Why THIS woman will never vote for Hillary Clinton
Many of you probably haven't heard from me before, as I haven't posted a story on this blog for quite some time. And, since I've been kind of "off" the whole idea of political blogging for many months now, you may not hear from me again any time soon. I mean, just basic writer's block is tricky enough to overcome, and then you add on top of that the peculiarities of writing for blog consumption. Write, read the couple sentences you've written, and think of all the rhetorical smackdowns you have to look forward to as your reward for finally finishing this post. I don't know about you, but that makes me feel less than motivated to go to the effort of writing out my thoughts. Sure, there's a possibility that someone somewhere will read my words and be affected in a positive way, but I may never know that. What I will find out--swiftly-- is who disagrees with me, and how much of an idiot they think I am. Debate, frankly, not my thing. I'm not good at it, and I don't enjoy it. I mean, I'd love to engage in a thoughtful, respectful exchange of ideas, but when it turns into the written equivalent of a fist fight, you can count me out.
The only reasons I'm writing now is that A) someone, once upon a time actually entrusted me with the keys to this place, and B) it occurs to me that, as a woman who has no intention of casting a vote for Hillary Clinton, ever, maybe I should say something about why.
My blog name, by the way, is an artifact from 2003, when I first started doing regular commenting on political blogs. Specifically, on the official Dean for America blog. There were a number of other people named "Renee" who posted comments, so we added "from" or "in" wherever to avoid confusion. Eventually, since people knew me by that name, I ended up using that same name on different blogs for the sake of consistency. Admittedly, posting as "Renee in Ohio" on an Ohio blog, might seem a bit daft. But I didn't even know what the Ohio political blogs were until I met several local bloggers at a Howard Dean/DNC event two years ago.
The reason this is worth mentioning now is that it was specifically the Howard Dean campaign, with its "You have the power!" message that roused me out of my political slumber. I had never been involved in politics before, or even followed the headlines closely enough to know who the major players were. The Dean campaign, it seemed, offered an alternative to "politics as usual". But, obviously, "politics as usual" was not going to give up without a fight. Before that campaign, I was blissfully ignorant of a lot of political realities. These days, sometimes I wish I had taken the blue pill, but realistically, there's no going back. Mind you, I don't think I'll ever get as personally invested in a campaign as I was in the Dean campaign, but I don't think it's possible to completely return to the mindset that politics was Somebody Else's Problem.
So anyway, about Hillary. First of all--and this should go without saying--I find the notion that I should "check my reproductive organs and vote accordingly" to be both absurd and insulting. I don't "identify" with the senator from New York in any way, because she is consistently at odds with my core values.
Last year, someone I know went to hear Hillary Clinton speak at a fundraiser for the Ohio Democratic Party. He was very impressed with her speech, and went on about how inspiring it was. I commented that I was unable to support her because of her repeated, calculated refusal to admit that her vote on the Iraq war resolution had been a mistake. My acquaintance said, "Oh, you have to get over that!"
No, I most certainly do not have to get over that! I mean, this is basic, basic stuff. We all make mistakes. The important thing is to have the humility to admit that, and to learn from your mistakes so that you don't repeat them. I expect this of my kids...why should I expect less of my elected officials? And what's more, refusing to ever admit you were wrong is not a sign of "strength". It is, on the contrary, a dangerous weakness, and I don't believe America can afford another president who stubbornly refuses to ever admit a mistake.
Finally, my main reason for opposing Hillary is one that Booman has been able to put into words better than I ever could...
The Clintons' foreign policy team is atrocious. And that tells me what I need to know. It tells me a lot that James Carville and Paul Begala want to throw Howard Dean out at the DNC and replace him with DLC chairman Harold Ford Jr. It tells me a lot that the Clintons' surrogates use nasty campaign tactics.
I could go on at great length about my problems with the Clintons and their gang over the years, but the real point is that Hillary Clinton isn't one person that we might choose to vote for over some other person. Hillary Clinton is at the center of a movement within the Democratic Party. She has studiously distanced herself from the DLC policy shop, but DLC people have all endorsed Clinton. People like Terry McAuliffe are still the face of her campaign. Mark Penn is her campaign manager. These are the people that are going to win if Hillary wins. While some people celebrate the novelty of having our first female president, the government and the party apparatuses will be staffed with DLC corporate hacks and wannabes.
More about Carville and Begala here. Those two, in my opinion, represent everything that is wrong with politics. So does Harold Ickes, with his recent, jaw-droppingly honest assertion that the will of the voters is irrelevant. He's a member of Team Clinton as well.
Sorry, Hillary, but this is one Ohio woman whose vote you won't be getting. Not even in the general election.
I agree completely. Look, I wanted everyone associated with the decision to invade Iraq either to resign or be forced out. Everyone from the president to Rumsfeld to every congressperson who voted for this war's authorization. Instead, everyone gets reelected. There is absolutely no accountability for this atrocious mistake at any level. Why, would I let Hillary off the hook for the part she played in this decision (especially since she hasn't denounced her vote). It has been 28 years of Clinton and Bush in the executive branch. Each year the partisanship gets worse and worse. I'm tired of it. I look forward to voting for a female president some day soon, but it won't be this election and it won't be this candidate. www.donttripoverthisblog.blogspot.comLisa, the point is that it was the *wrong* decision to make. It was a judgment call on probably the most important vote of her life and she BLEW IT. Mealy-mouthed half-excuses about "if I had known then what I know now" don't cut it with a lot of voters. This is especially damning since her admission that she didn't take the time to read the intelligence brief before casting her vote.
This is competence? This is experience? I thought Clinton was supposed to be the candidate of substance who knows issues inside and out. Her record speaks differently when it comes to her vote for the war resolution. I can't support that, and I can't believe people who don't support the war defend that.
I suppose you have a list of the huge group of Politicians who voted against the war. I will never understand how people forget. Don't they remember what a vote against Bush and the war did to individuals who stood up. Shit, do you remember Dan Rather and Bill Moyers. The Neocon, redneck and moron war hungry SOBs would run your ass straight to hell.
I see individuals on TV almost Kissing Sec. Powell and that worthless bastard is as bad or even worst the Bush/Cheney. He lied to the whole world and convinced a few countries to even commit their sons and daughters to worthless war and in many cases even Death.
Lisa,
You are right about crystal balls. None of us have them. What we do have is a record of the past, and insofar as past actions are any indication for future ones, then let them be your guide. Hillary has constantly tried to sell herself based on her experience, her record, her competence. I think it is entirely legitimate to hold her feet to the fire then on these very things, especially when she couldn't even be bothered to read the intelligence briefing before casting her vote.
In point of fact, I do think Obama will handle himself better. Why? He was right about Iraq from the beginning. He gave voice to the very things I was thinking when no other political voice* was. What matters most is judgment. Every situation is different. Military engagements aren't paint-by-numbers scenarios. There is no book one can memorize on how to be a successful military leader. Experience is only valuable insofar as it refines one's judgement, because it is that wisdom to look at a situation in its entirety and know the right course of action to take that matters most.
When it came to the Iraq war Clinton failed that test. It's not wrong to hold her accountable. My only regret is that we can't more politicians accountable.
*EDIT: To be fair, there were others who spoke out against the war, but I do remember Obama specifically. I still remember that line of his in 2002 about dumb wars:
"That's what I'm opposed to. A dumb war. A rash war. A war based not on reason but on passion, not on principle but on politics."
Judgment like that I can put my trust in.
http://www.barackobama.com/2002/10/02/remarks_of_illinois_state_sen.php
Right before Super Tuesday, I was very close to deciding towards Obama, but I had my doubts. I also noticed that there was absolutely no real vetting of Obama as a candidate. The MSM was essentially giving him a pass, and any criticism by the Clinton campaign came off as ham handed and racially charged.
I'm leaning towards Clinton, only because I still have grave concerns about Obama's candidacy. I've blogger in her behalf to try to provide the try of criticism and vetting I think voters should (and have not) been giving him.
I'm not sure what fuels this belief that Hillary will be tougher on neocons? Her record of careful triangulation suggest that she wouldn't.
In any event, intention will only get you so far. There must be political power behind those intentions for any meaningful action to follow. I think one of the more attractive aspects of Obama's candidacy is the huge groundswell that is necessarily (necessary because he hard to start from scratch) propelling him forwards. That groundswell is going to help down ticket too. The huge funding machine will help too. He's going to have the power to help monetarily with critical congressional contests.
We don't want to just take away the presidency from these people. We want to deny them the congressional seats too. It's that sort of crushing defeat on all fronts that will give Washington the sort of power necessary to completely cast off any remnants of governance from the last 8 years.
that "crushing defeat." Which is why it drives me to distraction when I hear conciliatory noises from Barack. If I "knew" he recoiled in horror from all things conservative and committed to destroying the corporate-fascist who highjacked this country I'd feel a lot better about him.
I "know" Hillary thinks people like Rush Limbaugh are truly dangerous -- she's said so. And if somehow she were to get the nomination, I would expect -- no, demand that team Obama get behind her and OUR cause 100%. No matter who is leading, we're ALL in the same boat.
It's really disheartening to see democrats say they won't vote for her under any circumstances whatsoever. I see the same thing with regard to Obama from Hillary supporters, and even some disaffected Edwards folks who wish a pox on both of them. I really hate seeing that level of internecine warfare.
I think Hillary and Barack approach this with two fundamentally different styles.
Hillary adheres to the highly partisan politics we are well acquainted with. From her we can expect very charged, divisive rhetoric especially when speaking to her base. This comes at the cost of driving Independents and even some disillusioned Republicans away from her. This is why I think a Clinton win in the general would be relatively close. She won't have a landslide victory. Republicans, especially the nasty, partisan kind are salivating for this sort of an election even if it comes at the cost of their defeat because it will jump start their run to the 2012 election. Nothing will benefit Rush Limbaugh greater than another 4 years of Clinton in office. This is how these people think.
Obama, on the other hand, isn't conciliatory. I think he aspires to be post-partisan. That's why he talks about the transformational presidencies of JFK and Reagan. He wants to make partisans like Limbaugh IRRELEVANT, and the way you do that is by winning in huge elections, by sweeping in lots of democrats into office along with you. Obama has this potential. It's possible for me to imagine Limbaugh and people like him gradually losing audience during an Obama presidency as less and less people are willing to lend credence to his outrageous positions. That's something I could never imagine happening with Hillary in power.
Susan, I'm under no illusions that the right-wing attack machine will do what they always do.
What I am arguing is that Obama has the ability to blunt their attacks in a way Hillary never can. Neither candidate can offer you a guarantee of a victory. What Obama can offer is the shot at a landslide victory where the Limbaughs of the world are shown to be impotent because their style of partisan politics are utterly rejected. A lot of this has to due not only with Obama the candidate but also the timing of this election: the disarray of the Republican base, the horrid preceeding presidency, the willingness of the populace to coalesce around a change candidacy.
I don't think partisanship is going to magically go away. I do think we have an opportunity to steal some of its power. I'm so very sick and tired of this ridiculous notion that the country is somehow "center-right". An Obama victory that comes in a landslide would shatter that myth.
Since you've seen many elections, then no doubt you will recall that primaries in both parties have often been very acrimonious. So far, this contest has been fairly civil if rather long.
I simply cannot agree that there is NO reason to look for a landslide. I put it into bullet format:
I'm sure the Republicans will get their act together by the time of the general election. What they won't have is enthusiastic backing of their candidate. They won't have an energized base. This is why you hear so many partisans praying for a Hillary candidacy. It's a sad day indeed for Republicans when you hear their own people praying for a democrat to unite their own party.
As a veteran of prior elections, I'm also sure you will know that a landslide victory doesn't mean winning every state in the union. What it will mean though is winning over those so-called purple states and contesting red states. We need to force Republicans to fight on their own ground. They need to be put on the defense. Obama can do this.
In the SC primary Obama gathered more votes for himself than all of the republicans combined. And this is in a red state. Will this mean that he wins it in the general? Probably not, but it does mean that republicans are going to have to spend resources to defend this state (and many others like it, SC is exceptional but not an exception) that they wouldn't need to ordinarily. That means less resources to go on the attack in purple states like Missouri, Virginia, Wisconsin, Ohio, Iowa, etc.
Susan,
This long primary season has its pros and cons.
The downside as you have expressed comes in the form of anxiety over the health of the party and its chances in the Fall.
The upside is that you, as an Ohio voter, actually have a say this year over who will be the nominee. So you don't just have to passively settle for whichever candidate other democrats select for you. You will have a decisive vote this year.
I agree that we do need to win. I also agree that foreign policy is perhaps the single most important issue. Obama has demonstrated to me the kind of judgment I want from our next President.
A worry if you will. Not necessarily a "reason" to vote one way or another, just a factoid to keep in mind. I did the math on this the other day and wrote about it at my blog. It's a reality check, nothing more
http://displib.blogspot.com/2008/02/bring-it-bama.html
If Hillary maintains her lead in TexOhPenn, and you add in the states she already won -- she is closer to an electoral college win than Obama. Very close in fact. (Big if) But if she were to win these 15 or 16 states in the general, she's within 5 electoral college votes of winning -- what you can expect from the proportional allocation of electors in Maine and Nebraska. (N.Mex wasn't in when I wrote it.)
She will NOT win all these states, nor would I expect Obama to. That's not what I'm saying. But what it does indicate is that Obama has more ground to make up in the big prizes he MUST win in the general.
However, if enough disillusioned Obama supporters stay home and the Independents swing to McCain if Hillary wins, her advantage in these states disappears. Which of course puts HillObama ... even again.
Honestly, I really like them both, a lot. For me, every advantage one has is countered by a quality the other displays. Neither are perfect, and neither deserved some of the crap I've seen hurled at them.
All the trends and polls indicate a massive democratic win this year, but after New Hampshire, I'm a bit gunshy on making any predictions. We've got a lot of work ahead no matter who wins the Primaries.
The fact that they are both so close this deep into primary season indicates to any casual observer that both are very good candidates. I guess it comes down to whether a top-down, party-centric method will take the lead or if a true bottom-up, grassroots campaign can go all the way. Come the general election, we will need both working together.
I've never bought the idea that Obama would somehow not be able to deliver the "big states" in the general election. California or New York somehow flips red this November? That strikes me as utterly preposterous regardless of who the Democratic nominee is. Can you honestly imagine Massachusetts or New Jersey deciding that this year -- all history, all polls aside -- they'll punch the big R on the ticket for president?
I can't either.
Furthermore, if you are going to do your math, you should subtract Texas from the win column in the general. Neither Obama nor Hillary can deliver that state. It's the Republican version of California.
Let me reiterate: the battle is for the purple states. It's for those states that are barely red or barely blue. Which of these two candidates can deliver in these battle ground states? To me, the answer is fairly obvious for the reasons I have already stated.
On a separate note, Mark, I completely agree with your characterization of top-down versus bottom-up campaign. I think it's healthiest for the party in near-term and long-term to choose the people-centric campaign.
It is preposterous to posit with a staight face that Obama would struggle to win NY or Cali in the general.
Obama has the ability to pick up states Hillary likely cannot: Virginia, Missouri, West Virginia, Kentucky, Colorado.
Susan, it's been a *long* time since I was accused of being a virgin :-)
My goal on this site is to try to stop the wingnuts-in-disguise from climbing onboard their swiftboats. When I see deliberate disinformation, I'll try to put out enough info to let people come to their own decisions before the stupidity become entrenched. I'm definitely pro-Obama, but I'm not here to be anti-HRC.
That said, you can't ask people to tone down the rhetoric and come together when you refer to a person's favorite candidate as "teh awesome". I realize the HRC meme du jour is to try to make all Obama supporters into mindless zombies who blindly follow their cult leader. It's not true, but when did a little reality trump a good line?
I promise to not call HRC shrewish, shrill or castrating if you don't bring out the "Obama is God" crap.
when you're fighting the Republicans.
Come on. I'm just poking a little fun.
You might not realize this, but I'm not emotionally invested in either camp, and as a result, I can laugh at the silliness coming out of both sides. And you'd better have a sense of humor about all of this AND your role in it or you're going to burn out FAST. The crap in politics can really wear a person down.
We're all on the same side here, and unfortunately, in the heat of the race, we need frequent reminders of that fact. No one here is the enemy.
My skin is thick enough to handle Republicans. I wouldn't be checking under the bridges for trolls if it weren't. But I think you may misunderstand quite a bit if you continue thinking of everything as "us vs the antichrist". Political strategies will be adopted by most candidates until they stop working. Then the lemmings will run off after the next potential winning strategy. Therefore the only way to change the strategies is to make them no longer effective. You can keep chasing the strategy of villifying the others, trying to unite everyone to your one view and winning a 50%+1 victory. You can say it comes from experience and anyone who disagrees is callow or untested. And you can keep saying that until a new strategy wins.
I hate the idea of 50+1. I want better for America. That doesn't make me a virgin. It makes me willing to work to change the current paradigm.
That's a remarkably coherent statement. Thank you for coming back with it.
Lisa,
We heard the same assurances from George Bush's 2000 campaign about how he would surround himself with experts. Obviously, that didn't work out so well. You can have all the experts in the world. If you don't listen to them, if you don't read intelligence briefings before making a decision, it is meaningless.
You bring up management as well. Hillary's campaign performance has not made a good case for her managerial talents. Patti Solis Doyle blew more than $30 million during Clinton's Senate reelection even though she faced no serious opposition. Her donor based was furious. Don't take my word for it, though, here is the New York Times story. She didn't replace Solis Doyle, no, she kept her on for this campaign. Surprise, Hillary has again faced funding problems. This is the kind of management that rewards loyalty over performance. Who does that remind you?
You still haven't addressed my point that Hillary failed to read the intelligence brief before casting her vote. There was evidence within that brief and plenty elsewhere that countermanded what Bush and crew were saying. I never fell for it, and I had a lot less access to information than she did. Furthermore, no, we don't "have to believe somehow in the organization and the facts as they are presented". We have a right to be skeptical, to ask questions, to challenge conventional wisdom. In fact, I think it is one's duty to do so when serving in public office. I expect that of my elected leaders and so should everyone.
Finally, your last line on the present votes is a bit of a cheap shot, but I'll humor you and address it. Why is it a cheap shot? Because members of the Illinois Congress (right and left) and members of the press who are familiar with the workings of that state have gone on the record repeatedly to explain that a "present" vote is a way of expressing support for the aim of a bill while signaling that there is something technically wrong with it, or it can also signal a kind of a protest to rules or procedures. But, hey, don't take my word for it here is an AP article about it. I don't think Obama is perfect or that he has never made a mistake, but I do think your characterization (for obvious reasons) doesn't tell the whole story.
About as credible as quoting Charles Krauthammer like Christines.
Better yet, why not give us the link to GOP HQs so we can all discover the TRUE story about Barack Obama?
Say "G'night" Lisa1952...
Although I become disappointed when Dems quote right-wing or Rovian talking points to tear down a fellow Dem.
The race is over Lisa, and if you want to support John McCain for President, choose that at your, and the country's peril.
Life's to short to throw a hissy-fit just because your candidate BLEW the race that was hers to win.
You should point your rage at the 3 men who did your candidate in: Mark Penn, Howard Wolfson, and Bill Clinton.
Try checking out a source that lays out what's at stake for the party by continuing a scorched-earth campaign against the likely Democratic nominee:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/paul-loeb/how-much-damage-will-clin_b_87884.html
They believe he gives us the last best hope to change the direction in Washington and give the power back to the people.
Moreover, they're disgusted by the negative campaign Hillary Clinton has run. We all voted for and defended the Clintons in the 90s; not anymore.
Instead of going out with class; and mark my word, Hillary Clinton will not be the Democratic nominee; she has diminished her legacy, perhaps forever.
supporters "fools" in an earlier post. That means you will not convince anyone here of your position. That means your presence is pointless. That means you are a troll.
Buh bye.
I am glad that racial tensions are better than they were. It appears that Sexism is alive and well in America. Even though other countries have had women leaders, . I've read where so many men will never vote for a woman. Hatred of Hillary is something I cannot understand. What has she done to make people so against her. I think she is ready for this job. Not to say Obama isn't very smart, let him learn more. I guess we will NEVER see a Black woman for US president. IT'S A SHAME HOW WE PICK AND CHOOSE OUR BIGOTRY.
Bull. Racism and sexism are both still alive. You want an interesting take, ask a black woman which is harder. Just because Obama is handling the issue better than HRC doesn't mean racism is dead any more than it means being female is a dead end career.
And weren't half the neocons out there crying for a Rice For President campaign this election cycle?
'You should point your rage at the 3 men who did your candidate in: Mark Penn, Howard Wolfson, and Bill Clinton.'
No one did Hillary Clinton in but Hillary Clinton. However, Mark Penn will now be the new sacrifice of the Keystone Klintons. The stupidity, in which this campaign has been run, however, rests with the candidate. Not even the best strategist can make a silk purse out of a sow’s ear and I mean no disrespect to sows when I compare them to Hillary. She simply is all hype, is clearly not educable, and has no experience that would help her run the government. If she can't control her paid minions what would she do with a split/hostile congress? I don't believe her obsession to be president is reason enough to elect her. Now if it were Barbara Boxer, Olympia Snow, Dianne Feinstein, or any other qualified woman this would be a different contest. Hillary is a perfect example of ' it's not what you know but who' and it is amazing how far she's gone on this hype. Yet WHAT EXPERIENCE DOES SHE HAVE? She is running on the experience of another and while Bill was brilliant, creative and well educated Hillary is merely well educated. She is so scripted that if its not planned she's paralyzed. I've seen Bill Clinton in action and she is no Bill Clinton. If she runs the government the way she has run her campaign, we better all start learning Arabic.
But if I've offended the die hard Hillary fans who actually believe her lies I submit the following: Hillary has done everything and has been all things to all people. She has single-handedly brought peace to Ireland, Knows more about the Middle East and everything else that anyone ever did in the history of the galaxies. We speak of her reverently and only in superlatives and they are wholly inadequate to describe the wonder that is she. She is, as they used to describe Barbarossa’s grandson Fredrick the second, ‘il stupor mundi’, the wonder of the world and that, too, is insignificant. If she were Catholic it would be redundant to canonize her for she is a saint, an angel and let’s admit it a god: She is the new trinity. Well, she’s something alright.