I'm Already Against the Next War
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.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
There's a wonderful piece of information that is now at your fingertips at the Library of Congress web-site: http://thomas.loc.gov. It's called, among other things, the Congressional Record.
All three of these non-candidates are sitting Senators, and as such, their every hiccup (except when they are carrying suitcases full of cash...) is "on the record." Even as they spend literally billions of dollars to buy an election, what they actually do and what they actually have done is ... public record.
I am honestly not being a cynic, Jane, when I say that this two-years-too-long "so-called election" boils down to a choice of "Black Man, White Woman / Clinton, War-hawk on Geritol." Do the forces that gave you that slate of non-choices particularly care which one you pick? Not a bit, as long as you perceive that you have no other choice.
But even a "Hobson's Choice" would be sufficient to achieve the greater goal, which is (as it always has been) to divert the public's righteous anger toward a future goal many months hence: to pin their anger and frustration upon someone (pick any one) who will not actually relieve it. Meanwhile, the forces behind this government continue to move their chess-pieces, unopposed. Continue to siphon the vitality out of an entire nation, unopposed.
The super delegates need to take note, putting Clinton in office will be their last hurrah. It will split the party and it will never recover. If the destruction of the party is what they want, then this is the way to proceed. The old negro and their beholden to massa mentality is dying off, and the youth won't forget or be beholden to the democratic party. Allowing the Clinton's to steal the presidency will certainly cause me to support Sharpton in any lawsuit against the party for every more. It will be a lawsuit that will dig out any trash and Obama won't be able to stop the fight once it starts. If he cannot fight Clinton he will not be able to fight the hate that will start once Clinton gets the nomination.
You fail to mention the "hate" that can or will manifest itself if the reverse holds true.
Very nice analysis Jane, I totally agree with your assessment of Hillary, she has compromised her principles and surrounded herself with people who believe in the philosophy of the end justifies the means.
I am sickened by the thought of having these people run the country, it will just be another 8 years of triangulation and stalemate government and endless excuses and bully diplomacy and endless war.
"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."
Thanks for that, Jane.
As I wrote elsewhere here on HuffPost this morning, most of us have sympathized with Hillary over the years, if not donated to her campaigns. I suffered with her during her 60 Minutes denial of the Gennifer Flower's affair, knowing that there was probably something to Flower's allegations. I supported them both during the impeachment, and her campaign in 2000. But it must be said that in 1996 Bill seemed to, if not glory in, then wallow in his inside-beltway campaign fundraising prowess. He never seemed to catch on to the virulence of the "hate the 1960s!" right-wing, which became the "Hate Clintons" right wing, people who love country songs about cheating hearts, but pushed an impeachment over a non-consummated affair. Hillary voted to give Bush authorization to go to war with Iraq, after knowing that Bush and Cheney had stolen election 2000, and without bothering to read the NIE report which debunked the administration's "Saddam has WMDs!" claims (which an their face were thin if not ludicrous.... uranium tubes, yellowcake uranium or, model airplanes as ICBMs!) That alone should be a presidential disqualifying issue. On top of that we learn that she was a member of the board of WalMart - a corporate lawyer - at the time the company was on a ferocious union-busting tear (and still is). That is, the company was trying to shaft taxpayers with the costs of employee health care, while WalMart heirs were worth billions of dollars! The Clintons populist/corporate "triangulating", and penchant for secrecy, has only gotten worse since then, witness Bill acting as super-lobbyist for the Kazakhstan mining concession, which deal netted Bill a cool $131 million for his library fund. (Kazakhstan's ruthless dictator notwithstanding.)
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/31/us/politics/31donor.html
Can you get any more Bushian than facilitating huge mining deals with a ruthless dictator, and then pocketing a cool $131 mil?
Brilliant analysis Jane . .. totally agree: "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." I have been thinking this about Congress for a long time . .. pelosi's inability to put impeachment on the agenda is part of this same conspiracy . . . America cannot afford more of the status quo politics that have ruled for the past 20+ years . . . we need change desperatedly . .. . the status quo has not worked . .. Obama is the only candidate who can inspire the change we so desperately need . .. both domestically and internationally . .. . it is time the clintons and their DLC buddies were thrown out of the Demcratic Party . .. . the more I see of the clintons the the more I loathe them
I think I finally understand the definition of triangulation. Visualize a triangle with Hillary at the apex; she then places McCain with his experience in defending America on one point of the base, and Obama whom she hints that she might select as her VP at the other point. She uses the tactic of associating herself with the experience of McCain and totally marginalizes the front runner by characterizing him as her second banana. Let's not be fooled.
After Edwards went down without even a whimper, I started to support Clinton, but now I am sickened by her behavior. Let us remember she was practically given her senate seat in NY by Guiliani and the Republicans. Her 2nd term race was an easy go again when the Republicans put up the "least able to win," against her in that election. So this is the first real candidacy for her (and I understand the same is true for Obama). What does she do? Lower herself for the occasion.
"...change that Obama promises and seems poised to deliver (whether or not he can remains an open question)..."
Even though I can't answer that question either, I'd still rather take a chance on Obama's "promise for change," than Hillary's "more of the same."
What I know is this: Obama is a constitutional lawyer; the soles of his shoes are worn from walking his constituents' neighborhoods; and he continues to take the more subtle high road in this election. I'd rather see him be accused of that than see him get down in the mud with the pigs.
His campaign does, however, need to ensure they make a bigger bang in the day or two before an election. Last week Hillary, by a weak "as far as I know" answer to whether Obama is a Muslim, pulled the fear card out as if it were a red penalty card. On "60 Minutes," when that unemployed man in Ohio responded to whether or not he'd vote for Obama, he said "No, because...he's a Muslim....", I just about shit.
Is bigotry what "they" mean when "they" say "working class?" Geez, if so, I think the Dems are in BIG trouble!
Thanks Jane.
Hillary's right, you know.
You've got to be a little bit crazy to take on the entrenched interests in D.C. Hillary's been there, and she knows how corrupt it really is. When you think of the tremendous power and influence, permeating every aspect of government, military, corporations and the media, it's absolutely hopeless. Unquestionably, the only sensible thing to do is not try to beat them, and to make the best of things by slapping them on the back and trading shots with them on long flights. We're all doomed, anyway. If global warming doesn't get us, a loose nuke will, because we're driving everyone on the planet crazy, and it's going to take a whole lot more than a president to stop us. I mean, get real, people!
The trouble is, I guess I'm a little bit crazy, deep down. I still believe that as long as there are just a few of us who cling to the real principles of democracy, and the highest aspirations of humanity, we are charged to defend those principles and aspirations to our final breath. For the most part, the odds are stacked against us, and try as we might to shake off the Clintons of the world, she is, as Jon Stewart claims, like The Terminator. You think you've destroyed her, but then all the little globs start rolling back together, and she rises up again.
Yes, she's corrupt. She's the perfect candidate for the nation that has taken corruption to its grandest scale, and I can see her extensive experience informing all that she says and does. I am beyond impressed by how well she has learned her lessons. By all accounts, she is indeed the perfect choice to carry this nation forward in the coming years. Except that every sign and signal of nature and the soul tells us that now, and not a moment later, we have to bring our current momentum to a halt, and for once as a nation stop and reflect on what it all means, and for that task Hillary is completely unprepared.
It has long seemed foolish and naive to me to think that we would ever have a chance to turn things around, and then I watched a young man from Illinois last year announce his candidacy before the same courthouse where another young man named Abraham Lincoln once did the same thing. I knew then that he was different, and if the impossible ever had a chance to occur in my lifetime, it would be because of him. In the year since, I've watched him closely. I haven't always been overjoyed, but most of the time my admiration of his abilities has only deepened. I am no blind Moonie-style follower. There are no rose-colored glasses perched on the bridge of my aging nose. I've seen a whole lot of politicians come and go, and I've seen a whole lot of talented careers in a great many fields. The first time I saw Robin Williams on the stage, I knew -- and told my friends -- that he'd be huge. My friends just laughed. The first time Jerry Rice stepped on the football field for the 49ers, I told my co-worker that he would be to receivers what Jim Brown had been to running backs. My co-worker scoffed.
Barack Obama will be to American Presidents what no other politician has been in my lifetime, if he can get through these final hurdles. And in the end, it may still be only a fool's errand, because the deck really is stacked against any serious attempt to turn back the tsunami waves of American money and power, but you've got to at least try. You put your best man (or woman) out there and give it a shot. He may not be the best candidate for the America we've come to know, but he's the best one we have for the America I want to see.
I can tell you all this, Ms. Smiley, because from what I've read in this and other excellent posts you've made, I think you will understand. I can't say this to Hillary and her supporters. They don't know what I'm talking about at all.
"Bill Clinton was the best Republican president I ever worked for."
-- Alan Greenspan
if hillary gets the nomiation . . she will be impeached . ..count on it
Well, that puts her ahead of Obama. In order to be impeached she'll have to defeat McCain, something Obama will not be able to do.
Donaldw6, what a wonderful and enlightened post! The best I have read in a long, long time!
That's too kind. Sounds like I'm preaching to the choir, though, where you're concerned. I just hope that some of all this hot air we're turning out puts a few wrinkles on all those smooth, shiny foreheads out there.
If your candidacy is not impeccable then obviously you're a ****. (Those of you who've read the series by Carlos Castaneda can fill in the word for yourselves since that frank observation seems to be taboo here at Huffpo.)
Jane I don't always agree with you but I must commend your earler post about the dangers of a two horse race. You were so right and it sucks.
Even though there are many falsifications in the article, I will stick to only the last part: "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."
I am glad to hear the writer's way of judging people. Just because someone can speak better is no proof that he will lead the better. Similarly, just because you don't like someone's husband does not mean you should equally hate the wife of that husband.
Clinton was economically successful, and he cannot be compared to the Bush. If you are looking at the change at the outside, I can give you the simplest example. During Clinton's era, United States had a much better reputation around the world, compared to now. That is a fact. If you want to put two Clintons on the same scale, then you shouldn't be bothered by that.
Second, the main reason for the failure of this country, is because of Bush administration. Even a child knows that right now. A Democratic president after Clinton would have improved the country a lot further, hence, you cannot blame Clinton for the mistakes that, I believe, you and many in the media have supported wholeheartedly at one time. Even many of the Democrats right now who are shouting at the words change were no different.
Well, at least I know why you are supporting Obama. Obama was also clueless about the Clinton's successes that he didn't mind erasing that era from the Democratic governed era. Oh, and by the way, the oldish people who are supporting Obama right now, are a part of that tested group. So, good luck with your change, and hope that it won't be realized in the worst possible way.
Wait, "just because you don't like someone's husband does not mean you should equally hate the wife of that husband," so Hillary can't claim any credit for 8 years in the white house, cause we shouldn't put the blame for what happened then on her, right?
But, "Clinton was economically successful, and he cannot be compared to the Bush. If you are looking at the change at the outside, I can give you the simplest example. During Clinton's era, United States had a much better reputation around the world, compared to now." So she does get credit for what her husband did...
I'm confused, are you saying Jane can't use the "More of the same," card because Clinton wasn't in the white house, or are you claiming the experience of her being in the white house? You can't have it both ways.
She is entitled to have agreed as well as disagreed with her husband on everything. And to take credit for those things she agreed with where her input prevailed, or where she added value to policy through action.
Since they are both excedingly brilliant I am sure they had countless intellectually honest discussions on many many issues.
And unlike any other First Lady before her, whose offices have been in the East Wing, Hillary's office was in the West Wing for 8 years!
It was Hillay Clinton, whom the leaders of Northern Ireland recently saught out to thank her for what she did to bring then together bring them together after years of violent division.
As for her vote on Iraq, I saw it all!
The UN specialist (Al Barazaid I believe is his name) stated that the only way Sadam would be willing to allow the inspectors back is under the THREAT of war.
And after almost a year of Bush trying to get that vote he finally said that war would only be as a last resort.
Hillary as did Kerry made the CONDITIONS OF THEIR VOTE VERY CLEAR. She made it clear that she opposed a premptive strike and that this was Sadam's last chance..
They VOTED AS A UNITED FRONT TO INTIMIDATE SADAM INTO ALLOWING THEY INSPECTORS BACK IN AND ONLY WAR AS A LAST RESORT IF HE DID NOT.
AND IT WORKED! After years of no cooperation, Sadam did allow them in
But instead of Mr. Bush forrming a coalition that included SADAM'S NEIGHBORS, he BETRAYED that vote, pushed the inspectors out and went in as a first resort.
Hillary had SPOKEN to the people who wrote the Intelligence estimate and got MIXED information. This is why she believed it was important to get those inspectors in.
Kerry later described that among other things they were taken into a room 5 at a time and given the intelligence. But when he asked them who their sources were they did not want to tell them. He could not believe, later on, that the administration used Challabie
since he was not widely respected, had been hanging around DC for years and trying to get the US to attack Iraq for years.
And while Tim Russert, in the lead up to the 2004 election repeated 60 times "But John Kerry voted for "the" War" And he and the rest of the GE-TVs of the world BLACKED OUT the Millions who marched in oppostion he basically has been passing the guilt onto Democrats to remove his complity with the administration.
Hillary was guilty of believing Mr. Bush that he would do what he said he would do and exactly what his Father had done...During a time when she was representing Ground Zero and they were still finding human remainst in the street!
Only thing wrong with this excellent riposte to the excellent Jane is that it is not the Bush administration alone that is the source of our trouble, and even if the list is too long and the crowd too vast to name, let's at least acknowledge that it is the Republican party's 'values', partisan savagery and contempt for justice that caused the Bush administration and all its evils. ALL REPUBLICANS were in on this hip deep with the tiniest list of exceptions. So whatever else is going on, Obamists and Hillarists, keep the main thing the main thing, Okay?
First of all It is sad that a person is disgraced, demeaned, and totally put aside because they speak well and are very inspiring. It is odd how giving someone hope pisses people off so badly. The Clintons inherited a good economy, yes they were able to maintain it, and that was great. However, the CLintons left the White House with even more baggage than they brought there.
It is the fear of not knowing someone for years and years that have many of you scared to death of Obama, it was fear that got Hillary to sign up for war, it was fear that help Obama lose Ohion, because in my view he won Texas but of course, the Clintons will not give that up, but it's fine. Anyway, this country has been doomed to a war in fact, more than one war all because of our fear after 911. When will we again become the home of the brave and not the "scared to death of anything they want us to be afraid of," We need to stop being wimps and stand up again for America.
I personally, never agreed with a war in Iraq, when it was suppose to have been Afganistan that harmed us. If Hillary had read the documents when asked maybe she would not have voted for that war.
Good luck to you on your support for Hillary, I know you are afraid of change and scared to death that someone may actually make a change, that benefits America. As for us, we will support Obama and one thing will not have to worry about is whether those tax returns, donors list, and secret documents will blow this election.
Alhough I must say, the Clintons are great at redefining what things really mean and you and the paid (debts owed) media will continue to help all the way.
where did you learn your history? bill clinton inherited an insurmountable (so everyone believed) national debt during a recession, AND HE BEGAN TO REVERSE IT! hillary watched up close and learned. her economic expertise is going to be needed this fall.
as for iraq, everybody knows that both clinton and obama voted against withdrawal timetables and for funding for the soldiers in iraq. SHOW ME HOW OBAMA IS A PEACEMAKER AND CLINTON A WARMONGER! carl levin is better than both is we look at the aggression against iraq.
in foreign policy, BOTH clinton and obama believe that diplomacy is the first alternative--a far cry from bush or mccain.
The question to ask Hillary is:
"If Obama wins the nomination and if it is offered, will you take the Vice Presidential slot on McCain's ticket."
She's obviously more of a Republican than she is a Democrat. And she obviously has more respect for "Bomb Iran" McCain than she does for Obama. So you're right: If she wants to get back in the White House, the obvious solution is ..... McCain/Clinton '08.
Republican in what sense?
She might have the most liberal health care plan, she supports a liberal approach in correcting the economical struggles. The only part of her that is close to the Republican side is her belief in her country's strength both inside "and" outside. That includes supporting action outside if it becomes necessary and avoiding unnecessary troubles on shaky grounds.
So, just like you won't see any Obama action in Serbia if things were to happen right now, you also won't see any Clinton action in Iraq if things were to happen right now. Clinton, in national security, is in between Obama and McCain, and, to build and continue the respect outside, that is not a bad sign, and actually it may even be the better approach compared to Obama's and McCain's.
Even the Iraq war, despite the incorrectness of the decision, might have ended in success if United Nations were to take part much earlier to build trust and avoid inviting the real al -qaeda, not the fake ones created by the Bush administration...
Democrats are apparently blinded by one erroneous assumption: progressives may not also be hawks.
Some of the most progressive presidents were also big time hawks. Kennedy and Johnson not only created the involvement in the Viet Nam war but escalated it. They are also know for their civil rights and war against poverty programs.
Maybe it will be John McCain/Jeb Bush. Truly horrifying.
Jane:
First of all, thanks for taking the time to write your observations. A successful novelist has a special understanding of peoples' characters, because they give birth to so many different characters in their novels. Bringing those characters to life as real people -- amazing talent.
Having said that, it is especially refreshing to hear your assessment of the Clintons. I supported Bill in both of his elections, but in the long run, he was perhaps the most disappointing president I have experienced in my 55 years of voting. I didn't expect much from Presidents Nixon through Bush I. But I didn't expect Bill Clinton to become known, as he is here among some Orange County Republicans, as a "pretty darn good Republican president".
Hillary's resorting to the Karl Rove tactics, is proof that she has no soul, and would do anything to win this election.
The most disappointing aspect of the whole thing is that so many of her supporters do not see this ugly side of her. Hopefully enough independents will see it, and give Obama the support he needs to overcome the reprehensible politics of both the GOP, and now the Clintons.
Gerry Long
Newport Beach
Actually, I think Hillary does have a soul. As do you. I do too.
And what about our "Democratic" Congress with Nancy Pelosy? What a joke they turned out to be!
Hillary has a soul, but she doesn't have any SOUL. Dig it?
She has a soul, it is kept in a locked box under Karl Rove's desk
We don't see this ugly side of her because it does not exist.
FICTION!
Jane you always make my day!
Let's hope that everyone turns out in large enough numbers to overcome those who love the status quo, or are chickenhawks and are looking for someone who looks and talks tough to comfort the little cowards within their timid hearts.
I feel like I have a big heart. I may be somewhat of a coward - I'm afraid of sharks, bombs, and noises in the night - but I don't think I'm really timid. I think the status quo is deplorable and I'm really not a chickenhawk.
But I don't agree with you.
Go figure.
There are those that believe in God and those that don't but say they do. There is no way of knowing who does or doesn't believe. All of our past Presidents, and most of our political leaders have claimed to be believers. History has shown us that they were all liars some down right corrupt. The most corrupt Being found in Republican Administrations. These administrations were not interested in progressive liberal thinking but maintaining the status quo of the rich and powerful. Hillary Clinton is part of that establishment and her behavior and endorsement of John Maccain proves that though she may have some liberal ideas she is still a Republican at heart.
Status Quo? Hillary?
Are you 17?
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
