Thursday, February 28, 2008

Eight Reasons Why

Where else can you find a woamn and an African American running for president? What am I thinking?! How behind reality we are in America! We have yet, like other countries, to have a woamn executive in the government. In fact, it's maybe rather a sign of late growth that it took this long to finally see in our political realm this possibility occurring.

I hear a lot of talk on the radio that either of the Democratic candidates would make fine Presidents, and I disagree with that. It sounds like what it is, and that's a cover-my-butt comment. With that in mind, here are my eight reasons why I wouldn't vote for Hillary Clinton.

Numbers 1,2, and 3, all deal with behavior. Political behavior. First, there was Hillary mocking the Obama message of hope. Is that either adult or Presidential? She attacked Obama for Rove-like tactics when in Ohio she finally responded to Obama mailers that had appeared in three states before Ohio. And under what category does innacurate implicitory mockery fall? Secondly, there was the campaign blaming the media. Mockery, and whining. People know what that sounds like, despite the facts that might be asserted, and in this case they were generalizations, not facts. But that's what it sounds like. And when these two roll in together in the same week, it starts to sound like desparation. And if anyone believes desparate times call for desparate measures, it begins to show. Thirdly, and following the mockery and whining, Hillary did an interview on the 700 Club, where she decided to talk about her faith. Now I can't recall Ms. Clinton ever attacking the religious right, but they have certainly demonized the liberal policies she stands for for over two decades. So what does this look like? Pandering. Hillary has not even solidified her own base, and yet it appears she is trying to attract those of the far right fringe of the opposite camp that have assaulted her and her beliefs. And I'll throw in a fourth behavior that to me is even far worse. her attitude of inequality. One of her advisers said a while agfo about some states that she skipped to spend her time campaigning elsewhere, that states like Colorado didn't matter. And this past weekend, one of her aides referred to some states as "boutique states", and Obama supporters as the "latte sipping crowd that don't need a President, but a feeling." Marginalizing voters? I cannot see how any of these behviors are beneficial, or demonstrate any qualities I would want to see in a President of this country. If this is the way she behaves on the campaign trail, how will she handle the pressure of the White House?

The next three reasons are ecomnomic in origin. Until Hillary began her recent run for President, she seemed enthralled, or at least supportive of NAFTA. Let's put that aside for now. Back in October of last year, Ms. Clinton wanted a rally for rural Americans. Really reach out to the midalnders, the family farmers, those who keep the bread on our tables, right? Well, you would have thought so. The first clue of what she was really after was based on the locale of the rally. Iowa you think? Oklahoma? Nebraska? Her home state of Missouri?

Nope. Not even close. Head east. All the way to Washington DC.

So what rural Americans would make that trip? Let me fill in more details of the locale. Was it a farm in Virginia? Uh uh. Right in the capital. On K street. In a lobbying firm. Coincidently, the lobbying firm for Monsanto. The same Monsanto her husband borrowed executive staff from to put in the FDA when he was president. So how many rural American votes was she after? Let's get back to that....When Hillary's campaign ran out of money, it was reportedly because she is heavily dependent on corporate donors, which have legal limits on how much they can contribute. So guys like Fox News owner and supporter Rupert Murdoch have to use other means to keep on giving that involve loopholes. But a small sampling of her donors reveals the corporate influnce in her campaign, despite her anti-corporate rhetoric that she trumpeted while stumping in Ohio. So then on to her health care plan. Hillary stated on ABC's Sunday morning news show, This Week, that forced enrollment, a fancy way of saying garnished wages, is one possible mechanism for paying for health care.

Who! Hold on there Nellie! You're telling me, that in your support of a free market economy, that you'd garnish my wages if I chose not to buy health insurance so that for profit health care companies that support your campaign can still make huge profits at my expense?!

So let's connect the dots: the rally in October was a money rally from corporate donors. She really supports NAFTA because of those same donors and since she won't release her tax records, possible investments made on the advantages of NAFTA, and she's willing to further strap working Americans to further corporate welfare and make sure they get their profits and pay out huge CEO pay packages. How will any of this make our middle class and economy grow?

No thanks Hillary.

Then there's the famous charge that Mr. Obama doesn't have the foreign policy experience necessary to be President, and she does. To me, that's hardly an issue at all. What experience did her own husband have before coming president? And did she tell her own husband she didn't think he had enough foreign policy experience to be president? Isn't that a bit like saying a person doesn't have enough parenting experience to become one? Yes, it is.

Being the President is far different than being First Lady. And as we have seen in recent days, it seems Hillary has stretched her stories of her First Lady experience to the point of lies. But the point is that at the end of the day, the weight of the office of President falls on the President, not the First Lady.

And just because she was First lady doesn't mean she would make a good President.

The last reason I wouldn't vote for Hillary is her stance on the fighting in the Middle East. She got it wrong when it came to authorizing invading Iraq. Wrong. One third of Congress knew it was wrong, and she missed the truth on an incredibly important decision. One that has cost this country dearly. Then, to add to her lack of credibility, she then sided with the war-mongering Republicans when it came time to declaring the Iranian Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist group. Ah yes, that was a wonderful foreign policy decision wasn't it? That'll be sure to generate peace won't it?

Now of course that most of the country says we should be out of Iraq, Hillary is all for being out of Iraq. At least that's what she says. I'm not so certain that's what she would do. This begins to sound a bit like her anti-corporatism rhetoric that only found voice in certain campaign areas of the United States, particularly those areas crushed by NAFTA policies she supported that have drained those areas of jobs.

All in all, I have no good reason to vote for Hillary. Her behavior and her policies make her an untenable candidate in my mind. Granted, she would be better than media darling and GOP hopeful McCain. But McCain wouldn't change anything for the better.

So despite the enormous and historically significant reality that there are viable presidential candidates from two former disenfranchised groups, notably on the Democratic platform, I cannot in good conscience vote for one of them.

So I support Barack Obama as President of these United States.

Saturday, February 16, 2008

Republicans like 2x4s

Besides flip-flopping on torture recently, McCain reveals the usual double standard of today's conservatism. It would seem they like the hard style of learning as they meander off into political irrelevance.

On Monday, according to Reuters, McCain has "rejected" public funding and it's spending limits.

Yet, he then contradicts himself in Oshkosh, and claims his opponent should take public financing and it's limits.

Not only is that business as usual for the righties, it's also a sign of fear on the right. Without those spending limits, McCain doesn't stand a chance.

In many of the primaries so far, votes for all of the Republican nominees which until recently was four candidates, barely made up or exceeded just what the ususal second place Hillary got for votes. And Hillary has been outvoted almost 2 to 1 for the last 8 contests. Which means that if you take out Romney, Paul, and Huckabee supporter votes from the Republican tallies, McCain would be out voted on a primary and/or general election scale by a 5 to 1 margin, speaking conservatively. In the state of Washington for example, McCain pulled roughly 3300 votes despite the irregularities reported among the GOP there, and Obama almost 22,000 votes. That's close to a 7 to 1 margin. In Louisiana McCain did better. There he only got whipped by a 4 to 1 margin.

So I can see why the Republicans are stooping to their usual dirty politics. They haven't got an issue leg to stand on. Unless of course you consider 4 more years of war and continued economic policies that have landed us in the mess we are in right now something desirable.

Apparently, they do, and they think they can sell it to the American public, along with more fear. According to the recent primary and caucus numbers, that just isn't so.

Another 2x4 to the head anyone?