Going Down in Flames with Hillary

Being an independent is a lot of fun, because it gives me the right to criticize both the democrats and the republicans, two parties that are utterly beholden to special interests, prone to nominating monstrously bad candidates (see bill clinton, george w. bush, john kerry, etc), and just plain bad at the whole "governance" thing. In presidential election years, I tend to root for candidates from whichever party is out of power, so in 2000, I was so sick of the Clintons, that I hoped a Republican would win- but then watched in horror as Dubya was nominated, and now, I'm so sick of Dubya, that I woudn't mind seeing a Democrat win, but I fear that the democrats are about to make another catastrophic mistake in nominating Hillary Clinton.

Hill supporters claim that brining back the Clintons would mean a return to the good economic times of the 1990's. What's this, you didn't get enough of the Clintons during the eight years they were already in power? So you want to have two families-the Bushes and the Clintons- control the White House from 1988 until 2012 or perhaps 2016? That's 24 to 28 years of two family rule, which wouldn't be unusual in Panama or Lesotho, but in America? Give me a break.

So perhaps nearly three decades of two family rule don't bother you- ok- but what about the woman's personality? The Clintons embody all of the worst stereotypes of both their generation and of politicians in general. They're hypocrites that write preachy books telling us how to raise children (It Takes A Village), how to live (Giving: How each of us can change the world), and even how treat dogs and cats (Dear Socks, Dear Buddy), yet they run scorched-earth campaigns where distorting their opponents records and assasinating their characters are par for the course.

They struggle hard to project we-feel-your-pain authenticity, yet their only real true calling is their unbridled pursuit of power. Many politicians change positions to suit the times, but the Clintons have redefined political expediency. Hillary's a Cubs fan. She's a Yankees fan. She'd root for the Devil himself if he were a swing state voter. Here is a couple that was willing to sell nights in the Lincoln bedroom and pardons to fugitive billionaires, is there any doubt that they would sell their very souls to gain power once again?

Ok, so you may not like her either, and maybe you wouldn't mind some fresh blood, but isn't it time for a woman to be elected president? In this case, no. That is, not unless some other woman runs for president. Our first female president should be someone all women can be proud of- not a charlatan that espouses girl power one moment and then at others tears up for the cameras or hides behind Bill, her new attack dog. In South Carolina, white males voted for Edwards, blacks voted for Obama, and white women voted for Hillary. We're becoming like the Balkans, where elections are often like a national census- everyone just turns out to vote for the person that represents their ethnic group. Its ridiculous people- you shouldn't vote for someone just because they're a woman, or because they're white or black or even because they claim they're a fan of your favorite sports team.

Lastly, Hillary isn't going to win. So if you want to see a democrat in the White House, look elsewhere, because the religious right, and others that hate Hillary are going to turn out in droves to bring her down, should she be the democratic nominee. You might think that Hillary is the best of a weak field of candidates, but, in reality ANYONE would be a better choice. So who should you vote for? Lets save that discussion for another day.

Note: After writing this, I noticed in today's New York Times, that the Clinton's are at it again- conducting shady business deals with foreigners..


http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/31/us/politics/31donor.html?scp=1&sq=bill+clinton+almaty&st=nyt