Sunday, March 4, 2007

The Case Against Hillary - Updated
(Roxie Responds)

I continue to be amazed by the unflagging support from fellow Progressives (some prefer the term "Liberal") for Hillary Clinton's presidential bid. Just last week in Roxie's World (Roxie is a wire-haired fox terrier), Roxie again mentioned that she was glad to see that there had been a break of sorts in the Hillary-bashing. Roxie's earlier post ("Roxie's Pleading: Halt Hillary Hating") made her case for supporting Hillary amidst all the criticism of Ms. Clinton. In direct contrast to another post on Roxie's World - "What Would Molly Say" Roxie seems to ignore the prescient words of her hero, Molly Ivins, who capably made a case against Hillary Clinton back in January 2006. Roxie obviously hadn't seen this morning's column by Frank Rich in the NYTimes, in which he states what I think has become apparent to both Progressive Democrats and the majority of Americans:

"The issue is not that Mrs. Clinton voted for the war authorization in 2002 or that she refuses to call it a mistake in 2007. Those are footnotes. The larger issue is judgment, then and now. Take her most persistent current formulation on Iraq: ‘Obviously, if we knew then what we know now, there wouldn’t have been a vote and I certainly wouldn’t have voted that way.’ It’s fair to ask: Knew what then? Not everyone was so easily misled by the White House’s manipulated intelligence and propaganda campaign. Some of her fellow leaders in Washington — not just Mr. Obama out in Illinois, not just Al Gore out of power — knew plenty in the fall of 2002. Why didn’t she?....Either way, she made a judgment, and she will not be able to spend month after month explaining it away to voters with glib, lawyerly statements. The politics of personal destruction, should they actually visit the Clintons once more, will not take America’s mind off the politics of mass destruction in Iraq."

It boggles my mind that with such a rich array of candidates in the Democratic field that anyone would still be seriously considering Hillary a viable candidate. Never mind that she is a political juggernaut with an uncanny ability to raise massive amounts of money, never mind the dust up over the questionable comments made by David Geffen at a Hollywood fund-raiser for Barack Obama that were so quickly and ridiculously attacked by the Hillary Camp, she is as duplicitous as any politician and her reputation of being a snob and treating those she views as inferiors with rudeness and contempt is in direct contrast to her husband’s magnanimity. She may be a great politician, but she’s not a great person – her husband Bill Clinton is both a great politician and a great person. That is one of the few reasons why I may end up voting for Hillary if she does indeed manage to secure the Democratic nomination – it’s a backdoor way to get the Big Dog back in the White House. That and no matter her many flaws, Hillary beats Giuliani or McCain or Jebbie or any of the other right-wing lunatics the Repubs might endorse in 2008.

I wish that all Progressives would start focusing on the excellent candidates that we do have: John Edwards, Bill Richardson, Dennis Kucinich, Barack Obama, and the possibility of General Wesley Clark and Al Gore joining the race. All of these candidates provide much better choices than Hillary who has been wrong on the most important issue of our time: the war in Iraq and the looming war with Iran. Sorry, Roxie, I don't agree with you on this one, but that doesn't mean I don't love you.

Read Molly Ivins' column, I Will Not Support Hillary Clinton for President.

Roxie Responds:
With all due respect, you're missing the point of my Hillary posts. I don't support Hillary. I long ago endorsed Al Gore and devote part of each day to praying that he will jump into the race. What drives me crazy is the mindless trashing of Hillary that has characterized so much of the primary before the primaries and that seems to be fueling so much of the swooning for Obama. I particularly hate seeing women like Maureen Dowd engaging in ad feminem attacks that look and sound ridiculous and give men permission to pile on. For all her flaws--and I acknowledge she has many flaws--Senator Clinton is the first woman to have a serious chance at the presidency, and it seems to me that much of the vitriol aimed at her is aimed at undermining the ambitions of a powerful woman. I realize, of course, that neither you nor the late great Molly Ivins is a part of that. I just don't like Dems beating up on Dems, and I detest the tone of the coverage of the horse race in the "liberal" media.

No comments: