Political Rabies

Hi all,

Even though I have less interminable train rides to do blog posts, I figured I'd state some thoughts and opinions a la my abandoned blog "Thoughts and Opinions." First, miscellaneous family pictures. Next, a link to a blog started by an Ansell family member (Pia and Marshall, see post in this blog circa December 2007) on the Ansell family history that should be beefed up in months to come. If you are family and would like to contribute, please let me know.

A political opinion: First I decided to vote for Barack Obama. I liked both him and Clinton, but figured he was more electable than her. I also didn't understand why Obamites were so rabidly anti-Clinton.

Now that he is really deadlocked with Hillary, I've actually come to see the light. I've got political rabies.

Here are some popular bad arguments for Hillary, that, upon examination, make you frustrated she's even in the race.

Bad Argument Number One: Because she has more experience, she will be better. Here's an excellent Nation article, sent to me by my Dad, that eloquently refutes this. In summary: domestic policy is something that will be left to advisers to get done; foreign policy is where it counts, that's where a president has more power. And who has been the better foreign policy candidate? Which one voted against troop authorization into Iraq?

As Slate says, "if experience's her selling point, put me down for Obama." Clinton is much less experienced than, say: Edwards, Kucinich, Dodd, Biden and other drop-outs. Further, Obama has more legislative experience if you include his time in the Illinois State Legislature. And Hillary has more experience with what exactly? Being a first lady allows pillow talk with the president, but tell me what she did outside of scuttle her health plan? What exactly did she do in her few years in the Senate What great legislation did she introduce or co-sponsor? What am I missing? Clearly, she exercised bad judgment; we all know about her blatantly opportunistic hawkishness. So where's the good? We've been sold a false story.

Bad Argument Number Two: She didn't know about Iraq, she had been given bad intelligence. I particularly detest this argument. Barack knew. More importantly, I knew, and so for me to waive candidates mistakes on this is to not give myself credit for my activism. I went to Washington DC, 26-hour bus rides each way, to protest the war with hundreds of thousands of other people before the war started. I knew better, Barack knew better, and everyone there knew better. Only a few senators, however, seemed to know. This is not talk us up, or myself for protesting. I'm just saying "I knew." People in the know should get credit, and be allowed to say I told you so, and be respected as authorities on the matter, instead of the people who didn't even read the intelligence at the time, which wasn't all faulty (e.g., the intelligence report, UN inspectors not finding anything). Obama caught on quickly, much more so than Ms. I-Didn't-Read-The-Intelligence-Report.

Bad Argument Three: She and Barack are identical on the issues. Hmm. Not only am I skeptical of this (Um, Iraq?), but I have a feeling that Barack is doing what it takes to get elected. George Bush ran on a compassionate conservative platform, and ended up being anything but compassionate, providing us 8 years of unpromised, unprecedented right-wing radicalism. I voted for Nader in 2000 and was wrong, but I underestimated Bush's right-wing tendencies. Barack has a lefty background in labor and slums, a liberal history of magnitude equal to that of Bush's conservative blossoming in Texas. While biography is no guarantee, it was an indicator with Bush most had ignored. If I had to place bets on who could do something to reverse what's happened to this country, it'd be Obama.

Bad Argument Four: She can run better against McCain.

This is my biggest problem with Hillary supporters. NO, she CANNOT win. Here's an article that hits the nail on the head. The point is simple: all of Hillary's assets are stripped in a campaign against McCain. Her hawk-self will lose all feathers against the war hero, who was being tortured while she was in Yale Law School. (That'll go over well in our anti-intellectual culture!) Her claim to experience will be trumped by a man with five times more years in the US Senate. Her cry that's she's a victim of a right-wing conspiracy will falter against a candidate maligned by Limbaugh, DeLay and Coulter. Finally, her claim that she has been vetted by Republican attacks is most dubious. She still refuses to disclose her income tax return, or the contributors to her husband's Little Rock library. What is being hidden? Better know now, because the other side WILL get it out of her. They have had many a field day with the Clintons.

Finally, though I loathe pretty much all of McCain's policy ideas (e.g., make bush tax cuts permanent, stay in Iraq for a hundred years), he's a likable guy, and inspiring. He strikes people as selfless, and maybe he is less opportunistic than many candidates on both side of the aisle. Dare I say he's a true leader, however deeply misguided? By being the least repulsive Republican, he is a real danger. Who will we pit against him?

In a CNN poll, moderate Republicans chose only one Democrat over other Republicans: Obama. In the same poll, only one candidate would lose to Romney, McCain, and Huckabee: Hillary. To make matters worse, clearly McCain is wooing moderate Democrats, Independents and other undecideds. We all know at least two people who voted for Bush out of Clinton hatred, and having Bill campaigning on her behalf is to have the two, biggest, fattest, ugliest targets a Republican could want. To recap: Billary vs. McCain = McCain by a landslide.

Bad Argument Number Five: Obama took money from Mr. Slumlord Rezko. This also drives me nuts, because there are several photographs that have surfaced showing Clinton with Rezko!!! I think the slumlord thing is far over-dramatized. Unfairly so, mostly because that's it. It's the only thing on him. I mean, every candidate has dirt, it accumulates just from living life. And if Obama can deal with the Clinton race-baitings, he can deal with Republicans. Let's compare this dirt to Hillary...

Former Nixon and Goldwater supporter. Pro-Iraq until 2006, when political expediency told her to believe otherwise. Won't disclose income tax return. Second biggest recipient of insurance company money in Congress.

And here's her Wal-Mart past, from commondreams.org: " For those not in the know, Clinton served on Wal-Mart’s board for six years prior to her husband’s run for the presidency. She recently received $5,000 from Wal-Mart. I’ve raised the Wal-Mart relationship repeatedly in my current race against Clinton and it causes deep unease among voters. I believe it speaks to the incumbent’s close ties to abusive corporate power: her large corporate financial contributions, her support for so-called “free trade” (which is simply trade to benefit corporations) and her unwillingness to confront corporate power that denies every American, among other things, universal health insurance... And the board Hillary Clinton sat on was rabidly anti-union, was exploiting sweatshop labor around the world, discriminating against women workers, forcing workers to labor off the clock and destroying communities that did not want them. This should not be a shock: Clinton was a partner in the Rose law firm, one of the most active anti-union law firms in the country."

And Here's her coca-cola past, from counterpunch.org: "...the second case found Hillary representing the Coca-Cola Bottling Company of Arkansas in a lawsuit filed by a disabled former employee who had been denied full retirement benefits by the company."

Here's a Salon article on her hiring a lead union-buster as a top political strategist.

I realize the only thing Hillary has going for her is that she is establishment. That's really it.

Perhaps I am seeing too much light, because I think I mean this: If Hillary gets the nomination, I will back her. I will do hundreds of calls to Swing States on her behalf, though I would do much more if Obama got the nod. And if she loses to McCain, which she would, then I will consider abandoning the Democratic party entirely. It will have become a hopeless way of bringing about change, a process in which super-delegates have more control than voters. If the Democrats anoint another centrist who loses, if we choose the least electable candidate out there, again, while the Republicans choose the most electable, I'll jump ship. Because this one has been sinking too long, and my efforts, however small or large, would be mashed up in such a completely unaccountable machine.