up pulling through in the end with a victory. Hillary can afford people like Ferraro making statements like she did because she can claim to denounce them, and then after that Ferraro is free to go off as a loose cannon, unattached to the Clinton Campaign, and continue to plant the seeds of doubt concerning Obama. It doesn't matter if Ferraro's statements may be slightly harmful to Clinton, the damage she does Barack by making them is far greater. Another, perhaps stronger example is the famous change of heart she had the weekend before Texas and Ohio. Hillary let everyone know about how it was such an honor to even be on the stage with Barack and everyone was ready to declare the bitter feuding over and figured the campaign would come to a nice, peaceful ending with a unity ticket between the two and an inevitable run to the White House.

Well, Hillary had other plans. The whole thing was a setup for the weekends attacks. She knew that by contradicting herself so strongly over the last three days before the primaries she would create a media frenzy. The television pundits said she'd lost control. They said she no longer had a consistent message, that she was burying herself in a muddle of contradictory statements. The fact is, she knew these inconsistent remarks would cause a stir, and this helped her accomplish her goal, which was making sure the voters of Texas and Ohio heard the words Shame on you Barack Obama over and over for the last three days before they went to the polls. And do you know what the best part of it was? She didn't even have to pay to put it on the air; the cable news networks did it all free of charge. I think we'll see much of the same as we move closer to the convention. We'll see Hillary say and do things that seem to be as damaging to her as they are to Barack, but in reality it's all part of a calculated plan to create as much havoc as she can. This is because the plan is twofold. I've already described the first part, which is to pick up as many votes as she can in the primaries to make the number of superdelegates she needs to come out on top as small as she can. The second part concerns the superdelegates themselves. I think we'll continue to see missteps qutie similar Ms. Ferraro's statements and Hillary's not as far as I know comment regarding Barack's religion in the aim of causing mass confusion within the Democratic Party. She wants as much doubt about Barack Obama out there as she can get, no matter how much it damages her as well, because she knows that when the superdelegates actually go to cast their votes at the convention, with so much utter chaos in the party, the name Clinton will be familiar and safe, and the name Obama will be new and untested. This is how Hillary Clinton intends to win the nomination. She's intentionally tearing the Democratic Party apart, so that she can be the nominee.

Now, my objection isn't some sort of lame pathetic cry that what she's doing is unfair or that she's trying to steal the nomination from Barack and therefore he deserves it. Frankly, this is politics, and I think it's safe to say that there are absolutely no rules, and absolutely nothing is sacred. This doesn't mean however, that we can't judge Hillary's merit by her actions in this campaign. I think Hillary's actions indicate that she is exactly the sort of person we don't want in the White House to clean up this mess. She is truly a disgusting person, and would really rather not have to call her my president. I don't really care about who has a better health care plan or who thought what when about the Iraq war; we all know that on January, 20^th 2009 everything any of them has said becomes absolutely meaningless. This is why, all other things being equal (which, lets face it, with Barack and Hillary they pretty much are), you have to just vote for whoever is the better person. Barack may have his skeletons, and he may not be quite all that he seems, but he's certainly nothing like Hillary. And that's damn good enough for me.

Why, oh Why, Hillary?

08This from the Chicago Tribune:

"I think that since we now know Sen. (John) McCain will be the nominee for the Republican Party, national security will be front and center in this election. We all know that. And I think it’s imperative that each of us be able to demonstrate we can cross the commander-in-chief threshold,” the New York senator told reporters crowded into an infant’s bedroom-sized hotel conference room in Washington.

“I believe that I’ve done that. Certainly, Sen. McCain has done that and you’ll have to ask Sen. Obama with respect to his candidacy,” she said.

Calling McCain, the presumptive GOP nominee a good friend and a “distinguished man with a great history of service to our country,” Clinton said, “Both of us will be on that stage having crossed that threshold. That is a critical criterion for the next Democratic nominee to deal with."

[source]

Ok, let me just cool down for a second here before I comment…

breath in…breath out…breath in…

WHAT THE FUCK HILLARY!! What in the world do you hope to gain from this? You've played the experience card against Barack Obama since the beginning of this campaign and where are you now? You're campaign is in shambles and you're only a viable candidate because the democratic party and the media wouldn't dare proclaim a Clinton campaign over until a Clinton says it's over. Think I'm biased or putting a spin on the truth? Jonathan Alter at Newsweek backs me up with the facts.

Regardless of the effectiveness of the tactic (minimal), I simply fail to see what the good can come of this at all. Does Hillary Clinton really think that claiming that John McCain, the only candidate on the Republican side who ever had a chance to cut into Obama's appeal to independents, is more qualified to protect america than Barack Obama can be anything but damaging to Democratic chances in November. Can she really be misleading herself so much as to think that if she somehow received the nomination it would be anything but a pyrrhic victory. The numbers in the Jonathan Alter article indicate that the only way for Hillary (or Barack for that matter) to win is with superdelegate help. Citing the Alter numbers again, even assuming Hillary absolutely cleans house for the rest of the campaign (which she won't) she would still trail Obama in pledged delegates. Clinton currently holds a small lead in superdelegates who have pledged allegiance, but about 33% (according to the Wikipedia article on the subject) still remain uncommitted. Does Hillary really believe these uncommitted party elders are sitting around waiting for the convention to come so they can all declare for her and overturn the will of the people? (cause that's what it would take) They will almost all go the way the wind blows, for fear of angering constituents and destroying the passion that has been so lacking on the democratic side for so long. Whatever she believes, it's simply not going to happen. Senator Obama will receive the nomination of the Democratic Party. Then only question now is when will Hillary step out? Her continued use of the sorts of campaign tactics of late can likely only bring about two possible outcomes. The first is that her reputation will be badly damaged as history will not look back on these events favorably. History will show a woman driven solely to win who was incapable of setting down the sword at the right moment and frankly incapable of recognizing the truth when it was staring her straight in the face (not a good characteristic for a president as we've learned in the last seven years). Or, her attacks will either convince independents that McCain is tougher on national security than Obama of their own accord, or the line even Hillary Clinton said so will become a staple of the McCain campaign come October. (I bet both)And while Senator Obama thus far seems to have been able to shake off everything his opponents have thrown at him and even frequently turn the attacks into a plus, I somehow think we don't need to test that strength against a bipartisan attack.

I think the best I can hope for is that Obama crushes Hillary quickly in the coming states and we can move on to the campaign for the general election presently. The longer Hillary stays in the race the more damage she risks causing to her party's chances of winning the White House. The chances of her becoming president on January 20^th 2009 are simply too small to justify these sorts of attacks. Hillary needs to get out of this race. Now.

The Fact That I'm Pro Choice Does Not Mean I'm in Favor of Killing Babies

First off, a hat tip to my friend Alex, with whom I had the discussion that spurred the idea for this post.

Of all of the Democratic talking points, the position on abortion is the one I've always had the most trouble with. Don't get me wrong, I am pro choice, but I think we on the liberal end of the spectrum tend to attempt to paint ourselves as the complete opposite of whatever the right wing religious crazies want regardless of what is right. I think when it comes to abortion we should stress much more strongly than we in fact (or at least I) are not in favor of killing fetuses as a form of birth control. I think almost everyone agrees that procedures such as partial birth abortion are absolutely reprehensible and that there needs to be some sort definitive line drawn at some point in a pregnancy as to when an abortion should be allowable and when it should not be. I believe that it should be prohibited once the fetus has reached the level of mental complexity such that it is capable of suffering. We may not at the present time be able to identify that moment with confidence, so my suggestion is that we use the existing body of peer reviewed scientific research on the matter to find the best conservative estimate of when this takes place, and then draw the line an arbitrary amount, two weeks to a month, before that point to be certain we don't overshoot into what can be considered immoral. This line could then be updated to remain constant with the contemporary body of scientific knowledge.

I think from there we should attempt to encourage women to think very carefully about their decisions as I believe for some having an abortion probably does carry long lasting emotional effects. We are emotional creatures (particularly women…ok just kidding…well, not really) and even when reason may tell us otherwise there is an inclination to act with the maternal instinct to care for a child, even if at the point of abortion it exists as nothing more than a large mass of cells. Intentionally acting against this instinct may bare with it long term emotional effects for some women, and while I don't think it is the government's or society's job to protect them from themselves I think it is necessary that the fact that some women do undergo these feelings of guilt be made known to any woman considering having an abortion.

I think this fairly well summarizes my position on abortion, and I think if society continues on the path towards the emergence of reason and rational thought in public policy this will eventually become the law. With my beliefs I feel it is accurate to say that I am both pro life and pro choice. I am pro life because I believe that an abortion should be used as a last resort only. It should not be used simply for birth control or for sex selection, but only for cases where the mother cannot provide for the child and carrying it to term and putting it up for adoption would be for some reason not possible, or in cases of rape or incest. I am pro choice in that so long as it falls within the realm of what is morally acceptable, the final decision lies with the woman. It is her body and it is her choice.

Bill Clinton Endorses Obama

Bill Clinton: October 25, 2004

(just kidding)

My Letter to President Bush

Another thing I decided to do last night was write an email to President Bush. Hope no secret service show up at my door...

President Bush,
It seems to me as of late you have forgotten the role in the government afforded you by the constitution. I am speaking of course of the FISA legislation which the House has thankfully finally decided to stand up to you on. You seem to think that congress has failed to pass your law. But anyone who has read the constitution knows that the president does not determine or make the laws. Congress passes the laws, and you enforce them, not the other way around. If congress passes a law you disagree with, you are bound by the constitution, the highest law in the land, to enforce it. And if they do not pass a law that you want passed, you must respect that. I haven't even touched your blatant lying about the situation yet. How about we go there, shall we? You have claimed that failure to pass this law will inhibit the ability of the government to protect American citizens from the threat of terrorist attacks. Yet you refuse to sign it unless it includes retroactive immunity for the major telecom companies. If it was really the case that failure to pass this law would result in decreased safety to American citizens, you would have to sign it. You would not have a choice Mr President, because the alternative is unthinkable. The alternative is that because of our decreased ability to track terrorists, some major attack might occur on American soil. You, Mr President, would be responsible for that. History would look back on you and say "he could have made the compromise, he could have given up his demands, in order to do what was right and protect American lives, and he failed." And frankly Mr Bush, that is something that not even you could bring yourself to do. You have attempted (and failed) to build your entire presidency around your strong record against terrorism, and the one thing you absolutely would not allow is for it to become blatantly and irrefutably obvious that you failed miserably in the respect. Therefore Mr President, we are left with the undeniable fact that you are flat out lying to us, the very people you were elected to serve. Your conduct is inexcusable and unfortunately the political landscape in Washington is too rocky to allow a real chance of your impeachment, because that is what you deserve.

Sincerely
Jeremy Berg
Young American Citizen who's future you have spent away in Iraq

Hypocrisy at its Finest

Ok, last post for the night. (I'm telling ya, home on a Friday night is incredibly boring)

Bill Clinton came to town on Thursday (actually, just about everyone associated with the presidential campaign has been in town during the last week, save Hillary herself, who will be here Sunday) and said one thing during the hour that he talked that I really really agreed with (not to say there weren't others).  He was talking about nuclear weapons, and the ridiculous hypocritical positions that our government currently takes.  Few people ever question the authority of the United States to tell other countries whether they can or cannot have nuclear weapons, but the fact is that we have approximately 10,000 nuclear weapons ourselves.  In case your eyes didn't do a double take like mine did the first time I saw that number I'll type it again.  10,000 nuclear weapons!  According to Bill's speach yesterday (and I haven't researched this myself, so I can't claim to know that its true with certainty), the United States is currently attempting to develop two new varieties of nuclear weapons (my guess is something tactical, but I could be completely wrong).  To quote Bill "There's probably a better salesman than me in here, but I think that's a pretty tough sell.  We don't want you to have one of what we want two new of."  Aside from the wordiness and the fact that Bill was undoubtedly the best salesman in the room, that statement is completely true.  The idea that we in the United States somehow have the right to tell other countries whether or not they have the right to have nuclear weapons or not is preposterous.  And until we show some resolve to get rid of our own nuclear arsenal, which poses nothing but a threat to global security, we have no legitimate right to tell other countries what they can and cannot do with regard to nuclear weapons.

Concerning Candidates

Alright, my first actual post.

The current presidential race is obviously occupying a large chunk of America's time right now. In fact, that may be the understatement of the decade. And why shouldn't it, after the last 7 years we've had I think this country is desperate for something new, something different. This isn't going where you think. This isn't going to be a "Barack Obama is the only one who offers that change" type of rant. I think even John McCain would be a welcome change from what we've been stuck with lately. The thing is, with all the publicity this race has gotten, it's hard to know what's the truth about any of the candidates anymore. I can't resist being attracted to Obama. Listening to him speak stirs in just about anyone a feeling that we really can change the world. My question is whether he really plans to or not. I read a great article I found on onegoodmove that I really agree with. Obama has the sort of speaking talent that could convince half the country that giving naziism another go would probably be a good idea (seriously). So then why doesn't he use that talent to really take a hard progressive line on a lot of issues and really get something done. Then again, with the type of excitement he has created among liberals in this country, I think we all better get in line and see where this takes us. He has created the kind of following, and the kind of expectations of drastic change, that I think people will hold him accountable if he doesn't deliver. And that is exactly what we need to bring back to the oval office, accountability.

Clinton, on the other hand, just does not generate the same feeling. I feel that if she were elected President much of the grass roots excitement that Obama has generated would be absent from the movement and when things don't start looking up (as they might not, the next president has perhaps the tallest order in the history of this country save maybe FDR and Lincoln) the same mix of anger and apathy we have seen the last 7 years would return. Don't get me wrong, I think Clinton would make a great President, but I think that in this case the excitement that Obama has generated really is of consequence and ought to be considered.

*sigh* I wish Edwards had managed to move to the front...