Econo-Girl has never spoken these words aloud:
I don't trust Hillary Clinton.
But now the truth is out. Her support of the war in Iraq lacked political courage. In fact, Econo-Girl would like to know where HC has ever displayed political courage. Where? Where has she spit in the pollsters' eyes and said "Damn it, it's the right thing to do!"
Even in 2001, after the attacks, it was clear that Iraq was not connected to the 9-11 attacks. But none of them had the courage to say so. And so now our nation is mired in Iraq and have a good chance of leaving the place in worse shape than how we found it.
Now that Lieberman lost the primary, it is easy to jump on the bandwagon against the war. Where was HC when it was a difficult and risky thing to do?
16 comments:
Anyone who did not support the war plans was painted as an idiot who wanted to kill babies in Ohio.
And the public, being very well educated, all thought that Saddam was some kind of super evil genius who had nukes under his bed.
It was political blackmail. Support the king and his war plans or else.
So we are where we are now. In reality, leaving Iraq is not possible. The result will be a government that is a cross between the Taliban and Iran of the 80s. But staying will result in the same thing.
No matter what - "anti-war pinko soft on terror" liberals will be at fault. Either they did not support the troops enough, or they cut and ran.
I suspect Mrs. Clinton has too much baggage to be elected, and the polls seem to agree.
The only courageous voices I hear are Feingold and McCain.
I think McCain is wrong about Iraq. That battle has been lost, and we need to negotiate the fastest possible exit consistent with our soldiers' safety.
We need a national dialogue on how to deal with Islamic fundamentalism: preferably an approach that doesn't involve guns.
OK-you don't trust Clinton. Who do you trust?
She was busy being a politician. Learning to ropes to get elected into higher office. I do not think she will ever be a "president" either. Too much baggage and then, that name...Clinton..
I don't trust HC either, but with me it's deeper than that. To me, she's everything that's wrong with most Democrats (you know the exceptions) and, for that matter, most politicians. But the deal-breaker for me was when she supported a federal flag-burning statute while opposing a constitutional amendment. That, to me, says all that needs to be said about HC.
Erik, that's a sharp distinction. Elections are usually won without sharp distinctions, but I agree. Supporting a statute that you know is unconstitutional is the cowardly way out.
Hillary Clinton will always do what's expedient and beneficial to Hillary Clinton. I honestly don't think she stands for anything beyond her own self-interest.
Fith Floor - so how does that make Hillary any different from W? Or anyone else I can think of for that matter.
The problem is that today, only a multi-millionare has any chance of geting into a high office. Look at who usually runs for the top job. Some born rich trust fund goober who never had to decide which bill not to pay this month. And then they all say "I understand the plight of the working class". My ass they understand. a $2 an hour raise in the minimum wage tied to a multi-trillion dollar tax cut for the 20 most wealthy families - none of whose kids will ever have to work a day for anything.
I will never vote for HC. Ever. If she runs, the democrats will loose. I will just not vote at all.
Iguana, I can't argue with a single word you've said. There's no doubt that all you've said is true. What to do about it is yet another issue. Do you believe voting influences the outcomes in this country?
And... since only multi-millionaires can afford to run for office, is the choice we make significant in any way?
In my opinion - no. I don't believe it makes any difference. The standard for leadership is wealth. If you ain't wealthy, you ain't going to lead. That simple.
The solution is the question.
Indeed! The very imperfect Hillary Clinton -- if she should face the likes of George Allen?
Your choice would be her imperfections and mistakes--which, of course, she has, or someone like George Allen, a stupider clone of Shrub and his crew.
They don't just make mistakes, they bring with them moral depravity, death, destruction of civil liberties, torture, lying, irrationality the likes of which have not inflicted this country before in this magnitude.
Keep a PERSPECTIVE; we've never, never faced the policy and moral catastrophes now at our door.
For commentors who would disdain voting: look out your window at what we've got -- your abstention, would be destructive in the name of what??????
Last winter, I heard a retired Army general who was a little too lubricated at a dinner party fly into a verbal viciousness about Sen. Clinton. Never would he use comparable vocab to describe a man. Some of the above comments skate close to misogyny. And most sound too pure to bear the messy, compromised realities we have to navigate to get us out of the present torture chambers. PERSPECTIVE, please.
Anon,
Good points all. While Hillary Clinton may not be the best, she would be a hell of a lot better than what we've got. She'd be constrained by her political base, at least, against eroding civil liberites.
And Econo-Girl is not one of these people who thinks that HC has no moral center at all. She does. And hey, maybe we'd get universal health care after all. Econo-Girl likes that.
"For commentors who would disdain voting: look out your window at what we've got -- your abstention, would be destructive in the name of what??????"
I am not necessarily advocating abstention. (Of course, if that is someone's choice, it's an option.)
I am advocating being aware of the issues and knowing the backgrounds of the people running. That includes knowing their socioeconomic background. That is where their loyalties will be.
Perhaps some laws need to be adjusted that will allow all people to have a chance at serving in an elected position.
I'm all for national health care, reasonable cost for a university education, reasonable cost for housing, etc. We're not going to see it if we continue electing and supporting people who do not have our interests at heart. The wealthy running the government to benefit the wealthy is not representative government, in my opinion.
Many of the questions posed here by CC and others indicate that people are hungry for change. In light of that, my question remains: What's the solution?
You're advocating socialism I take it ?
Anon,
I don't know if I advocate total socialism, but a real social safety net is important. Why is it important to safeguard the inheritance of multi-millionaires but not offer baseline universal healthcare?
What about the plan in Massachusetts (I think) that would require everyone to have health insurance ?
"Require" everyone to have health insurance? And just how do they plan to implement that plan?
I understood this to be some sort of law. But I'm not sure if it was passed.
Post a Comment