Fight Hillary! Fight!

stumble digg reddit del.ico.us news trust

Posted May 7, 2008 | 03:00 PM (EST)



Show your support.
Buzz this article up.

Now, before I get into this I want to say that party unity is very important. I will vote for and vigorously support this fall whoever gets the Democratic nomination. It will be up to the loser to do his or her best to unite the party and I will be extremely upset if they do not put all of their efforts into doing so.

Having said that and as you may know, I've been supporting Hillary Clinton's candidacy and today I'm again making a donation to her campaign and if you support her I encourage you to do so as well by clicking here.

Recently I was talking with a friend who is on the fence between Hillary and Barack and he asked why I support Hillary. He has been turned off by her seeming willingness to do almost anything to get elected. My reply was that short of selling her soul, he was probably right. But what's wrong with that? The following argument may be a bit basic for daily readers of HuffPo but there are many many people who are bothered by this issue who want to reason it out. Indulge me for a moment:

We have a party and a president currently in the White House that has shown they will do anything to get elected (maybe even sell their souls). I believe they stole the 2000 election against Al Gore, ramrodded the Supreme Court and used Bush Senior's friends to take control. As much as I love and respect him, I think Al Gore stood down too soon and didn't show the mettle you have to have against the Republicans to win.

In 2004 Bush used fear to win against John Kerry. The Republicans ran those famous swift boat ads and tarnished Kerry's heroic service to the country in Vietnam. They basically said, "If you elect Kerry the country will not be safe". Kerry didn't fight back effectively enough to win. Many Democrats are still angry with him about that.

I believe John McCain is an honorable man. But the Republican Party plays dirty and they are not going to let go of power without a serious fight. Over the last 8 years they have gerrymandered congressional districts. They ram these redistricting acts through Congress when they're in control and the Democrats don't undo the damage. Little by little the Republicans are reshaping the country into a conservative, backwater nation that is less free, has worse infrastructure, a less educated population and has a wider gap between the haves and have-nots than many countries in Europe and Asia. Before long it will be impossible to reverse the damage and continue to lay claim to the title of Greatest Country on Earth. They truly do "whatever it takes" to get elected and if there's one thing the Democrats haven't done well it's fight back!

The Republicans misinform, play a shell game, get uninformed voters to vote for them on values issues and then use the system not to the benefit of the country but rather to the benefit of themselves and the wealthy. They do it on the backs of their own voters, the middle class and the great people in rural states who get misled into believing voting Republican is actually in their overall interest. The last two elections were winnable for the Democrats but they lost them because they won't take off the gloves and beat the Republicans at their own game. They won't "do what it takes to get elected."

The Clintons have been put through hell by the Republican attack machine. They know firsthand what the Republicans are going to do to the Democratic candidate leading up to the November general election and they know the Democrats can't win by appealing to reason alone. Even though you and I respond to reason we are unfortunately a minority. Elections in this country are won on emotion and it is often about negative emotion for the other guy than positive emotion for your candidate. I didn't make the rules and neither did Hillary. It's just the way it is. I'd like the rules to change but is it really realistic to think we can achieve two goals at once: getting a Democrat elected president AND change the culture of politics as usual? I don't think so and even if you do I'm not willing to risk losing to try! There is simply too much at stake.

Whoever the next president is they are going to inherit a VERY difficult situation both at home and abroad. Two wars, a falling dollar, rising fuel prices, a country more in debt than ever, a failing economy, a tarnished national reputation in the world community and sky-rocketing food prices that have even resulted in Costco having to ration rice! This is the legacy Bush and the Republicans have given us. The next president is going to have to know his or her stuff!!!

I'm for Hillary because she's a fighter and won't let the Republicans ride over her roughshod. Her policies and positions are identical to Obama's but she's spent 8 years in the White House and knows better than anyone in the country (who hasn't already been president) what it's like to be president. She'd be moving into the White House with someone who actually was president for 8 years -- and a damn good one at that. The Clintons know the world leaders. They know the landscape. They are cunning, clever and can get the job done and that´s what we need right now.

I'm not saying Obama doesn't have the mettle. I'm saying no one knows for sure that he does. He hasn't been tested in the same way Hillary has. We currently have a president who had little experience going in, who alienated his father who did have experience and that got us our current situation.

This is an extremely crucial moment in our history and we can't afford another Republican administration. Obama has energized the nation but his inability to close the deal has made me nervous. What if he can't close the deal in November? Does anyone think McCain will be less of an opponent than Hillary? Can we afford to risk that?

The country I love is being shaped into an unequal, less democratic, shadow of what we could be. It is unfortunate that national politics has become what it is. But it is what it is and regardless of how she has to play the game, Hillary is more committed than are the Republicans to restoring America to a peaceful beacon of hope and an example to the world. That's the country I grew up in. Regardless of what you think of "politics as usual" it's how the game is played in this country. Hopefully it will change but how likely is that? We're talking about the position of the most powerful person on the planet. It's naive to think the Republicans won't continue to play dirty to hang onto the power and as Democrats we'd be naive to run anyone against them who isn't willing to fight them tooth and nail for it.

 
 

Comments
34
Pending Comments
0

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

View Comments:
Page: 1 2 Next › Last » (2 pages total)

I take umbrage to the idea that being the wife of the President qualifies you for the job...and I don't want to try to return to the Clinton years with Bill back in the White House...to think that will work in these changed times seems unsurpassingly foolish to me.

I think she has been tested...and I think she has failed. I don't want another leader who fights tooth and nail to secure their own power to the detriment of the general public. Who only comes up with good ideas (lower gas prices for the consumer by taxing the oil companies!) when it is politically convenient...and my belief that people like her will ever actually deliver is slim to none.

I for one am ready to move on to the next generation of political leadership. Apparently I am not alone.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:06 PM on 05/07/2008

THis is bull shit. If Hill was all that she would be the frnt runner and Obama would be trailing. Get a gripe grandpa. It's over. Now go retire.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 05:37 PM on 05/07/2008

"Obama has energized the nation but his inability to close the deal has made me nervous."

When did Hillary close the deal in a way that made you feel reassured?

"Does anyone think McCain will be less of an opponent than Hillary?"

McCain is an old dinosaur with a collection of unpopular positions. The only thing he has going for him is his life story and his patriotism. Flag-pin wearers will rally behind him. Big deal. It's hard for any party to hold on to the White House for three straight terms, and this is no exception. Chill out, and put cold feet next to the space heater. The longer the Democratic Party collectively scratches their heads, the better chance McCain has, and he should have zero chance.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 05:30 PM on 05/07/2008

HRC is a Republican, and a warmongering one at that. She did vote to go to Iraq--and she has threatened to obliterate Iran--great diplomatic skills there> She is for NAFTA, she pushed it--no matter how hard she backpedals. She sat on the board of Wal-Mart and worked for an anti-union law firm in Arkansas. Before she hooked up with Bill she was a Goldwater Girl. Her healthcare plan is designed to line the pockets of the insurance companies, her 90 day moratorium on mortgages will do nothing to help the situation and probably further harm it, ditto the gas tax holiday. Yep--a Republican.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 05:30 PM on 05/07/2008

Sorry Mike McCready:

NOT THIS TIME! NOT THIS TIME! NOT THIS TIME! Hillary may be your choice, but Barack Obama represents real change and by suporting him we have a once in a lifetime opportunity to witness and experience greatness not seen since FDR.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 05:23 PM on 05/07/2008

This is old politics, sir. The times they are a changin. Something is happening here, but you don't know what it is, do you, Mr Jones? (er, Mr McCready)

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 05:23 PM on 05/07/2008

"his [Obama's] inability to close the deal has made me nervous."

Why does it make you nervous about Obama but not Clinton? By the "closing the deal" metric, she's much worse off than he is, especially when you consider the overwhelming advantages she started with. She blew a massive lead. Doesn't that concern you?

The nomination race is over except for formalities. By that standard, Obama has closed the deal. But assuming you mean "his inability to get 2,025 delegates by now has made me nervous," let's look at that notion:

Why hasn't he got the superdelegate endorsements necessary to end this contest? The main reason is that the Clintons are the most powerful pair in Democratic politics. Loyalty is important to them, and they reward those who are loyal to them. Because of this, superdelegates are wary of endorsing Sen. Clinton's opponent. Interestingly, elected superdelegates have overwhelmingly favored Obama, because of the down-ticket benefits of his 50-state strategy. It's the non-elected superdelegates who are holding off. One suspects that they're waiting in order to have their cake and eat it, too - appeasing the Clintons but backing a winner.

The fact that Sen. Obama has prevailed against the Clinton machine is amazing. It demonstrates his firm grip on the tools necessary to make the Democratic party competitive again: massive voter registration, grassroots organization, funding, and a map-changing 50-state strategy that will force McCain to protect electoral votes he'd win against Clinton.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 05:14 PM on 05/07/2008

Smoking off of Puff the Magic Dragon, I see... testicular fortitude is about to get a vasectomy

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 05:07 PM on 05/07/2008

So, give McCain some more time? That's what you're saying.

You're telling people to prolong a contest where Clinton has, realistically, a 0% chance of winning.
And no it isn't an issue of an "ever so slight chance," or even a "it would take a miracle."

She would have to win every single contest from here on out by at least 65%. That would also mean that Michigan and Florida would have to:
a) have their entire delegations seated,
b) ensure that the 40% "Not Hillary Clinton" vote from Michigan was not be awarded to Obama, and finally
c) give Hillary 20% more of the vote in Florida than she actually earned.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 04:54 PM on 05/07/2008

You believe that John McCain is "an honorable man?" 'Nuff said.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 04:41 PM on 05/07/2008

If we beat them by becoming them, then we haven't beaten them at all.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 04:40 PM on 05/07/2008

For the life of me I can't decide if this is satire or sincerity. John McCain is an honorable candidate? Maybe when compared to Hillary. What's wrong with being willing to do anything short (in theory) of selling your soul to win? Gee, if only we had an example from recent history about what's wrong with that. Oh wait WE DO.

If this guy really is an actual supporter of Hillary then he's done a marvelous job of showing why Obama's going to have the nomination. If he's not then I suspect a Limbaugh operative. Nothing else makes sense.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 04:29 PM on 05/07/2008

Another delusionalist.... How you could support a Republican posing as a Democrat is beyond my comprehension, but it is time to take a break Mike... perhaps for about 8 years. She lost a long while back. Even her strategists admit that. She did it to herself. By her hand, she has critically damaged the Democratic Party. Your solution?... more of the same. Time to wake up and consider a few aspects of the real world.

She needs to go home to her carpetbagging and influence peddling and cease the destruction. The moral turpitude she displays can be likened to the condition of an old beater car that you have driven for six winters in Minnesota... all rusted up from the road its been on. Kick it once to test its metal and it rings corroded to the frame... okay, I'm sure it was spellcheck.

Hillary and Bill - putting the "nasty" in Dynasty since 1992

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 04:24 PM on 05/07/2008


Curiously, Hillary Clinton may be dead-on correct in asserting that she is doing The Democratic Party a favor by vetting Senator Obama hard during the primaries. Voters have seen Reverend Wright's sound bites on the news--perhaps a great many times. Republican talk radio hosts like Sean Hannity have devoted hours weaving nuggets of fact into a blanket innuendo of covert anti-American & racist agenda--accompanied by a machine gun staccato of the same sound bites. No doubt, some Republican supporters can and will go further working with this material, but it seems to have lost its punch.

Does anyone really believe that everyone acquainted with a former Weather underground member is a terrorist? Do people suppose that every member of a congregation necessarily believes every view held and expressed by their pastor? Perhaps Senator Obama is correct to have faith in the respect for fair play held by voters, but time sure helps.

I don't see collusion between Senators Clinton and Obama, but happenstance has given them massive attention and record registration to dwarf the poor, ignored Republicans. Someday soon, I suspect that Rush Limbaugh might get the horrible idea that he--not The Democratic Party--has been used, that it was he who got played like a Stradivarius violin, him who chased the carrot and helped carry the donkey with Operation Chaos.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 04:18 PM on 05/07/2008

Hillary's problem wasn't that she was willing to do anything to get elected. Her problem was that there was only one thing she was ABLE to do to get elected. Hers was a toolbelt with only a hammer; a quiver with only one arrow.
Hillary Clinton was able to enter mad-dog mode and go low, and she was able to go low in mad dog mode. And that's it.

Her comfort zone being here has been easy to see since her gleeful "here comes the fun part!" announcement, early on. For Hillary Clinton, that's all politics is: going out and attacking people. She was never able to transcend this, never able to look presidential. And from the start, Barack Obama could and did, daily.

~~

The rhetoric of negative campaigning requires the claim--or perhaps pretense--that the candidate would prefer to be talking issues, but has had to address some desperately pressing issue about their opponant's character, out of concern for the nation.

Hillary could never make that claim. She just looked lost whenever she wasn't in mad dog mode. No one's going to vote for a president like that.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 04:17 PM on 05/07/2008

No, Hillary won't let the Republicans ride over her roughshod - she'll just vote for their insane wars and adopt their stupid gas tax plans and use their warmongering rhetoric about obliterating enemies and make absurd promises about dismantling OPEC. Wait, why isn't she a Republican? Oh, because the business elites who've funneled tens of millions of dollars into her and her husband's political machine and need military spending the way the rest of us need air to breathe are using her to divert voters who want change from the real deal: Go Obama!

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 04:16 PM on 05/07/2008

Sorry, but ugh. Why would we settle for her when we can have Obama?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 04:14 PM on 05/07/2008

I am all for fighting the Repugs. I think we do need a strong candidate that can stand up, take a punch and hit back. Do I think that we need to jump off the curb and roll around in the muck with them? No I don"t. Of all the nasty things that went down in this campaign the one that really frosted my cookies was the comment Hillary made about how she had passed the leadership test and so had McCain.

I see Obama as making a decision on an issue and standing by that decision , but at the same time being able to change his mind when commonsense demands. We have Chimp Boy in the White House unwilling to reexamine any decisions he has made and we have Hillary and McCain willing to change directions depending on the people she is taking to.

Maybe I am a bit naive but I don"t think you have to fight dirty to win. I think you have to fight smart to win. Kerry not coming out loud and proud when he was Swift Boated was a stupid move. But I think Obama jumped up and took on the Rev. Wright issue and Bittergate and lets not forget Bowling.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 04:13 PM on 05/07/2008

The Republicans wouldn't be able to ride roughshod over her because she Is a Republican!

And as for toughness, Obama has taken everything that Hillary has learned from Karl Rove and handled it neatly. He's handled her, and he will handle anything her surrogates come up with.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 04:11 PM on 05/07/2008

Its your money.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 04:07 PM on 05/07/2008

I'm not buying it.

The sensibilities of many Americans toward Hillary would be affected by Republicans' never-ending presentation of the vision of Hillary in the Oval Office where her husband spent so much time creatively playing with cigars.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 04:07 PM on 05/07/2008

Thanks Mike for posting here today. It been hell out here for a Hillary supporter. I agree with what you have written. She is tough and I think she is also great. With Obama we will lose in the GE. These fools can't see that. Their vision is too clouded by the Kool-Aid they've been guzzling. They think they are going to ride this wave all the way to the White House and they are wrong. But it's too late and it has been too late for a while. We are too divided. I say that as someone who will be voting for McCain in the fall. He is going to stumble and mutter all the way to the presidency.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 04:05 PM on 05/07/2008

"Their vision is too clouded by the Kool-Aid they've been guzzling"

Really? If you are suggesting that Obama is like a cult leader who can get the masses to do whatever he wants - Thanks! That's acutally a very useful quality where he is headed (the White House). Maybe then we can set this country on the right course.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 04:50 PM on 05/07/2008

Mike, it's over. Obama has won fair and square. You can make an argument that points out Obama's weaknesses (I don't agree with them), but you can't make an argument that Hillary at this point would be better. She had the name recognition, a huge lead in the polls, plenty of money, and tons of experience on how a presidential primary works; and yet she couldn't manage to play by the rules and defeat a rookie senator. She got beat.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:56 PM on 05/07/2008

This is not even funny anymore.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:55 PM on 05/07/2008

A couple of points: One, gerrymandering is a state matter not a federal one. It is not Congress that passes these laws. It is the state legislators in the red states that the Clinton campaign writes off as not part of their 51% majority that do. Gerrymandering is one of the big problems with the Mark Penn approach to politics that Clinton has embraced.

Hillary Clinton began the campaign as the prohibitive favorite. She lost in part because she made some really bad votes as a Senator, primarily her support for the Iraq debacle which she did not back down on until she was forced to, and then only sort of. So while she continues to fight, that has not translated very well into winning. Bush continues to fight for his belief that Iraq was a good idea and we should stay in Iraq long enough for it to not be his fault. But the simple willingness to fight is not itself necessarily a good thing.

If McCain will not be less of an opponent than Hillary Clinton, then why on earth are you supporting her getting the nomination? If you mean that they are equally tough, then Obama has shown he can beat a candidate of that caliber. So it is a bit hard to see what you are arguing for.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:55 PM on 05/07/2008
Page: 1 2 Next › Last » (2 pages total)
Comments are closed for this entry

You must be logged in to reply to this comment. Log in

 
 

 
 
Related Tags
 

 Site  Web ask.com