May 10, 2005
-
(UPDATE 8:23 pm: Thanks everybody for the great discussion and I say Vive la Revolution!)TUESDAY POLITICS
I know it’s been 6 months since the election and politics is pretty much a dead subject here on Xanga, so I expect this will not generate much interest, but I read the remarks below on a forum I visit and thought they were worth sharing. I’ve been getting the definite impression that Hillary Clinton is not only going to run in the next Presidential election but that she may even have a chance of winning. It really pisses me off that when we finally get a woman candidate for this highest office she seems to be selling out to the corporate right just like almost every other politician these days. Maybe I’m wrong – maybe there’s nothing to worry about. Maybe you know something I don’t. Until I hear different, I’m going to be afraid – very afraid.
The leading and most probable Democratic Presidential candidate for 2008 is Hillary Clinton. She has always been unabashedly pro-Iraq war and occupation. Her move to the redefined center is in other areas.
Her most notorious retreat is on her previous pro-choice position. Once almost the very symbol of feminism, Hillary has betrayed feminism many times over. Her role as an enabler of Bill’s infidelities was a harbinger of things to come. On 01-24-05, Hillary gave a speech commemorating the anniversary of the Roe v. Wade decision [01-22-73]. In it, she advocated a goal of reducing the number of abortions to zero. Her solution for teenage pregnancy is celibacy buttressed by “religious and moral values.” How lovely. Bush gave us the faith-based initiative. Hillary plans to give us a faith-based war on teenage pregnancy. She may yet win over the Christian fundamentalists.
Many have observed that Hillary, though a controversial figure to some, would potentially capture 50% of the vote at the outset of a Presidential run. Some have even speculated that she won’t run for reelection as Senator in 2006 to prevent having to vote on controversial issues from 2007 through 2008. Everyone who knows her believes she has a blind ambition to become the first female American President.
Hillary also seems quite willing to sacrifice civil liberties to protect children and even late teenagers from Internet, TV and videogame sleaze. Decrying media sex and violence seems to be one of her potential wedge issues. Parents unaware of what their children are doing, fearful of what their children are doing and incompetent to monitor their own children may latch onto Hillary like white on rice. If Hillary includes an attack on Hollywood as a major component of her campaign, there will be only one way she can deliver if elected. She will have to agitate for censorship and intrusive electronic devices to spy on people’s viewing habits. For the sake of protecting the family, civil liberties will likely be flushed down the toilet. How is this different from the current administration’s policy of meddling in bedrooms?
On the issues of separation of church and State and gay rights, Hillary is useless. Her alleged feminism has always absolutely precluded lesbian issues.
One could argue that, as a proponent and the author of her husband’s universal healthcare plan in 1993-94, Hillary could at least give the U.S. better healthcare. She continues to argue that healthcare is a moral imperative. Just one problem. Where’s the money for universal healthcare? It’s tied up in Iraq and the military-industrial complex, both of which Hillary vigorously supports. Hillary rightly criticizes Bush’s humongous national debt and mind-boggling budget deficits. She won’t borrow to provide universal healthcare. Where will the money come from? Who knows? Maybe Hillary will plant money trees in the White House garden.
Since Hillary is blathering about God, religion and morality lately, I feel entitled to make a moral distinction between her and John Kerry. I’ve criticized Kerry for his shortcomings. His dualism on Iraq was maddening. He said it was the wrong war at the wrong time at the wrong place. He also said he would wage a tougher, smarter war in Iraq than Bush. In December of 2003, when asked about Iraq, he surprisingly said, “Did I expect George Bush to fuck it up as badly as he did? I don’t think anybody did.”
Okay. It’s delusional for Kerry to think he could get better results in Iraq by waging a tougher, smarter war. But at least Kerry can see that what has happened in Iraq is totally unacceptable. Hillary thinks the Iraq occupation is going reasonably well and the U.S. should stay there for as many years at it takes to complete the mission. That makes Hillary twice as delusional as Kerry. That also makes Hillary twice as acceptable to the mega-corporations seeking new contracts in Iraq or seeking to extend their already existing contracts. Halliburton, Lockheed Martin, Boeing, Northrop Grumman, General Dynamics and all the contractors getting billions of dollars of taxpayer money have no reason to oppose a Hillary Clinton Presidency. Kerry, on the other hand, given his dualism, alleged flip-flopping and basic decency, well, who knows what Kerry would have done if elected? Corporate America isn’t into competition or risk taking. They needed Kerry like they needed a hole in the head. Hillary, on the other hand, would provide a perfect cover for their theft.
A Hillary Clinton Presidency would be perfect for the mega-corporations in other ways. The hysteria over having a woman President would clog the mainstream media for years and years. The hysterical gossip over how often and with whom Bill, if he’s still alive, was committing infidelities would clog the mainstream media for years and years [Bill’s heart seems even more precarious than Cheney’s]. The hysteria over some cosmetic improvements she would make would clog the mainstream media for years and years. Her very election would exonerate the Bush White House from the lingering charges of electronic ballot fraud in the 2004 election. Howard Dean, apparently already co-opted on the Iraq war issue, would bray about how he engineered a comeback for the Democratic Party.
What about the Republicans in 2008? For the first time since 1952, neither an incumbent President nor an incumbent Vice President will be a candidate. The Republican candidates will devour each other in the 2008 primaries. That does not bode well for the general election. If the Republican candidate, whoever he is, bashes Hillary too hard, he will only assure that nearly every female vote goes to Hillary. The Republicans and their Christian fundamentalist allies, in general, should be so disgraced by 2008 that Hillary’s election might become more of a coronation.
Sure, there will be hard-core right-wing extremists and hard-core Christian fundamentalists who will fight against Hillary Clinton as if she were the Devil. But the mainstream of America is willing to vote for her and I predict that corporate America will allow her to win.
But it will be a hollow victory. Barring unforeseen circumstances, it will be a victory I will not participate in. The game is still rigged.
As Dennis Kucinich once said:
“I don’t know why the Democratic Party even exists if it can’t advocate for universal health care and ending the war in Iraq.”
Deep Thought: “It’s interesting to think that my ancestors used to live in the trees, like apes, until finally they got the nerve to head out onto the plains, where some were probably hit by cars.”
Today I am grateful for: Luck
Guess the Movie: “That boy is alive. We are gonna send somebody to find him. And we are gonna get him the Hell… outta there.” Answer: Saving Private Ryan, 1998.
Winner: soobee72.
Democrats and Iraq
by Marty Jezer
How many readers recognize the name Tom Hayden? Veterans of the Vietnam Era anti-war movement will likely remember him as an anti-war leader and the author of the “Port Huron Statement,” the idealistic founding statement of Students for a Democratic Society. With Jane Fonda promoting her memoir, younger people may know of him as her second husband, the activist spouse between French movie director Roger Vadim and American media mogul Ted Turner.
The American public should know about Tom Hayden. Not only was he right in his analysis of the Vietnam War, but also his experience (and books) about community organizing still hold relevance. As an activist writer Hayden spoke with moral clarity. And though he was sometimes a little too militant for my political sensibility, he was willing to promote caution when compromise was necessary. Had Robert F. Kennedy lived to win the 1968 presidential election, Hayden would have been one of his advisors. Hayden subsequently became a Democrat and served in the California legislature until term-limits forced his retirement. (Rest of article here.)
End of Day: 9:24 pm
+ = turtle_dove visiting for several days – yay!
- = Recordbreaking rain and that’s saying a lot for Portland, Oregon.
Comments (13)
I love Dennis Kucinich.
Seems very Saving Private Ryan-ish, which is funny since I was just talking about it with my brother because we both just saw a Korean movie that is sort of similar called Tae Guk Gi?.
As much as I would love to see a woman in the oval office, this scares me. At one time, I had high hopes for her, but now? Now she seems to be doing what every other dick has done as they headed toward the election table ………..
saving private ryan is keerect!
I guess I wouldn’t even know how to be an American politician right now. The media was vicious toward her until her current group of speeches, and of course, her husband won two elections by being that hybrid “New Democrat.” Could a Huey Long/Robert Kennedy succeed in a US election? Since both were shot to death (gee?) we just don’t know – though both of those men lived in a time with much less “corporate” (and thus conservative) media.
So the left always has to decide: do we try incremental/”less bad” (Clinton-style) or do we go for revolution (politically at least, I’m not talking violent) and try to pull that off while accepting the consequences if we don’t?
a woman running for president is a politician first, a woman second, and i don’t see how we can expect her to be different.
the country’s political swings goes in shifts. the last time that corporate greed had gotten so out of hand, it was a republican who stood up to it and made the changes, against his own in-power party and republican businessmen. i think history will have to repeat itself. i think it will have to be a moderate republican who steps up and says enough is enough. i know lots of people are hoping that will be john mccain, but he’s duped a lot of people into thinking he is a moderate. his voting record has been scary conservative.
Interesting points. I was a Howard Dean fan, and am not such a big fan of Hillary. She just seems a bit ruthless and cold to me. It always feels like she blows with the prevailing wind. I’d love to see someone like Joe Biden run for the democratic ticket. Otherwise, scary as it sounds, a republican ticket with John McCain or Giuliani might look somewhat attractive.
Another thing is the next administration is going to be so saddled with debt from W, that they’d better be centrist if they want to stand a chance of re-election. They’re going to have a lot of work to do and it might not be pleasant, and if they are too much to the left, I wouldn’t be surprised to see the country swing back to a republican (likely more moderate, tho) administration.
Craziness. I gotta get out of DC…
Beware the belief that either McCain or Giuliani is a “moderate.” I might like (some) of McCain’s integrity (he blew most of that image in the last campaign though), but almost none of his political positions. Giuliani, of course, isn’t nicknamed “Benito” in NYC for no reason – he’s a fascist through-and-through with zero respect for Democratic institutions and an absolute willingness to change his entire policy schema to whatever will help the most (for example, from a viciously anti-cop prosecutor to an apologist for cop violence as mayor).
PNHP’s “Liberal Benefits, Conservative Spending” is a pretty good read, I think, and explains where the money would come from. Unlike the war, which diverts assets from other uses and is driving the deficit to nation-breaking levels, universal health care could be funded by the money we’re already spending on health care.
I distrust Hillary. She’s a climber of the highest order, in the game for nothing more than personal power. Even if she promises and even delivers the right things, she’ll continue to scare the hell out of me.
I don’t see our salvation in either major political party, or in any minor party of which I’m aware. It seems that until we come up with a viable third (fourth, fifth, whatever) party, we’re just going to have to learn to enjoy as much as we can of our ride down the slippery slope.
I can’t believe it’s only been 6 months since the last election… it feels like so much longer.
I would vote for her….wonder who else would run?
I used to think she’d be really good but not so sure anymore. She’s doing some weird stuff it seems. I heard a rumor about Condoleza running too.
I just can’t see Hillary winning the presidency. She may do well in the blue states, but I don’t think she can sway the gray states and I really don’t think the red states would cross over for her. It seems that the masses are in a patriarchal mindset right now – hope that changes in the next 3 yrs. People still seem afraid about families in disarray, terrorist and taxes. They seem to want daddy to take care of them and tell them what they can and cannot do rather than investigate and think for themselves. I gotta say I liked Howard Dean – he was against the war, he pushed for a balanced budget in Vermont, child abuse and teen pregnancy were significantly reduced while he was in office, etc. but I guess he can’t run in 2008 since he is the DNC Chairman.
If you don’t mind an opinion from the far left, Hilary Clinton symbolizes to me everything that is wrong with the Democratic Party and its ongoing slide to the right. (She also voted for the war in Iraq, just like Kerry did.) While I’d love to see a female president, I am less interested in the gender of the President than whether they will fight for peace and social justice. I just don’t see any Democrat doing that any time soon. Kucinich has a a fair number of good ideas but his role mainly seems to be to keep the progressive left from leaving the party in disgust. The result is that the left stays with the party and supports centrist, corporate whore Democrats without having any real influence on what that party does. It’s a no-win situation for the left.