I don't want to assume too much here and I want to be very fair. If this article is correct, it may be that Senator Clinton's Israel right-or-wrong "policy paper is intended as empty rhetoric."
Okay. Just. Don't. Get. Me. Started.
But if she means what her position paper and earlier speech to AIPAC say, then the Middle East and the millions of people who live there are (gag) better off (gag) with Condi (scuse me while a barf a little in my mouth).
And here are three other reasons I'm not supporting her in the primary season:
Mark Penn, James Carville, and Sandy Berger. I didn't have room for Terry McCauliffe.
AL at Threadingwater has written the post of the year on this subject:
What I fear with a Clinton presidency is a White House influenced by the same element that is directing her campaign: More hard-line foreign policy decisions and direction, more military engagement to protect and shore-up the right wing elements in Israel, more of the Republican playbook when it comes to protecting and rewarding corporate polluters, more industry/government coziness in federal oversight of public safety when it comes to our food supply, drugs and consumer protections.
I don’t see myself ever pointing to a portrait of a President Hillary Clinton and telling my young nieces that therein lies proof they can achieve anything they want as women, because I will also need to tell them about the power brokering, criminal, wealthy white men of questionable morals who helped to get her there.
I agree with Gloria Steinem that it’s time to put women first, and for me, feminism means putting the welfare of my country first.
To me supporting right wing elements in Israel (and the status quo in Saudi Arabia) is NOT progressive. Giving James Carville and company (even if he moves back the New Orleans) power lines off which to feed is NOT why we elect women to public office.
The discourse lately has been about pantsuits and whore-calling and makeup and ageism. I know Clinton supporters are sick of that, and so am I. Let's get back to the issues. I for one don't think the two Democrats are identical on the issues. Apparently Barack Obama has both an "Israel problem" with the AIPAC folks and an "abortion problem" with the pro-lifers. Gee. Those are both pluses in my book. And while I still have a big problem with his "across the aisle" get along with Republicans mumbo jumbo, if that kind of talk prevents a Florida 2000 or an Ohio 2004? What if those voters stupid enough to vote for Bush once or twice (gawd) are given permission to fake amnesia and vote for the young winner over the old poop McCain?
I hope my friends who are supporting Clinton take and appreciate this post for the issue-oriented argument. We don't need any more ad hominem crap in this primary season.
thank you. thank you for posting this. i have had it.
ReplyDeleteAs far as I know, Obama's "Israel problem" is nothing more than his tenuous second-hand connection to Farakhan. I don't know anything about Obama's views on the Israel/Palestine question.
ReplyDeleteBut about this reaching across the aisle business -- it has to be done. I think there are still a few Republicans out there who didn't buy into all of the Bush/Rove/Family/Jesus crap and just happen to be fiscal conservatives. Look at Maine's senators.
Even if the Dems win an unstoppable majority in both houses in November, that's not going to be good enough to accomplish anything, because it's just going to feed the Repugs who are looking for partisan ammunition. And that won't work nearly as well if Obama can build at least some degree of nonpartisan consensus in the Congress.
Maybe I'm being naive, but don't we all want real change, and real movement forward that isn't used as an attack down the road?
James Carville, James Carville...Didn't he write a book or something?
ReplyDelete;>)
Thank you Blue Gal for posting this. It's just another reason for me to support Barak. I really wanted to support Hillary too, but we don't need this. Since I don't believe in America, Right or Wrong, I also don't believe in Israel, Right or Wrong... no country deserves that.
ReplyDeleteI hope my friends who are supporting Clinton take and appreciate this post for the issue-oriented argument. We don't need any more ad hominem crap in this primary season.
ReplyDeleteHere, here!
Outstanding- brava BG.
ReplyDeleteI have long railed on about this one. And while I remain somewhat tepid about Barack Obama, this is the Clinton stuff that makes my blood boil.
And James Carville- please, send me some medication,just the name makes me start to feel ill, not to mention the others.
Thanks for your post, Blue Gal. Hill lost me on her vote for the Iraq Resolution. I'm a constituent, and yes, I called and asked, begged, demanded that she not give W the power to do whatever the fuck he wanted. But she did. And I was convinced then (and nothing has changed now) that she did it with a presidential run in 2008 in mind. A purely political decision. Color me appalled.
ReplyDeleteActually, BG, Obama may have an "abortion problem" with the pro-life movement, but if that is the case, then it must be noted that he also has an "abortion problem" with the pro-choice movement as well. It's one of the main reasons IL NOW PAC didn't endorse him while he was a state candidate. That, and his positions on LGBT issues -- which I have written about on my blog.
ReplyDeleteYou must be pleased that Mark Penn is gone. And I don't think James Carville has an official role with the campaign. Tim Russert likes to bring James and Mary on Meet The Press a lot, but I don't think that makes him a campaign staffer.
Sen. Clinton has indicated strong support for women's reproductive rights, as well as for LGBT civil rights.
And sadly, neither Obama or Clinton could be called "liberal" in the tradition of someone like ... well ... me. They have almost identical voting records in the Senate.
In reading the article on McPeak, it seems unclear what Obama's position really is. The story says: "An Obama spokesman said the senator disagrees with McPeak's comments on Israel but continues to stand behind him as a military adviser and co-chairman of his campaign." Sort of like the way he didn't agree with his pastor's comments, but continues to stand by him. Okay, he's known Rev. Wright a long time.
But what about this passage, from the same news report: "Earlier this year, McPeak retracted a statement that Obama "doesn't go on television and have crying fits," a reference to Hillary Clinton tearing up in a New Hampshire appearance.
Clinton spokesman Isaac Baker released a statement saying, "General McPeak has shown a troubling pattern of personally attacking the Clintons that raises serious questions. Is the Obama campaign really committed to changing the tone of our politics, or are those just words?"
Please keep in mind that it is Sen. Obama who has set the bar on this. Once you do, shouldn't you live up to it?
BAC
BAC I'm going to let you have the last word on my blog about McPeak b/c I think Obama should jettison him, unlike his long time friend and pastor. That situation could have been a learning curve and Obama (probably rightly for the campaign, but still) could have used the Wright thing to teach America about black Christianity. Might have made more people realize he isn't muslim (geesh)
ReplyDeleteI don't know exactly why Hillary Clinton is allowing American Spectator to interview her, when imho they have been nothing but nasty to her and Bill from day one.
I agree we don't have a progressive running anymore and I'm sad about that, but onward.
On the choice issue- IMO both Obama and Clinton are fine where it counts. They've voted against Bush's supremes and I'm sure would nominate moderate/ lefty judges for openings on their watch.
ReplyDeleteMcCain on the other hand...