As a life-long feminist, it would be the fulfillment of all my dreams to have a woman as President of the United States in my lifetime. However, I find that the position is too important to waste my precious vote in such an endeavor if it were not the right person for the job. I am not convinced that Hillary Rodham Clinton is that person and, for the good of my beloved country, I cannot vote for her, and I will be happy to tell you why.
In 1992, I had become disillusioned with what the Republican Party had become under the leadership of Ronald Reagan and, though not ready to become a Democrat, I was ready to shop around. I watched carefully the presidential debates in order to evaluate the candidates and I settled upon Ross Perot, who seemed to have a better grasp of the welfare of the rank-and-file citizens. Sure, I was impressed by Mr Clinton but thought him rather callow as well as a wee bit shallow. Hillary, however, was impressive to my recently-Republican instincts. I felt that she was more than competent as the First Lady and maintained her composure despite all the pressures, legitimate and otherwise, that were inflicted upon her. It became obvious that she would be able to handle herself well in any situation and perform competently as an independent politician.
Once he took office, it looked like President Clinton might keep his campaign promises with due attention to the problem of poverty with an ambitious "welfare reform" but, after many compromises with the Republican Congess, we had more working mothers and more children without adequate day care. We also had the dangerous NAFTA as well as a trade agreement with China that was not considerate of the American worker and directly led to today's trade deficit. And so it seems highly likely that a "President Hillary" would continue with plans for a North American Union, a worsening of the employment situation, and the poor and ill still in the clutches of the health insurance industry which will be bloated with Federal subsidies.
Shortly before the death of my late husband, we were discussing the possibility of supporting Senator Clinton and he stated, "It is highly lkely that she will withdraw her candidacy for health reasons before 2008."
A query regarding his reasoning brought the reply, "Saddle sores, from straddling the fence too long" Nothing she has done or advocated has smacked of the kind of courage we have grown to ask from the Presudent of the United States. Our problems have grown beyond "bipartisanship" and require firm and deliberate action to re-establish the equality and personal liberty which the Bush administration has so effectively destroyed.
With our nation mired down and worn out in a Middle-Eastern war, hopelessly in debt, and more divided than at any time since the Civil War, the person whom we elect to lead us in 2008 must be an outstanding individual, capable of handling the many problems in the domestic area while repairing our image in the world as a nation to be trusted and emulated. First and foremost, I would prefer a candidate who had opposed the invasion of Iraq from the get-go, not one who voted for it, promoted it, or went along with it. We have a right to ask for somebody who said "hell, no", and continued to oppose the change from "finding Bin Laden, dead or alive" to establishing "Iraqi Freedom". Thus, there are few who qualify, most notably Dennis Kucinich and Russ Feingold, among our currently elected leaders. The hindsight that has been demonstrated by Hillary and by John Kerrry and John Edwards is simply not good enough.
My candidate would recognize the fact that they were elected to be the President of the United States, not the Emperor of the World. There are vital treaties that must be re-negotiated and kept, there are foreign bases in friendly nations that need to be trimmed down or closed, and there are other nations that must be weaned from the American dollar. If, for instance, Israel cannot stand on her own feet after we have provided billions of dollars a year for over fifty years and Germany cannot provide for her own defense after all those years of literal occupation, then they will have to learn the hard way. We have crumbling and ineffective schools, a medical care system that is on life support, an aging and obsolete super-structure, a depleted, worn out, and exhausted military, and a large percentage of the populace who are in dire need. This must be the first priority. Our nation should return to the its former status as peace-maker to the world, not the enforcer imposing our own standards and our way of life upon citizens of other sovereign nations.
Together with restoring the condition and reputation of our own homeland, we must also restore the basic tenets of the Constitution which has been ignored and negated for far too long. We must distrupt the absolute tyranny of the "old guard" politicians who gain their power from tenure rather than ability and spend so many years in the ivory tower of Beltway power politics that they neither know nor care the needs and desires of the people, the lifeblood of our country. It is so easy for them to listen only to those large campaign donors instead of the voices of their electorate. Mrs. Clinton has spent the last five years, not in opposing them but in trying to join them. Not once has she stamped her tiny feet and proclaimed a proposed action as intolerable from the viewpoint of average American citizens. Her policy has been one of "go along to get along" in order to court the opposition and amass a campaign war chest.
No, Mrs. Clinton. I believe we have had enough of "compromise and coalition" and "bipartisanship" as well as more than our fill of nepotism in the White House. What this nation needs is a fresh voice and new ideas to correct the imbalance caused by the policies of this administration. I have not yet heard that voice nor seen very many new ideas in the current crop of candidates. I was taken by the words of former Senator Mike Gravel in speaking at the Democratic Convention when he stated that no congressperson who voted for this war deserves the office of the President and that the only sensible solution to the health care crisis is a national single-payer program. I agree and find that that standard eliminates almost all of the current crop of wannabes. My mother brought me up to be a smart shopper, so I think I will continue looking. This is not a time to shop for fads or haute couture. We need something durable and effective for the large job ahead of us and appearance or personal popularity should not be a factor. After all, it is going to be two years before the big party and we don't have to decide now.
The author is a very "with-it" old lady who aspires to bring a bit of truth, justice, and commom sense to a nation that has lost touch with its humanity in the search for societal "perfection".
I agree that supporting Mrs. Clinton is out of the question, and for much the same reasons plus the reality that she is closer to Rupert Murdoch's politics than to mine own. I read with interest your search of the political skies for a candidate worthy of support and wondered if you would arrive at the same conclusions that have become obvious to me.
I did not come over from the GOP, nor did I trust Perot for one minute, my family were all Democrats, each and every one and so I was foreordained to be one too. After forty years of membership in that party the actions of William Jefferson Clinton finally made me understand that I was simply placing my faith in the myth of a party that really did not exist.
The Dems , every bit as much as the GOP, are wedded to the corporate dollar and certainly not to the needs, wishes and expressed opinions of the electorate. Unless and until we all realise this simple fact we will continue to live the lie of American politics, that it is we the people who decide.
The solutions to what ails this nation do not lie withing either major political party, they lie within the individuals that comprise this nation of ours. Until we all get off our couches and get out into the world of politics we will continue to be complicit in the evils this nation does.
by
ardee D. (6 articles, 4 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 2388 comments)
on Thursday, February 22, 2007 at 11:57:47 AM
for the same reason you were. I was born that way! And, being an old person, I have learned that absolute truth is not available to mortal man. Politics is a crap shoot and we can't be sure whether we should have bet until the dice take their last turn. But we can study people and their behavior before we allow them the keys to the safe.
I believe in the Constitution and I suppose I would designate myself as a "new populist", one who believes that the people should govern, that Congress works for the people and should reflect their majority views, and that the three branches of government are, and should remain, equal.
So, if that be treason, hang me!
by
Mary Pitt (60 articles, 0 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 159 comments)
on Thursday, February 22, 2007 at 12:07:43 PM
Madison, late in life, wrote about his regret in building a two party system, proportional voting being unknown to him at that time.
I have come to believe that the savior of the progressive agenda in this country lies in the building of a strong third party movement. As an "old fart" I will probably not live to see this to its fruition but so what, right is right.
by
ardee D. (6 articles, 4 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 2388 comments)
on Thursday, February 22, 2007 at 4:43:27 PM
I take a lot of flack for my opinions but I'm old enough that I don't care. Not planning on living a lot longer, I no longer fear for anything except the future of the land which my ancestors built for me. I would certainly like to pass it on to generations to come as a democracy rather than as a plutocracy.
by
Mary Pitt (60 articles, 0 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 159 comments)
on Thursday, February 22, 2007 at 4:59:23 PM
I totally agree with your accessment of hilary clinton.her husband was part of the problem started by ronnie reagan.I can't understand how a person who claims to care was a Republican in the first place.I thought there was hope when Bill Clinton was elected but he let hillary's national health care program die without a fight.The dcl which sponsered Bill is made up of conservative Democrats which one site refers to as Republican lite.The way I see it is we face 3 major issues which we must face or the United sTATES IS DOOMED. tHE 3 ARE 1.tHE war and ending it as soon as possible 2.getting rid of all the free trade agreements before we have another depression which i feel is coming 3.getting a national health care program sponsered by the government which every civilized nation but the US and s. Africa have.We must go back to the time of liberals,they built this country and i don"t know if you realize it but Kucinich and Feinstein are liberals,especially Kucinich.
by
liberalsrock (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 108 comments)
on Thursday, February 22, 2007 at 5:40:03 PM
She is not a leader,nor is Edwards or even Obama. A leader is someone who stands ahead of the crowd, not just feels entitled to be president. Hillary and Edwards were 'fooled' by George Bush, a man who had no qualifications and no intellectual authority in the first place. They have proven themselves incompetent. Obama pretends to be antiwar but continues to vote for the war funding, while enabling Bush in his propaganda about Iran.
We need a real leader in America, someone who has been fighting against the lies of the Bush administration since the beginning. Congressman Dennis Kucinich has been leading the effort to stop Bush from attacking our constitution with the Patriot act, the war in Iraq, he is working to stop the war in Iran.
Personally I have no desire to be led. I'm not looking for anyone with leadership ability. I'd like to see someone capable of being a good representative, however. Someone willing to carry out the will of the voters that puts them into office rather than someone who is able to carry out "their" agenda.
by
Mark Petersen (9 articles, 73 quicklinks, 4 diaries, 50 comments)
on Friday, February 23, 2007 at 8:04:26 AM
I would prefer to think of Americans as a company, Congress a board of directors and the election a hiring of a CEO, but then, that is the attitude that Bush took and has done everything wrong since. However, it seems that the Board refuses to "fire" him and getting a new board installed is a ponderous process. That idea was the result of my Republican up-bringing, but I still think the President should be considered OUR employee!
by
Mary Pitt (60 articles, 0 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 159 comments)
on Friday, February 23, 2007 at 10:18:16 AM
Clinton, Obama, Edwards......DLC neolibs (the soft-gloved version of the neocons)... all plutocrats. All anti-democracy. Not one worthy of being in my employ.
by
richard (0 articles, 3 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 664 comments)
on Friday, February 23, 2007 at 2:40:49 PM
