Salon Letter

[bobquasit]

Last post tonight, I promise!

---

Point
I'm no genius, but when the original Iraq authorization bill came around it seemed totally obvious to me that it was handing George W. Bush a blank check to do exactly what he desperately wanted and needed to do: get this country into a war that would give the Republicans the whip hand over the Dems.

So, what - am I smarter than Hillary? If so, maybe I should run for President.

Alternatively, if she made the calculation that a "no" vote would cause political damage to her future Presidential campaign, then she cynically sold the lives and health of our soldiers - as well as that of untold Iraqis, our national economy, and the Democratic Party itself - for her own personal gain. In which case she belongs in jail, not the White House.

Much like the current residents, come to think of it.

Comments

[klyfix.livejournal.com]

Let's recall that the Republicans gained seats in Congress at that time; war was popular, Saddam really was an evil tyrant, and voting against a possibility of a military attack was a political risk. Having said that, it really didn't help the Democrats who voted for it. Politicians make voting decisions based on political considerations; they've done so ever since there have been politicians. Why did President Clinton sign the "Defense of Marriage" bill? Because he knew it was at base a GOP stunt to rally their base and he played it back at them.

I said way back when that Senator Clinton was the one Democrat who could lose the 2008 election, and from what I've seen lately that's still the case. The poll chart I noted where of the three leading Democrats only Clinton showed a chance of losing and that only to McCain shows that, and I caught a bit on the Chris Matthews Show where of the four panel pundits three said Hillary was the Democrat the Republicans want to run against.

Having said all that, an imperfect and politically cynical Democrat is still superior to any of the Republicans. The Republicans need to be crushed, smashed, squished, folded, spindled, and mutilated. We need an overwhelming victory for the Democratic presidential candidate regardless of who they are, and we need massive victories in the House and Senate. This is not an election year for a third party or write-in candidate just because the Democrat is flawed, even heavily flawed and they'll win one's state anyway. The Republicans need to be utterly humiliated.

Of course that's not going to happen. If Hillary gets the nomination and the Republicans end up with a McCain-Lieberman ticket foolish moderates will probably vote for them while left-leaning folk will vote for some Green party or other third party candidate or will just stay home so the Republicans will end up winning and probably gaining in Congress. The Supreme Court will be packed with hard-core conservatives, the war in Iraq will continue into eternity as President McCain convinces the Republican Congress that we have to have a military draft. The economy will collapse after a new war with Iran cuts off Middle East oil, and the country will split into two or more nations.

So, well, if Hillary is the nominee she still gets my vote. It's like that election in Louisiana when David Duke was the Republican candidate and a slogan for his opponent was "Vote for the crook; it's important." This is too important an election to play games. But for all that, it would be better for the Demos if Hillary Clinton isn't the candidate.

[unquietsoul5.livejournal.com]

The more I see of Hillary, the more I feel that Ralph Nader was right.
There is no difference between the major 'powers' of the two parties. You just need to pick and choose which lesser evils you want, because they'll still give you the same great evils at the top, only the names differ.

[(Anonymous)]

Right, both parties are thoroughly lobbied by the same sources of big money. The coming election is pretty much just an election to choose the rhetorics to be used to herd the ignorant masses for the next four years.