![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Salon Letters: Hillary
For some reason two of my letters in Salon on this topic were selected as "editors choice". Here's the thread. I've replaced various other user names with variations on [user], to protect their privacy - silly though that is, since the posts are public on Salon. This will be quite long, by the way! There's also a bit of repetition, both within the thread and from other stuff I've written here. I do try to improve my points over time, though. For example, I much preferred "fucking" to "sleeping with" - it's funnier. But I can only use "fucking" in places where I know it won't be deleted for it. 
Goodbye, Super Tuesday
The thread seems to have died at at point - no one has responded since.
Tomorrow I'll try to post some stuff from Askville - it's much more varied.
Goodbye, Super Tuesday
Scenario: Confusion
So here's what's puzzling me.
If neither Hillary nor Obama wins sufficient delegates in the primaries and caucuses to win the nomination outright, and the whole thing goes to the Democratic convention, what then? What are the scenarios?
If the superdelegates decide it, but give it to the candidate who came in second in terms of primary/caucus votes OR elected delegates (recognizing that there can be a difference), how will the rank & file take that? And how will ordinary voters take to having the Party hierarchy make the decision for them? I realize that that was how it was done for a long time, but these days the people are used to being the ones to select the nominees. Having the party leadership decide seems ironically anti-democratic.
And given the absolutely miserable record of performance for the vast majority of the Democratic Party leadership, the thought of leaving the choice up to them is one that makes this Democrat uncomfortable.
If...
[user], I'm not a member of the cult of Obama. I supported Edwards, out of the three top-tier candidates.
That said, since it seems that my primary vote will be a choice between Obama and Clinton, Obama gets my vote. I don't trust him, and I fear that if he were to win he'd end up being the Jimmy Carter of the 21st century; not the near-saint Carter of recent years, but the hapless Carter of his presidency.
That said, if Hillary gets the nomination, for the first time in my life this life-long proud Democrat will NOT vote for the Democratic nominee. The only other candidate I've ever said that about is Joe Lieberman, by the way, and I think history has proven me right on that assessment.
I won't vote for McCain, of course, but I'll either find a decent third-party candidate to vote for or I'll write in someone I respect.
Why won't I vote for Hillary? Because I'm quite sure that Hillary will be the George W. Bush of the Democratic Party. Her nomination will be the greatest gift the Republicans could ever hope for, which is why they've been pushing for her to win the nomination all along.
And I will not be a party to the suicide of my party and - I fear - my country. These are times of incredible peril, not only for the United States, but for our species. We need another FDR. Senator Clinton isn't even another Bill Clinton. Her secrecy, triangulating, and contempt for the American voter makes her a train wreck waiting to happen.
[A subliterate user suggested that I was a stupid elitist (while misspelling my name and writing like - well, you'll see a quote below).]
"Elite"?
Thanks for the chuckle, [subliterate user]. Sitting here on my mink-lined chaise lounge, sipping mimosas served on bended knee by my impeccable silver-haired butler, I - wait a minute!
Actually I'm a corporate cube-monkey, trapped within four gray, gray walls. I spend my minuscule free time worrying about how to pay the mortgage and figuring out which bills can be put off until next month - without having the lights or the gas turned off, that is.
And no, I don't have a plumber, electrician, or gardener.
I'm not sure where this fantasy of the fabulous elite came from, but I can assure you: they are not a numerous clan, and I am not counted among their number. As I said before, I'm not in the Obama "cult"; he gets my vote out of Hobson's Choice. But since Obama is giving Senator Clinton a strong run for her money (without having her advantage of the support of the majority of the Democratic Party hierarchy) clearly his supporters DO include "lunchbox" people.
(Incidentally, I don't have a lunch box. They cost money. If I have lunch at all - which is rarely, because money is tight - I use a plastic supermarket grocery bag. They're free. Except at the discount supermarket my family shops at most often, which charges for every bag. But I digress.)
"i sincerly urge all of you obama supporters urge your candidate to open up communiction with hillary and for him to accept the VP..."
How generous of you! I'm sure Senator Clinton would be happy to forgo the primaries. But the race isn't over, not by a long shot. Obama might as well offer Hillary the VP slot. Although he'd be a fool to do so, because she's electoral poison.
Karl Rove and the Republicans have been angling for Hillary to get the Democratic nomination from day one. That's not because they think she'd be the best candidate for the nation! No, it's because they're pretty sure that they can beat her, and that the hatred they've been building up against her will bring millions of ignorant rednecks to the polls to sweep in Republican majorities in the House and Senate.
Do you think our nation and our world will survive another eight years of untrammelled Republican neocon rule? I don't.
"vote for substance and not the fluff."
Oh, please! Hillary has had half a term more as Senator than Obama. Neither one is highly experienced, as such things go. Unless you count sleeping with the President as experience. In which case, let's vote for Marilyn Monroe for President!
Her role as First Lady may have been more activist than most. Nonetheless, it was unelected, and the extent of her activities are unknown - in part because she and her husband won't release the records.
The whole "experience" argument is a joke. FDR was relatively inexperienced when he became President. So was Bill Clinton, for that matter - the governor of a mostly-rural state? People laughed.
So please don't try to push the "experience" line. If experience were the main concern, we'd be voting for Dick Cheney. The President has people who help him or her deal with the reins of power; his/her task is to serve as chief executive. There is no requirement for "experience", and history has shown that character, intelligence, and vision matter far more.
[Someone wrote that it might be good if the superdelegates decided the issue at the Democratic convention, because they're "professionals".]
"Professionals"?!?
Anonymous wrote:"...if the superdelegates decide it, it means that the electorate did not decisively choose a candidate.
In that case, maybe it is better that they are decided by the professionals."
You mean, like the wonderful, competent professionals who thought that John Kerry could win, and shouldn't bother to respond to the Swift Boat ads? The professionals who decided it wasn't worth fighting in Florida in 2000? The professionals who lost Congress for so many years, and who have been busily falling over backwards to give Bush and Cheney whatever they want?
You know, the "professionals" who were totally helpess when they were in the minority in Congress, and are totally helpless now that they're in the majority? The ones who couldn't stand up for a core Democratic principle to save their lives?
Please, tell me more about those incredible professionals!
[The original article mentioned that the next President would be a Senator. This was phrased a little oddly, so that at first reading it seemed to imply that Hillary was sure to win. Someone commented on that, and then someone else pointed out that all three major candidates at the moment are US Senators. I followed up: ]
Senator, unless...
To [smart user]: unless Bloomberg gets in and wins it. An extremely long shot, though, so I think that Walter was justified in writing it the way he did. On the other hand, I'll admit that his formulation caused me to stop and scratch my head for a moment, too.
Or rather, I beckoned to my impeccable silver-headed butler and had HIM scratch my head for me. Using a mink-lined designer head-scratcher, of course! :D
[Someone else said that if Obama "stole" the election, s/he and many of her friends would never vote for him and might well vote for McCain instead.]
The Proverbial Cleft Stick
To [Obama-hating user]:
So you and like-minded Hillary supporters will turn into Republicans if Obama gets the nomination (note: "steals" it? What, does Hillary own the nomination?).
Contrariwise, I will not vote for Senator Clinton if she gets the nomination (although unlike you, I will not vote Republican). There are other anti-Hillary Democrats who feel the same way, I know.
So it would seem that the Democratic Party is screwed once again. If Obama gets it, they lose you and may lose some of the women's vote. If Clinton gets it, they lose me and probably some of the black vote. Either way, John McCain and Karl Rove must be very, very happy right now.
I have no solution to offer, unfortunately. I'm merely pointing out the problem. Maybe someone else can see a way out.
[The conversation continued...]
The Experience Line
To [Obama-hating user (the same one)]:
I see that you hate Obama as much as I hate Clinton. But seriously, this claim that she's a paragon of "experience" seems really questionable. She's in the first year of her second term as Senator, while Obama is in the middle of his first term. That's not a large difference.
Unless you count fucking the President as "experience", which Hillary supporters apparently do. But I don't think that that kind of experience is communicable via spermatozoa.
I'm sure she worked on some policy issues as First Lady (including kneecapping Al Gore, apparently). But she was unofficial, unaccountable, unelected, and secret. She and her husband won't release the documentation of her time in the White House, so the public has no way to verify her claims.
And let's take a look at her experience in the Senate. She played the chump for George W. Bush, voting to give him authority to start the war in Iraq. I don't know about you, but to me it was totally obvious at the time that that vote handed Bush and Cheney the greatest gift imaginable: a long-term war that would rally the public behind them, enabling them to beat the Democrats to death as "weak on national security", securing Republican electoral dominance through 2006, and allowing them to loot the Treasury through crooked defense contracts.
That was obvious to me, and to others - including some in the media. But Clinton still voted for the Iraq authorization. Which brings me to this question: was she stupid? Did Bush, the dim bulb of the Bush family, trick this so-wonderful, so-brilliant woman?
If so, she's not qualified to babysit dogs, much less hold public office. That level of gullibility is absolutely unacceptable in the White House.
Or perhaps she took a long, cold look at the vote, and reasoned that if she voted against it, the Republicans would use that vote to label her as unpatriotic in this Presidential election.
In which case, she cold-bloodedly sold the lives of thousands of American soldier as well as untold numbers of Iraqis, allowed hundreds of thousands of people to be maimed, and CRIPPLED the Democratic Party for HER OWN POLITICAL ADVANTAGE.
There's a word for that. Treason.
Either way, that vote alone should disqualify her for higher office. Throw in her support of the Iran "terrorist" bill (yet another invitation to Bush to start a phony war), the flag-burning bill, and her support of the 2001 bankruptcy bill - one of the most vicious bills ever leveled at the working class - and you have someone who shouldn't be allowed within a hundred miles of Washington D.C.
"Experience" like that is the last thing America needs. We've had enough of it from Bush.
[Another user suggested that everyone use logic and vote for the eventual Democratic nominee, whoever it might be, because McCain would be so much worse.]
My logic...
Agreed, McCain would be worse. As I said, I'll never vote Republican - ever (it's [Obama-hating user] who is thinking of supporting McCain). I'll admit that I might be a little more conflicted if I didn't know that my state would go Democratic even if the Democratic candidate were a small lump of green putty.
But logic is exactly why I won't vote for Hillary - because if the Democratic Party keeps putting up candidates like her, they'll keep losing. And given her support for the Iraq war, and for the (possible) Iran war, and her refusal to ever admit that she was wrong about authorizing the war, and her opposition to single-payer health care, and her support of the bankruptcy bill, and my very strong suspicion that she will carry on the privacy-violating and government secrecy policies of the Bush Administration - hell, I wouldn't be surprised at all if she continued the black-ops CIA prison sites and torturing policies - well, there's no way my conscience would allow a vote for someone like that.
Of course, if I lived in a state where my vote mattered, I'd be more anguished over this decision. But since my vote doesn't matter, I can try to send a message that candidates like Hillary simply won't do.
We can do much better.
America NEEDS much better leaders.
And logic tells me that if we don't let the parties know that, they'll just keep foisting the same incompetent, corrupt hacks on us over and over. We've seen what that does to the country. It has to stop.
The thread seems to have died at at point - no one has responded since.
Tomorrow I'll try to post some stuff from Askville - it's much more varied.
no subject
Basically, if Clinton is going to get the nomination she has to get it honestly and with delegates chosen by the People, not getting a cheap win from party insiders.
no subject
But it seems that the superdelegates will be making the decision. I imagine Bill is going crazy, lobbying them like mad.
no subject
I would kind of expect that the Clinton camp would be not seeing the forest for the trees and would be trying to get Superdelgates even if a win that way despite more elected Obama delegates would be a disaster not just for the nominee but for the rest of the Democratic party (unless of course the masses actually don't give a fig, which is entirely possible).