I don't understand the people who want Hillary Clinton as president.
She starts out her campaign with the slogan "Inevitable," the pinnacle of arrogance. However, her surprise upset in Iowa certainly destroyed any perception of inevitability. Of course, the arrogance never leaves. After Florida, Gulliani drops out. Edwards soon follows suit. Then the smaller candidates. After Super Tuesday, even Mitt Romney, after vowing to fight on despite his silver medal status, graciously bows out to unify his party.
But despite never really gaining an edge over Mr. Obama after Super Tuesday, she continued to fight on, and then proceeded to lose 11 states in a row. Had this been any other candidate, pressure would have mounted from the party to drop out. Other candidates certainly dropped out for less in this race. But she continues to fight on, pressing a hard biting, smear campaign, emphasizing his middle name of Hussein, and never openly denying the rumors that he is Muslim, silly tactics one would expect from the Republican political machine than one of Obama's own.
She manages to win Texas and Ohio, two big states that revive her candidacy. She now presses for Michigan and Florida's results to be counted in the delegate count - despite the fact that both were stripped of their delegates for disobeying their party, despite the fact that she was the only name on the ballot, despite the fact that none of the candidates had the chance to campaign there. Florida and Michigan's election results look more like that of a post-Soviet sattelite state than those worthy for the supposed greatest Democracy in the World. But, of course, she refuses to see Florida and Michigan to re-vote caucus style, since that would benefit her opponent.
Meanwhile, as Obama urges the party superdelegates to vote according to the party's votes, as he rightfully can say, being the obvious popular nominee candidate in the party's race, Hillary Clinton urges superdelegates to vote for her, since she obviously has the edge in the national election, despite polls showing Obama fares better against McCain. Despite the fact that she basically wants her party to usurp majority rule through elections in favor of a party elite selected candidate, much like communist China's politburo.
Then on top of it, despite being second, urges Obama to consider being her vice president - the one who becomes president should the current president be incapacitated - after blasting her opponent as less worthy to be president than Republican nominee John McCain. How does one who is losing tell her opponent to work for her? The logic doesn't make sense, but for Hillary Clinton, somehow she assumes it'll happen.
This whole election process, Hillary Clinton has shown nothing but arrogance as her huburis, and a clear contempt for popular government and majority rule. Why does she want to rewrite the actions of those she supposedly represents through shady back room power deals? Why does she keep insisting that she is the one who everyone wants to do the job, when reality suggests the opposite? She consistantly insists that she should be the candidate - why? Because she was the First Lady. Oh, of course, somehow during the whole eight years her husband was president, she absorbed presidential skills via osmosis. I apologize for forgetting that learning leadership is like placing my biology book under my pillow in hopes I absorb the information for my final tomorrow. When she doesn't get her say, she throws fits and tries to rewrite the decisions clearly cast by ballot from her own party constituents.
In fact, all of the insults and barbs they sling towards their arch-nemesis, the Anti-Democrat George W. Bush, could easily stick on our lovely New York senator. Arrogance, disdain for democratic principles and procedures, character assassination and the same old Beltway politics that got us in this partisan mess. How ironic.
Samantha Power, Harvard professor, Pulitzer prize winning author and top foreign aide to Obama, resigned for calling Hillary Clinton a monster. But I would contend that her accusation rings true. She is a monster, a shifting chimera, a conglomerate of professional pollsters and political aides, crying one minute because sometimes it's just so hard, then next attacking Obama on not being tough enough for the job of president.
People say you shouldn't vote John McCain because it'll just be Bush's third term. On that principle, don't vote for Hillary Clinton, either. She resembles the Texas president too much.
Hillary Clinton is the reason why the Democrats may lose the presidential race this year, despite the fact that they could have nominated a dead man for president and still won. Why does she insist in tearing apart her own party to try and eck out a marginal victory? Perhaps she plans on hoping to make history. Well, she certainly will get her dream, but perhaps not in the way she wants. After all, nobody likes an insufferable, rude, party crasher.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
8 comments:
A Few Notes:
I agree with you on some level about certain points. As the first race with a viable female candidate, I'm very disappointed with some of the misogynist reactions and reporting taking place during this election (are crying and cleavage really breaking news? Come on people). But I'm almost as disappointed with Hillary, who MUST know that there are feminist/sexist issues coming into play here and has STILL acted in such an abrasive, unapologetic way. Women voters from all race and social status are actually turning towards Obama, splitting her once "in the bag" demographic.
She wants to be strong and vibrant and well liked, and I feel and understand this, but in general it has come across as arrogance, finger pointing, and claims of entitlement. I do think the elections have been unfair to her in some respects (and truthfully Ted, calling her a "monster" seems a tad un-political), but as you pointed out she's really taking unfair political advantage of other aspects of the process. I'm not defending her politics - merely her humanity.
As for experience, I'm going to have to call you on that one. According to her wikipedia page, she's been involved in politics and law since college and had begun a promising political career prior to marriage, not to mention her more recent Senate term. She also took an extremely active role in her husband's political career. Animaniacs even made jokes about it so you know it's true:
"Now in Washington D.C.
There's Democrats and the G.O.P.
But the one in charge is plain to see,
It's Clinton, first name Hillary.
I'm not saying her experience ups her political appeal, but it's certainly a lot more than just having been first lady.
So, yeah. I'm not convinced that Hillary would make a great next prez. But I can't completely discount her either. Although her stance on video games is certainly another argument against her...
By the term monster, I do not mean it in the same way people would use to label rapists and child molesters, by any means. As a person, I hear she is quite nice, driven and surprisingly very personable.
However, politically, she really can be a monster.
Understandably, she wants the job of president bad. Really bad. But the lengths she goes to in terms of trying to secure it is damaging to our democracy and to her party in general. Ten months ago, a Democrat for a president was a given. Now, it's thrown in doubt as Hillary turns the campaign into a protracted battle where no matter who wins, the Democratic nominee will be damaged goods, while trying to manipulate her connections to the superdelegates to secure a win through party elites and not the democratic process of voting.
I do admit that the media has been treating her absolutely poorly as far as misogynism goes, but it still doesn't excuse her actions. I understand that it is incredibly difficult to go far in the political world as a woman since they usually start the race out with their legs tied together. Be too hard, and you're a fem nazi. Be too soft, and you're too feminine for the job. It's a hard life for her.
Certainly, she has had a successful career in law and politics, but not all politics are created equal. Being a lawyer or working in the senate doesn't necessarily mean you have the experience to work in an executive position. A president represents and leads and must be charismic, especially in our world dominated by cable television and Youtube. A president must be inspiring to mobilize the general populace into action.
Being a lawyer and a senator doesn't necessarily prepare you for these things. Lawyers interpret law, senators legislate it. Being a First Lady doesn't necessarily make you up for the job, too. Granted, you may have a better understanding of how the whole process works, but understanding it and using it to get something accomplished are two totally different things.
For the record, I do not belive Obama has more relevant experience by any means (he's a junior senator from Illinois and his resume is much more sparse compared to Clinton's), but he has something Hillary desperately lacks to be the face of the nation. He has charisma, and he is able to inspire. Yes, his followers can be cultish, and yes, he may not have solutions to all the problems of the nation, but that's not his job. His first and foremost job is to dictate the political dialogue for the nation and be a face to the world. And when a lot of international countries favor him, and he has the ability to inspire cynnical Americans turned off by decades of fierce partisan politics to believe in the government again, that by itself is a huge boon to anyone who wants to be president.
And also, I did not mean to attack her humanity, though it certainly came across that way. I apologize for doing so.
Haha, you're taking my comment far too critically. I'm basically providing a slightly more balanced agreement of what you said. Hillary Clinton is a little crazy and has come across to many people as such. The misogyny is worth note, but the frustrating part is that the media bias is so obvious that she would almost have a legitimate "excuse" for trailing - if she hadn't filled her campaign with everything previously described.
As for experience, what would qualify as legitimate presidential experience in your book? I don't know of any candidate who was able to put "presidential experience" on their resume (aside from second term presidents). It seems that Clinton's main point re: experience is that Obama has far less political experience than she does - which is true. I don't think anyone would claim that being first lady makes her an expert.
As for an urgent need for a president with charisma... politics as a whole is still light years behind on that issue. And the last time America based it's vote on charisma we got womanizer Bill Clinton (national scandal ftw). In 10 years maybe a few of the more popular, smarmy political bloggers will run and we'll see what happens.
While it certainly hasn't helped the Democratic party to be split for this long, it's probably too early to count them out of the running. As far as I can tell, Obama is as popular as popular as ever, and still has a great shot if he becomes the nominee. And since McCain is considered a fairly "liberal" Republican, I'm pretty sure we'll be in for some changes no matter who's voted in.
Come to think of it... I actually very much disagree with McCain's position on violent media as well. Has Obama ever said anything on the subject of media and/or video games? Hmm.. I should check up on Nadar too. This could decide the race for me.
Edit: tag fix
she wants the job of president bad. Really bad. But the lengths she goes to in terms of trying to secure it is damaging to our democracy and to her party in general.
[Machiavellian][dogmatic]
Any candidate, if he or she is to have any chance of winning the race, will stop at nothing to accomplish it. Some just hide it better than others ;) If you involve notions of morality into politics (and actually abide by them) you will lose. Which actually is a good thing, because it's the ability to compromise that makes a good President.
[/dogmatic][/Machiavellian]
"Oh, of course, somehow during the whole eight years her husband was president, she absorbed presidential skills via osmosis."
haha. -sigh- i can't write as eloquent of notes as kimberly or you, but.... let's just say i agree with your points. :)
To be honest, Obama is the presidential hopeful that has me the most worried. Clinton & McCain have both made mistakes, but they also also have a lot of experience and a track record. If one of them becomes president, we know what we're in for. Obama, on the other hand, has had very little experience combined with being very charismatic, a very bad combination in my book. If he becomes president, who knows what will happen? He seems idealistic now, but will he actually be able to implement anything? Will he end up as merely a figurehead while someone else ends up running the show. Heck, does he even really believe in the ideals he professes or is he just using them to increase his popularity?
To be honest, Clinton is my favored candidate although I don't think I'll have the option to vote for her. You want to know why? Because of all the candidates, I think she has both the best plans for revising the education and health care systems in our country, but more importantly, I think she has the greatest desire to actually push them through. The education system in our country is in shambles (No Child Left Behind is a horrendous system that no educator in the country has anything but hatred for) and the health care system isn't much better.
And McCain being elected the same as Bush having a third term? Do you even know anything about McCain? Not only is he one of the more liberal republicans out there, but he's also one of the few republicans who has publicly criticized the Bush administration.
Personally, I think that Obama will win the democratic nomination and McCain will win the actual election. Although Obama is very popular among the young, I think the older members of the population will favor McCain since he fits the traditional image of the president (and older people are more likely to actually turn out and vote than the young).
Post a Comment