Common Dreams of Hillary
I visited one of my favorite "progressive" Web sites today and was surprised by the hostility of its readers to the possibility of a Hillary Clinton presidency. These are the types who voted for Nader in 2000 and cost Gore the election. With a fraction of the 90,000 Florida votes that went to Nader, Gore would have had a clear win in Florida, and it would not have been possible for the U.S. to be "betrayed" by its Supreme Court. (See Vincent Bugliosi's book "The Betrayal of America at Google's Books website--hilite link, right click, and choose the "search" option)http://books.google.com/books?id=8_ZG0HAFw7UC&dq=&pg=PP1&ots=FbZvrjOFax&sig=UVsAtP3k8t8tzbh7L9v-GfbDAPQ&prev=http://www.google.com/search%3Fsourceid%3Dnavclient%26aq%3Dt%26ie%3DUTF-8%26rlz%3D1T4SUNA_enUS230%26q%3DVincent%2BBugliosi%2B%2522The%2BBetrayal%2Bof%2BAmerica%2522&sa=X&oi=print&ct=title#PPA5,M1I posted a comment in the Discussion comments to an article by Ruth Coniff titled "Hillary Clinton and the Woman Thing." You can read highlights below, or follow this link to the original post. Comments are welcome, as always.
Here's the link:
http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/06/27/2129/
The gist of my argument posted a few hours ago:
<> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
Most of you so-called progressives are supposedly pining for a “humanist” woman or a “true progressive”, to vote for as president, but view “Billary” as the scum of the Beltway, un-derserving of your support under any circumstances. You blindly dismiss her achievements, political skills, and sheer powers of endurance, saying “[S]urely we can do better than this….” Well, you may need to wait another century or so for that chance–in the meantime, will your tunnel vision (changed from "obstinacy") enables our disgraced and disgraceful nation’s leaders to continue plundering and sewing the seeds of destruction for future generations. Richardson and Kucinich a dream ticket? Give me a break! How about Richardson as Secretary of State, and Kucinich as Secretary of HUD? In a Hillary Clinton administration, why not?
Please, Commondreamers, I implore you and your ilk — refrain from lending aid and comfort to those intent on sabotaging the good Senator’s chances of being the first woman and former First Lady to be become Commander in Chief and wielder of the bully pulpit. Work for Kucinich or Obama if you choose, and then stoically accept Clinton if she is the winner of the Democrat primaries. With a Democrat majority in both houses, and having made history simply by virtue of her election alone, President Hillary Clinton will be uniquely unfettered by the compulsation to ensure election to a second term. I predict history will be made: a Moon Program / Marshall Plan type initiative on global warming will be launched; restoration of civil liberties and rehabilitation of our voting system will be a top priority; appointment of appropriate judges and justices will be assured (Supreme Court for Lani Guinier?); world leadership and cooperation through participation in a re-invigorated United Nations could become a reality. And finally, the beginning of the end of the destructive Blue / Red State divide could be at hand– Bill Clinton could become not simply an ambassador to the world, but a builder of bridges between the estranged Americas as well.
You’ve really got very little to lose if you think about it, and a maybe a new world to gain. Let’s show our allies and the international community that unlike France, we can elect a woman chief executive — a woman who has pledged to end the war she would have been powerless to prevent, even if it had made sense to destroy her political career trying to do so. Admit it my fellow “progressives”: this is a war that none of us who has not been daily protesting in the streets for the past 5 years, or enduring a series of hunger strikes, can truly avoid responsibility for.
Labels: "Hillary Rodham Clinton, "The Betrayal of America", Vincent Buglisi
posted by kokuaguy at 3:40 AM
2 Comments:
The reality is that either the Democrat or Republican nominee will be the next president. Those enamored with the independant, “populist” messages of Edwards and Obama forget the most recent example of a truly principled Democrat outsider who was able to marshall the support of a disillusioned American electorate. However, lacking the kind of experience and network that a Hillary Rodham Clinton would bring to office, Jimmy Carter was quickly marginalized, even though his fellow Democrats controlled both houses of Congress. Americans who fail to comprehend the calculations and expediencies required to gain the Presidency in today’s fundamentally compromised political system are naive and unrealistic. Recall that FDR’s success was dependant upon alliances with segregations, corrupt ward bosses, and demagogue union leaders; nevertheless, his vision of an invigorated and more equitable society managed to carry the day. Hillary Clinton’s status as the first woman president, and “co-president’ in the last successful Democrat administration, could assure unparalled accomplishments for a true “uniter” at a time of historic opportunity.
It's time to comment on the earthquake in Iowa, I suppose. It does not surprise me that it's the folks at Fox, CNN, etc. most impressed by the seismic impact of the three way tie on Thursday Jan 4th. I suppose I should not tell others that all I think of are diapers when I hear the young man's "change mantra".
Of course, I'm an old fart. Barak would be a magnificent man to share the ticket with Hillary--the only choice as far as I'm concerned. I think Mondale would have been elected if he'd chosen HART, and Gore if he'd selected Bradley (ABBL, actually). If by some diabolical, serendiptous happenstance Obama should become the nominee, I would HATE him forever if he did not offer the VP position to Hillary. I would not HATE her for turning it down, but I'd never forgive her (and Bill.)
Post a Comment
<< Home