Please Dems, not Hillary!

I sure hope the Democrats are not on the path that they have generally chosen by choosing a candidate that appeals to the Democratic base of policy wonks, political toadies, lifetime politicos, and spineless wonders. Why must they always field Presidential candidates like Michael Dukakis, Jimmy Carter, and John Kerry? I feel that Hillary Clinton is just such a candidate.

Lest you think me from the Woman Hater's Manly Man Club, I'm from Texas and my heroes from this state have been Barbara Jordon, Houston congresswoman; Kathy Whitmire, Houston mayor; Ann Richards, state governor; and Molly Ivins, rabble rouser and Texas journalist. It was always my wish that Ann Richards had run for the Presidency. I'm a progressive by choice and a liberal Democrat by default. My first choice for the Democratic Presidential nominee is Dennis Kucinich followed in order by John Edwards and Barack Obama.

I don't think Hillary Clinton is "divisive", just the opposite. I won't go into specifics because a much better profile of her can be found here. She is much too accommodating to corporate interests and I don't think we'll see that much difference in her approach to the economy than George W. She is also the most hawkish Democrat running for President and if you don't think a woman could get us into war, just look and Margaret Thatcher.

I would prefer Dennis Kucinich since he represents my positions on just about every issue; the war, the economy, health care, the environment, and the Constitution. Since he doesn't stand a chance in hell of winning either the nomination or the Presidency, sadly I must support another. My second choice was John Edwards since he has said the right things about the poor, and the working and middle classes. It now appears he also is not going to be supported by Democrats for the nomination. Finally I choose to support Barack Obama.

I would much prefer Barack Obama to Hillary Clinton, for several reasons. The most important, was stated by some pundit I saw on Countdown with Keith Olberman. Barack Obama could be the best person to repair our reputation in the world community. A black man with a Muslim name from immigrant background, he would be someone that represents the diversity in America and the world. He would be the best thing we could present to the world after the disaster that was George W Bush.

I also think that Barack Obama could be the candidate that could show the most change after winning the Presidency. Right now, he has to keep his tone very centrist and for that reason I was and still am a bit skeptical of him. But, he also would not get very far as a candidate if he was more radical. So I'm hoping that if he gets in, he will become more progressive during his second term. That's a big if unfortunately. It appears as if the old bugaboo that black candidates have always had to deal with is back if New Hampshire is any indication. Folks say they will vote for a black person in the polls, but then choose another in the privacy of the voting booth.

Seems like everyone is supporting Obama and not Hillary. Kucinich has put his support behind Obama and is even asking for a recount in NH. He said that the polls and hand-counted ballots favored Obama, while machines favored Hillary.

Everytime I turn on the news it seems that another canidate that doesn't have a hope of winning is asking their supporters to back Obama and not Hillary. Kucinich did it in Ohio.

It'll be an interesting primary season for sure. Hur hur.

Hillary Clinton is intelligent, well educated and experienced. As far as I can tell, her critics' concerns are all only negative assertions and characterizations like the ones in the profile referenced by the OP.

Where are the facts? Those "sleazy deals" were examined under a microscope that found nothing illegal. "Nothing illegal" is OK for the rest of us, but not for her, apparently. She's still "sleazy."

If she had a prettier smile and seemed less bright, and if she were content with being nothing more than a wife and mother, no one would be saying these things about her.

Part of me is rooting for the Ice Queen, since I think she'll be obnoxious enough to push the 20% undecided's over to the Republican side. The other part of me is scared that the "Dubya Backlash" might be so bad that it won't matter and Hillary would get elected. Heaven help us...

If she had a prettier smile and seemed less bright, and if she were content with being nothing more than a wife and mother, no one would be saying these things about her.

Click to expand...

Well, the article I linked to was from The Nation which has a good reputation for journalism and certainly for women considering the editor is Katrina Vanden Heuvel. Here's another article that discusses her ties to big money. No, it's not the old Republican talking points that has progressives concerned about Hillary, it's her support from lobbyists and the corporate sector. She is only slightly more left than Lieberman. She and Bill supported NAFTA and the spread of Chicago school economics here and worldwide. I could care less about her personality, it's her stand on the issues that has me supporting anyone but Hillary.

Eliaures said:

She and Bill supported NAFTA and the spread of Chicago school economics here and worldwide. I could care less about her personality, it's her stand on the issues that has me supporting anyone buy Hillary.

Click to expand...

Not consistently: the Clinton presidency's record about economic policy, both at home and abroad, is very mixed indeed. It's hard to discern any clear philosophy there, other than doing whatever seems like a good idea at the time.

Which, come to think of it, isn't horrible as philosophies go. You could certainly do a lot worse...

if you litterally want to burn in hell vote republican this time, unless you vote mccain as mccain is the only main canidate with a comprehensive environmental plan. all three leading democrats however have one.

how people can stand tv i don't know...
http://www.democracynow.org/2008/1/10/study_of_over_2_000_sunday


this interview was also really good on tuesday although its unlikely to quell any fears about your vote counting, it is highly informative.
http://www.democracynow.org/2008/1/8/how_to_rig_an_election_convicted

this was a real inspirational speak for me by the way: although theres other canidates and politicians i share more values and ideas with (nader, kusinech) obama is the first canidate/politician i've ever been inspired by, and truly believed in. i believe no one out there can come close to revitalizing our nation, by listening to everyone sides, and acting in our best interest while at the same time not trying to please everyone. if the us doesn't get progressive soon we will surely become backwater usa and we might as well lower our flag and give the nation back to the native americans as "we can't stay in the cradle forever"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fe751kMBwms&feature=user

My first exposure to that site( The Nation), Eliaures. Thanks. Let me say I've never been into politics or politicians, and I'm no good at being impartial when it comes to the government so bear that in mind when I get on my soapbox, as this topic always inspires me to do.

I found your views on Obama extremely interesting and valid and I agree with much of your position on Hillary. There is also a personal prejudice against her on my part growing out of the things I personally dislike about her that theoretically shouldn't matter in a presidential election, like her marriage (a career decision) her phobias (refusing to use public toilets in Haiti and having her own built at taxpayer expense--truth from someone who was working for our foreign service there at the time and whose word I don't question) and her frozen teflon persona that exploits the honest desire of women to see a compassionate wife and mother in an ambitious and ruthless pragmatist who has sacrificed everything to her desire for power. But I seem to have strayed as I often do into, as I say, the purely personal....

For our country, I agree that her position is at least outwardly centrist with a lean toward the traditional Dem policy of Bigger is Better government and might not be disastrous--or more disastrous than any other candidate---here at home. However, I don't believe Hillary will ever be enough of a diplomat or a subtle enough thinker to represent us well in the complex arena of foreign relations. I think she will tend to defer to the Pentagon and the usual sycophantic ring of Washington insider advisors rather than make leadership decisions, and I really truly doubt that she is capable of understanding change, let alone bringing it about in a positive way. She understands working the system and playing to the crowd(from her days with Bill-witness the oh so opportune, quivering stiff upper lip in NH) but I believe her to be severely limited in actual judgement about good, evil and ethics in general.

My impression (as someone with a profound ignorance of politics) is that in our government, it may be best to vote for a leader who is as radically close to your own ideals as you can get, even if as in Kucinich's, Paul's or Nader's case, it is a policy so extremely different from what's in place that bringing it into actuality is unrealistically far from what can happen in the timespan of one president's allotment of administrations. This is because the inertia of the system can't be effected by a small stick of dynamite--it needs nuclear fission to get the mass moving.

Just my fifty cents.

Edit: Thanks for the links , c.u. Don't go much for political speeches and rallies, but found that one actually more positive than painful, I hope it is also accurate in assessing the ability of all of us to embrace change.

If the democrats nominate the wicked witch of the east, there are only two things that are sure:

1) the republicans will win the election
2) they'll also feel they have even less need for accountability to the public.

@blatantninja: the only thing that's sure about this election is that nothing is sure. A lot can and most certainly will change between now and November.

Re the candidates: I too have a visceral dislike for Clinton and an equally irrational liking for Obama. However, when I look at their stated policies or records, I really can't say which one would be the better president. As to the Republican front runners, my take is that none of them have any intention of addressing the structural problems America is facing, which will simply mean that America continues its long, slow downwards spiral towards Mexico.

(Then again, the Democrats haven't been talking much about the real problems either. Namely, growing income differentials, corporate special interests, health care, Iraq, infrastructure, basic research, and education.)

Prime Junta said:

Re the candidates: I too have a visceral dislike for Clinton and an equally irrational liking for Obama.

Click to expand...

I am feeling the same - but I know that a lot of mine is that I don't think of the Clinton years in a positive way ... and watching her feels like Bush, Jr initially using the growing love for his father and wake of 'Clinton Fatigue' ... but now it is Bill Clinton as 'the good ol' days' ..

Prime Junta said:

As to the Republican front runners, my take is that none of them have any intention of addressing the structural problems America is facing

Click to expand...

After having Mitt Romney as governor I really don't like him - and more importantly deeply distrust him. He is a very smart man, but his managerial style I feel resembles the typical Republican style, which should be 'a team of leaders' but from the 2nd Reagan team on out has been shown as 'decentralized power grabbing and accountability avoidance'. My wife absolutely abhors him.

It's hard to assess Hillary's negatives. I've heard some talking heads claim the Republicans will win if she gets the nomination because of them. Myself, I don't think they're as strong as that.

If the Democrats want to win, she's the one to pick. She has an overwhelming advantage: She's married to Bill Clinton. He may be the best campaigner this country's seen in the last hundred years, and he'll win it for her singlehandedly if it comes to that.

If the Democrats want to lose, they'll pick Obama. He's too new, and there's just no getting around that. By the time the election rolls around, he will have spent the majority of his time as an elected official campaigning for President. The minute he makes his first mis-step, the media will pounce on it:

"Do you think he's too inexperienced?"
"Well, he is awfully inexperienced."
"How inexperienced is he, really?"
"Well, let's compare his inexperience to the inexperience of other people with his same amount of experience."

Click to expand...

John McCain is looking better and better. Around that same time that everyone's finally accepting the fact that Obama is too new, they'll also be accepting the fact that that old fart was right about the troop surge and right about trying to reach a compromise on the illegal-immigration issue.

McCain is someone I originally backed and still feel strongly positive about, but he certainly is looking frail these days and every one of his years and hard knocks is visible in his face. There's no doubt that campaigning for president looks harder than actually being president.

The "old fart" originally said that the surge was not going to be large enough. Now he's among all the Republicans claiming that the surge is working. If you count that the Sunnis have stopped a large part of their insurgency (before the surge mind you), the civil war had slowed down because the ethnic cleansing has largely finished since around a million Iraqis have left in the past year; then yes, the surge has worked.

I used to admire McCain at one time. That was before he embraced W, literally, went to Bob Jones U, flip flopped and caved on much of his straight talk, and has gone from being someone that I used to think spoke truth, to a typical slick, Romney type politician.

I am generally fairly conservative (or at least more social liberal, fiscal conservative), but I have become of the belief that only through a sea change that requires the gutting of every non-elected department can we regain some amount of accountability in the government. Of course, that doesn't guarantee it will be better ... or even work. I just see it as the only way possible.

@Eliaures Thanks for your input--not much good at politics and I hadn't noted your points, just that McC had remained consistent on not pulling out and leaving another pit of partisan chaos in Iraq--if you have a good quick read, feel free to recommend. I leave the room when the election coverage comes on to keep my blood pressure in line.

@Mike--revamping non-elected departments would be a good start. You use one of my favorite descriptive phrases, "sea change"--I think Prime J has talked about the need for American government to be reinvented and I just mentioned the nuclear fission method to jump start change in the system. I think in some ways having things at an all-time peak of screwed-upness might be the only way any of these things is going to happen, in which case we can cheer up because I think we're there.

The system is self-perpetuating. 10 to 12 years ago, there was a cataclysmic shift in Congress, netting a huge influx of fresh faces elected on promises of sweeping reform to reduce lobbyist influence and campaign finances. That lasted all of 6 months. I just don't see a significant change short of us doing 1776 all over again.

The nation needs consistent policies for a couple decades to make any real progress. Given that the masses have an attention span of roughly 4 minutes and less patience, that won't happen. We'll take two steps right at great effort and expense, then have an election and take two steps left at great effort and expense, then have an election...

dte wrote:

The system is self-perpetuating....

Click to expand...

Yes, in some ways it's like a spreading fungus or mold in the plant world--new leaves exposed to it eventually pick it up, curl up and die or function in a sad twisted state--however, nature has a plan about that. There are always certain individuals in a plant population that have a higher resistance. These are the ones that live long enough to reproduce, and perpetuate their resistance. The trick is to select the resistant variety and plant lots of it. Or there's always chemical control, but we probably can't soak congress in fungicide without a few security issues.

Yes, it's very very late and I'm going to bed now.

It's been done before, though. Franklin D. Roosevelt reengineered the entire American system, against enormous opposition from corporate interests. Can it be done again? I don't know -- but I do know that the American public in general must get a lot angrier and a lot more politically active for it to happen.