I'm Already Against the Next War

It's become clear over the last week that the more Hillary Clinton is pressed, the more she reveals her true self. The fact that this self is unscrupulous is bad enough, but the fact that her whole campaign for the last year has been predicated on positioning, spin, and other varieties of public relations is worse. In fact, it is not only worse, it is Bushian, and that is the worst. Even though Clinton won two and a half contests of the four staged on Tuesday, her campaign strategists are fighting among themselves, her campaign is in a turmoil, and, it seems, they can't decide which tack to take. Should they try the lying (about NAFTA, about Obama's religion)? Should they try the cheating (trying to seat delegates from the Florida and Michigan primaries)? Should they try the fear-mongering (the red telephone ad)? Should they try the sucking up to Republicans (spelling out similarities between Clinton and cheerleader-for-war McCain)?

No one ever said that the Clintons weren't corrupt. Even they didn't say that. The only questions were 1) Were they less corrupt than the Republicans and 2) Did they combine at least a modicum of compassion and interest in the public good with their corruption? Back in the 90s, I felt that, on balance, Bill Clinton was openly compassionate, and that his corruption did not fatally taint his administration. At any rate, he did not GLORY in corruption as Reagan and Bush 1 and their advisors did. I also felt that after the Reagan Revolution (excuse me, I meant to say Reagan Devolution), triangulation was the only way to get anything done, and so they did it.

But Hillary Clinton seems to have learned the wrong lesson from her Senatorial success. The lesson she has learned is that Republicans such as McCain are more her friends than Senators with progressive principles. As a result, it now appears that Clinton and McCain stand together on one side of a divide, and Barack Obama stands on the other side of that divide. The divide is between the inside-the-beltway ruling class, who can see no reason of any kind that they should give up the power they have accumulated and the avenue to wealth that it represents, and the citizenry of the country, who in every poll insist that the country is headed in the wrong direction. In the last week, Clinton has put herself on McCain's ticket, attacking the change that Obama promises and seems poised to deliver (whether or not he can remains an open question), and promising more more more of the same of what we have had for the last thirty years. More of the same is exactly what almost everyone does not want, but Clinton tells us everyday in every way that that is what we will get -- what we have had is what she touts as her "experience". What we see in her campaign is that we will get the same old same old with an added measure of chaos.

Clinton, of course, is not Cheney. Dick Cheney is the mad master of corruption, a person who literally doesn't know what integrity is. But Hillary is too smart not to know, and she has made up her mind to shelve her integrity for the sake of ambition. And let me be clear what I mean by corruption -- I have no idea what her financial gains have been over the years, and I don't care. What I mean by corruption is any and all support of the criminal policies of the Republicans while calling herself a Democrat, in order to gain power.

Some weeks ago, I wrote a Huff post about a remark Bill Clinton made, that if Hillary became the nominee, the presidential campaign would be exceptionally "polite". We now see that he wasn't joking. Both Clintons are in favor of the status quo, and will fight tooth and nail to maintain it. They are surrounded by advisors who both literally and figuratively are married to the Republicans. They are, indeed, now part of the "vast right wing conspiracy".

One of the key questions about the Democrats since the 2006 elections is, where do their loyalties really lie? Time and again they have failed to stop the Republicans, or settled for a little populist embroidery around the edges of policies that by and large serve to increase the power of the Republicans. Their excuse, which is growing thin, is that they don't have the power to confront Bush. Hillary Clinton is now showing their real agenda -- preserving the status quo at the expense of the military, the taxpayers, the economy, world peace, and the rule of law.

Obama is not a known quantity. I have seen him one time and listened to one speech, and I was reasonably impressed by that speech. But Hillary Clinton is a known quantity. If you like the world that the Bushes and Clintons have made in the last twenty years, then you should by all means vote for her. But as of this week, I don't see her as the person I want answering the red phone.

Comments

[marthlois]

Thank you for summarizing - quite brilliantly - what Hillary Clinton is all about. I'd like to see your article on someone's front page:)
If the Obama campaign doesn't seize this opportunity to continually press for the White House records, financial records and lists of campaign donors - they will be missing the most important issue of all because it will show the level of distrust that should fall squarely into her lap and get her out of the race. I don't consider that dirty politics. He doesn't have to attack the way she does (pitiful) ...... he can calmly produce just facts vs. attacks and lies. He won't lower himself to attack the way she does, but it's time for the kitchen sink of facts to get out there from Obama's campaign. Frankly, I'm beginning to lose patience, but I have faith in Obama's campaign.
And as an aside, the photo of the Clintons with Resko this a.m. in the Huff Post was priceless!!! When will he come forth about the donations that Resko's co-defendants have made to them??

[LBKN]

Jane,

It is equally encouraging and demoralizing... to read your post.

It is gratifying and a source of hope that there are others like yourself with clarity of vision...

while, conversely... it is a mark of the primal nature of the human beast when Hillary's methods are effective.

I don't know if what I feel is hate... it is a rising of jangled emotions.

If I hate... mankind' stupidity tops the list...

and is the cause for the remainder of the list.

Mark Twain was right. Man is the lowest creature in all of nature.

[gettysburg]

I'm a Democrat and will not be voting for Sen. Clinton for the simple reason that I don't trust her as far as I could throw Rush Limbaugh. I think she's as conservative as Joe Lieberman and ad sneaky as Richard Nixon. A Hillary Clinton presidency would be a disaster for the Democratic Party and the country. She will be more polarizing than the current Moron In Chief. At least with Obama I feel like I'm getting some sincerety.

[yooper2]

Unfortunately your are 100% correct!!

[spiritualized]

very well put.

[Steven G. Brant - Huffpost Blogger]

Thank you for a making the case so eloquently. Keeping those who have power now from losing it is definitely at the core of Hillary's campaign.

While I am convinced by what Al Gore did after losing in 2000 that Gore would have been a very different president on this same subject (not the "no different than Bush" person that Ralph Nader painted him as being), we truly have a chance to reorganize America's power structure to a much more balanced, "people - planet - profit" orientation if we elect Barack Obama.

By the way, I wrote on the subject of Hilary being for the rich and powerful today myself. Not as eloquently as you did, but I invite you to give it a look anyway...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/steven-g-brant/in-response-to-her-campai_b_90585.html

[bellecloche]

Thank you, Ms. Smiley, for a wonderful piece on a miserable subject. Until recently, I had been enjoying simply being "for" my candidate rather than "against" his/her opponent. How sad this all has turned out.

[Dap]

Dear Ms. Smiley,

We (You and I) are in the exact same stream of consciousness on this one, although, as is usual, you have said it with eloquence, and profoundly. Agape.

[scooperss]

And more, I don't want her speaking for me.

[Countess]

Jane you say what I believe much more eloquently than I ever could and I hope people start to realize how right wing Clinton really is. Thanks.

[boonagain]

Totally agree, Ms. Smiley



(and can I add that I have every book you've written and I think "A Thousand Acres" is one of the best of the last 25 years)

[mommadona]

"The divide is between the inside-the-beltway ruling class, who can see no reason of any kind that they should give up the power they have accumulated and the avenue to wealth that it represents, and the citizenry of the country, who in every poll insist that the country is headed in the wrong direction."

Again, you manage to put the ego-bound conceptuals into layperson's language.

Thank you!

[redjacket]

Yup she's McCain's friend alright and no friend to Obama - who else but a friend would make a statement like this against her own parties' candidate in four different venues within a very short period of time:

"I have a lifetime of experience that I will bring to the White House. I know Senator McCain has a lifetime of experience that he will bring to the White House. And Senator Obama has a speech he gave in 2002."

[Durango]

I may be mistaken but: Didn't Abraham Lincoln get elected to the Presidency based primarily on a speech he gave at the Cooper Union in NYC?

It would be nice to see one of the media whores bring up that fact but that would require more intelligence than they apparently have.

[DeanLowe]

So you're saying the debates with Douglas(probably the most famous debates of American history) played a lesser role?