A fair question.
Submitted by mad4clark on December 12, 2007 - 10:49am.
Barack Obama | Chris Dodd | Hillary Clinton | Joe Biden | John Edwards | Democratic politics
So here goes….
First of all, I don’t “love” Hillary Clinton. I admire what she has accomplished in life, but the only person I could ever get behind unequivocally isn’t in the race. So all I am left with is comparisons between those who are running and picking the person I can “live with". I want someone who is willing to fight tooth and nail against the distortions of the RW/MSM machine and who has a 50/50 chance or better of winning....both the nomination and the GE.
I know there are a few on this board who feel that those of us who support Hillary are doing so because we are either following in “lockstep” with General Clark…..or that we are simply delusional, but you are selling us short. There is no doubt that Wes’s endorsement helped tip the balance but I doubt any of us have followed blindly
What do I like about Hillary?
First of all and most important for me is, I think I know what I’m getting with her. She has a long distinguished record of standing up for progressive ideas. Eriposte over at The Left Coaster has done a series of blogs pointing out Hillary myths and comparing her record to others. This one destroys the myth that she is a “corporate” democrat. According to his/her research, Hillary rates a 92% over all voting record compared with 90% for Obama……adjusted for their different longevities in the Senate. Pretty damn close I’d say.
There is no doubt in my mind that she was a big part of the Bill Clinton administration and was involved in many policy decisions. Wes talks about this, and he was in a position to know. But even without Wes’s verification, I suspected as much. In everything I’ve read, Bill is brilliant (the smartest guy in the room Wes calls him) but disorganized. I believe it was Stephanopolis who mentioned in his book how much in disarray the WH was under BC. I think one of the reasons Bill was able to accomplish what he did and he accomplished a whole lot…. was because it was Hillary that kept him on track and focused…..or more so than he would have been without her. So I think that in many ways she could actually turn out to be a better President than he was because she shares his political philosophy and is more disciplined.
But again, I come down to comparisons with the rest of the field.
I could live with Biden, but I don’t think he has a chance of getting the nomination. Same goes for Dodd. Edwards is saying all the right things this cycle but I’m not convinced that his metamorphosis is sincere. Which brings me to Obama…..
I was as thrilled with his speech at the National Convention as everyone else. I remember jumping to my feet and cheering………this man will be President one day! I was filled with hope that he would distinguish himself in the Senate and kick start a change in Washington. He had all the tools……young, energetic, articulate, and had not voted for the Iraq War.
But then reality set in.
He not only didn’t live up to my expectations, his rhetoric started making me very uneasy. From the get go he attacked progressives and progressive ideas. He lectured Democrats on why we should court evangelicals. He went on dKos and argued why voting for Roberts was the right thing to do. He chose Lieberman over Lamont. He is using RW talking points to attack Hillary over….of all things…. social security. I mean, WTH was he during 2005 when we fought and WON the social security battle?
And he is now attacking from the right on health care manadates…..
As Krugman responded…..
Mr. Obama is storing up trouble for health reformers by suggesting that there is something nasty about plans that “force every American to buy health care.”
When I come right down to it, Armando speaks for me when he says….
Barack Obama has a history of attacking progressive voices. See his first strike here, in which he attacked those of us who criticized Dems who voted for Supreme Court Justice John Roberts in 2005.
Snip
The Hillary Clinton campaign, as it has all this year -- attending Yearly Kos, fighting O'Reilly, skipping Fox Debates, etc.-- understands that Dems do not all agree on the issues but welcomes ALL Democratic voices, especially progressive voices.
Barack Obama prefers to attack Democrats instead of fighting for Democrat values against Republicans. Hillary Clinton knows who the REAL fight will be with.
And no, he isn’t a Hillary supporter.
I don’t know what I’m getting with Obama but I suspect the worst. He could be the second coming I guess, or he could be an unmitigated disaster. “Hope” and “change” sound wonderful and he certainly brings in the crowds with this uplifting message, though his campaign events sound more to me like a tent revival meeting,which disturbs me on a whole other level. But what “change”? I have yet to see the details. He talks about “healing the divide between right and left”. How does he plan to do this? We have all seen that the Right’s interpretation of bipartisanship is “doing it my way or the high way” so, what is he going to do? Compromise progressive values? I don’t know, but his campaign rhetoric certainly points that way. Not to mention the fact that I agree with Chomsky when he says that the divide in this country isn’t between “right and left” but between “the public and the power systems, the government and the corporate system."
Apart from two horrible votes, Hillary has been an untiring advocate for progressive ideas for 35 years. Yes she voted for the IWR…..big mistake, imho. She also voted for K/L. another mistake imho…..though General Clark has defended it. But Obama being conveniently absent is nothing to cheer about……especially since he voted yes on exactly the same verbiage earlier. Plus, he has an uncomfortable habit of not voting, or voting “present” on other tough issues.
Bottom line? Obama scares me. I have no idea what he stands for and if elected, I have no hope that he will stand up for Democrats or up to Republicans. With Hillary, I’m pretty sure of what I will get, and I can live with it.
Thanks for reading.
I appreciate you taking the time to express your feelings.
Not to mention the fact that I agree with Chomsky when he says that the divide in this country isn’t between “right and left” but between “the public and the power systems, the government and the corporate system."
Where does your support of Hillary fit with the above statement?
"Some of them put on their cowboy boots and put their feet up on the desk." -Wes Clark
...the link above, you will see that she is no more corporatist than Obama or any other others for that matter.
That said, if Nader would run as a Dem and had a chance of winning, he'd get my vote. But he isn't and doesn't so again, I'm left with choosing amongst those that are in the race. And none of them are Naders.
Edit: I forgot about Kucinich. Yes he is certainly more "Nader like" but there are other things that disturb me about him. And he has absolutely no chance of gaining the WH> Also, I read the other day that the only place he has donated money to this year is the DCCC. None to progressive candidates trying to get into Congress. Just the establishment body of Congress. I can't remember where I read it or I would pull some links....but it left me wondering...
"The Right always knows who its enemies are" Lance Mannion
Among those with a chance at the nomination, Hillary simply represents the best combination of future change and experience. That's on top of what I wrote in the other blog on this subject.
Stan Davis
Lakewood, CO
Wes Clark -- Don't settle for less.
Make America All It Can Be!
I really appreciate your essay, and totally
agree with you. I like Hillary and trust
her above all others in the race now. I
came to this conclusion reluctantly because
I so wanted Wes Clark for President. Thanks
for all the facts and references you have
included.
Ruth, I totally respect and like you, but I
would add that mad has included many facts
in addition to her feelings. And I don't see
any evidence that Hillary has chosen corporate
or government power over the people's interest.
I think that mad's citation of Hillary's
voting record is proof of her actual actions,
as opposed to the accusations otherwise.
Maddy, thanks for having this discussion. And thank both you and Ruth for setting the tone.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but using the links in your diary to eriposte's research, his/her initial intent as I understood it was defending Hillary against the -"Lieberman-lite" meme, included using the progressive punch card. Deciphering the congressional's votes is a real bear...and none of the 'punch cards' I've seen provide the real picture, but admittedly it's a useful tool when 'you've got to start somewhere'.
Is Hillary Clinton a "Corporate Democrat?" - Part 3
eriposte's conclusion included the following:
"...outside of national security and war, Sen. Clinton gets high-to-very-high progressive scores almost across the board.
"...outside of national security and war".
It's those inside-the-war votes that concern me. And while it is no longer the consensus issue in this community, it is a major issue "out there". That it is a major issue out there would be a concern, I would think, to anyone who seriously supports her. If Hillary wins the nomination,
...enter Ralph Nader who has stated firmly that if she wins, he will. Get your game plan on, Hillary supporters. The rest of us will have no choice but to back you up, we can't afford to win by a hair's breadth.
On corporatism tho...among the Dem top-tiers, none have proved themselves 'corporate free' enough for me. I agree with Chomsky on this but I'm unclear of it's use either in support of Hillary or against Obama. It would seem more to make the case for a total coup on our government.
...you gotta know when they argue unabashedly about which of them took the most corporate ca$h,"neener-neener", we're in deep corporate doo doo
"The citizen who sees his society's democratic clothes being worn out and does not cry out is not a patriot but a traitor." -- Mark Twain
I know full well that her IWR vote is a deal breaker for you and many others, and I totally respect that. It bothers the heck out of me too, but I am more worried about the possibility of Obama selling us out to the RW.
And the only reason I brought up the "corporist" issue is that it is one of the slams that Obama (and others) use against her.
As for Nader, if he is as honest as he makes out to be, he will also "get in" if the nominee is Obama.....for there is no difference between them on that count.
I guess when you come down to it, it's who your "gut" tells you to trust. Mine says Hillary, yours says Obama. Either way,we have to be true to ourselves.
"The Right always knows who its enemies are" Lance Mannion
Part of me wonders, with respect, if the premise for this conversation isn't actually erm, bull-baiting.
don't fall for it! heh. :)
As Dorma would say, Bluemoon "Out!"
If she wins, I am sincerely hoping that Hillary's supporters do come up with a rationale for what has been already written on the wall.
...as for Nader, last I heard, he had vowed only to get in if the nominee was hrc. (I do realize that Nader sitting on the sidelines for anyone isn't very good odds.)
Rest easy Blue, unless you incite me, I shan't speak further on this thread.
Believe it or don't, I am appreciative that Maddy and Ruth got it started.
"The citizen who sees his society's democratic clothes being worn out and does not cry out is not a patriot but a traitor." -- Mark Twain
(meant to address you b'fore Blue - wow, it nearly felt like home there for a minute - thanks Maddy)
"The citizen who sees his society's democratic clothes being worn out and does not cry out is not a patriot but a traitor." -- Mark Twain
and to me selecting her as my candidate is a no-brainer. As a person who has made up their mind already & agrees with what Wes has said, I'm not going to keep reiterating the same thing from my point of view over & over. People here are smart & informed enough to make up their own minds. wmcb did a number of stellar posts before she left.
This is a repost from an earlier blog - as my opinion hasn't changed.
This is not the time for amateurs. Considering the particular circumstances in which we find ourselves now and for the foreseeable future, this is not the time for on the job training either.
What's best for the country is to have a team of pros in the White House on the first day of the new administration come January 2009, who know where the light switches are and how to find the bathrooms without an escort. That includes the president and vice president. Given the possibility that the state of the Union, by 2009, may well include us being at war in three separate countries simultaneously, we don't have time for any administration to spend reading "How To Run The Country For Dummies." Currently, there is only one campaign that satisfies that criteria and that's the Clinton campaign. But let me explain myself by reposting the pertinent part of the comment I mentioned above...
If forced to be dispassionate about her, one might consider the following:
In recent posts and comments (all over the blogosphere), I've seen several people refer - quite negatively - to the practice of "triangulation". It seems to bother people more that Hillary may do it than when Bill did it. Maybe because it was a seemingly newer practice when Bill did it. Well, it isn't new, and it isn't bad. It's actually quite smart...unless you happen to be a someone who thinks it's a bad idea to listen to what constituents think and try to find a way to do as they wish. Yep...that's bad. Why would anyone want to have a politician listen to and consider the views of all of their constituents, including, God forbid, non-Democratic ones!
For all the yelling we voters do about our representatives not standing up for what they want, we seem to have a bad habit of forgetting they are supposed to stand up for what we want. I'll take a little more of that triangulation, thanks. Consequently, I am less concerned with whether or not I can trust her personal positions, so long as I can trust she will not further violate the positions of the country.
I'm less concerned she be the smartest person in the room, so long as she is wise enough to surround herself with the smartest people available - even if, and especially if, they are smarter than her. So far, she has demonstrated that wisdom.
I also appreciate that, unlike both Senator Obama and former Senator Edwards, she has paid her political dues by at least completing a full senatorial term before running for the presidency. That demonstrates, at least, that she has some patience. Senators Obama and Edwards haven't seemed to consider that important. To my thinking, deciding to run for president before one has even completed half of one's first senatorial term, demonstrates not patience, not loyalty, not a commitment to obligation, not a desire to restore hope, and certainly not wisdom, but rather a childish egotism.
I'm sorry but I've had enough of a childishly egotistical president in the last seven years to last me a lifetime. I'd like an adult with a modicum of wisdom to be the next president, please. While Sentors Biden and Dodd both qualify as such adults too - they can't win the nomination. She can. And, contrary to my previous opinion of her, and while it will by no means be a cakewalk, she can also win the general election.
"Our public servants work for us - we don't work for them. We have an obligation, as citizens of this country, to always remember that - and to never let them forget it." - DeadMessengers
...to support President and Mrs. Clinton if the two of them are able to overcome the increasingly difficult task that faces them in securing the Democratic nomination.
When I shop for clothes, I am eager to buy two-for-the price of one, even though it may mean (in this example) the vice-presidency won't be worth a scoop of discharge.
Get over it. Hillary will send Bill all over the world. It's best to keep him busy. Nobody overseas cares about his personal life and they love him.
If Mrs. Clinton promises to ban President Clinton from The West Wing, The Cabinet Room, The Situation Room, and the War Room, PLUS sends him overseas for 10 months a year, I'll feel better.
Seriously, I don't like the idea of a co-presidency.
...but we may have already had one....and it worked out fine ;0
"The Right always knows who its enemies are" Lance Mannion
Just a couple of my thoughts along the same line:
We don't know how Barak would have voted for IRW....he was doing his own campaign for the US Senate back in Illinois and wasn't eligible to vote for or against the Iraq war. Hillary wasn't the only Dem that voted "yes", and not for imminent war, but because of the idiotic lies that GW and the neocons sold to the country. How many voters and Congressional members realized they were being duped by the new administration.
The war is here and now.... Most of us want it stopped as soon as, and the best way, possible for the countries and their citizens involved. Time, and unfortunately so does the Bush administration for another few months, marches on. We all hope that he doesn't do anything "stupider" than he already has before his term ends. The only thing we can do now is elect the best "current" candidate who we believe can do what it will take to get this country back on the "left" track. Wes Clark believes that Hillary Clinton is that person. Most of us who have been supporters of General Clark have followed him for several years because we believed he would be the one and only "best" savior, but he has chosen his own way to do what he believes is his most important way of continuing to serve his country. Many of you were here before me...I came in just after "draft Clark". We (nor I) don't believe 'absolutely' everything Wes espouses, and also, so does he not think that absolutely everything Hillary does or has done (IRW & K/L votes) were best, but he's moving on. None of us is perfect. We need to help him forge ahead and corrent the mistakes that were made.
I didn't have an alternate candidate when it was first assumed Wes Clark would run for POTUS, but as it became clearer that he was not going to run, I checked out all the alternatives, and came up with Hillary--just "in case." So, I will support Hillary as best I can, through Wes Clark.
I like your "bullet" points....you target the positives in good detail.
As far as BO's judgment v. experience - or more so, lack thereof - Wes has so aptly made the comment that judgment comes from experience. Barak might be the right candidate several years down the road, depending on what road he travels, what he can accomplish and the kind of resume he can amass. I think he would just be another "figure head" of our government if he is elected and chooses everyone to do the job for which he was elected. I can't go there!
From another post above, Is Hillary a Corporate candidate?
I see this country as a "corporate country"....it has just evolved to that, and unless the wrong person is selected by the electorate, it will probably remain so or progress further. I think many corporations combined to create mega-corporations, is not good for the country....many small businesses (I speak from experience) have been eaten up by larger businesses, which eventually evolve into larger corporations, and on and on....I can't see that trend completely reversing in our lifetimes...but hopefully slowed down.
Off my soapbox...thanks for reading....I'm supporting Hillary and Wes!
she seems to stand for more than just "change" or "new". I agree... you know what you are getting with her and I like that.
I also like her ideas on making college more affordable and creating universal preschool. I think she's the candidate to really overhaul education in this country as compared to the other candidates.
I agree with General Clark that she's tough and she'll be able to take whatever people throw at her.
Oh... and this is interesting:
She is the more electable candidate...
Entire story via Fox here.