Jan 28, 2008 12:01
I have, for a very long time, called Hillary Clinton a sellout, a back stabber, a grasping woman who will do anything -- ANYTHING -- to get what she wants. I was first angered when she labelled herself as a 'progressive', because she's too much of a fucking coward to try and take the world 'liberal' back from the Republicans who coopted it and managed to change its definition in people's minds. The problem with trying to call yourself a 'progressive' is that you give the Republicans a line of attack -- you quietly confirm that 'liberal' is bad by refusing to own it yourself, and then all they've got to do is call you a liberal. Own it, and when they try that tactic, you say 'Yes, and?', and then you take your chance to remind people exactly what being a liberal really means.
So I've been mad at her for a long time, but boy is she giving me more reasons to be irate.
The first one came in New Hampshire, when she cried as a means of "softening" her appearance. Make no mistake -- those tears were calculated. By doing so, she has singlehandedly backstabbed the fuck out of feminism. In order to win, she caved and helped to further the stereotype of the weak woman. You don't see any of the male candidates breaking down in tears. I have always scorned women who cried to get what they wanted. It's ugly and horribly manipulative.
And then, when it started looking like her campaign was in trouble, she brought out the big guns -- Bill Clinton. Now, I don't actually fault her for this. She's got Bill on her side, and she'd be a fool not to use him. (I think Al Gore should have done the same back in 2000. I think it would have won him the election if he had, since the only people who were really turned off by Bill Clinton at that time were people who never would have voted for Gore, anyway.)
But when it was starting to look like not even Bill Clinton would be enough, the lies started. She has lied and claimed that he said he admired Reagan. She has lied and claimed that he said that the Republican party has all the good idea. She has lied and claimed that he never introduced anti-war legislation. She has lied about his record on abortion. There are suspicions that her campaign is behind recent emails circulating on the internet that claim that he's Muslum and would be sworn into office on the koran.
And when Hillary Clinton lost South Carolina in what's been called a 'rout', Bill Clinton compared Obama's victory there with Jesse Jackson's two victories in past presidental campaigns. Almost every commentator who's discussed those comments have agreed that Clinton's words carry strong racial overtones -- Jesse Jackson is hardly a beloved figure, after all. Bill Clinton was relating him to "that kind of black man", the kind of black man that makes some white people very nervous.
Beyond that, after the democrats all agreed not to campaign in Florida (because they moved their primary up sooner than the DNC allowed), Hillary Clinton is 'stealth campaigning' there, and she's saying that Floridans "should have their vote heard". She's appearing at fund raisers there. She pledged not to campaign there, but now that it's looking like she's neck-in-neck with Obama, she's changed her mind.
If she gets the nomination, I'm not voting for her. Fuck, I might even consider voting Republican out of sheer spite, especially if Romney gets the nomination. Not because I think he'd be a good President, but because it would be great fun watching the evangelicals shit themselves for four years. (Besides, there's no way Romney is taking California, even if democrats like me stay home.)
Oh, and for those of you thinking of voting for John McCain because he's a "mavrick"? Read up on his record before you do so. He's been marching in lock step with the Republican party for a very long time, and it baffles me why he's considered any kind of a rebel, unless it's because of his extremely high profile partnerships with democrats on some issues that Republicans don't care much about anyway. I know he makes the RNC nervous, but again, I really don't know why, since they've always been able to whip him back in line if he starts to strike out on his own.
... You know, it's interesting. Back when Ahhnold was running against... crap, I don't remember his name, but the greek dweeby guy, here in California... I had a discussion with my father about the race. I remarked that this guy whose name I totally have forgotten had no chance in hell of winning, and the Dems were utter idiots for not throwing themselves completely behind the Ebay guy who was running against him. The Ebay guy had looks, he had what was percieved as a strong economic background, and everyone knows what Ebay is! Ebay is cool! I don't know for sure that he could have won, but I DID know for sure that the guy who got the nomination was going to lose. At the time, my father expressed his doubts. But of course, I was right.
So recently, when I remarked that Hillary Clinton didn't have a rat's chance in hell of winning a general election, he listened. When Judy sprung into vehement denial (because Hillary would capture 100% of the women's vote! Really she would!), my father pointed out to her that there would be a lot of diehard liberals like me who hate her -- and if diehard liberals like me hate her, how many independants can she really bring to her cause? Judy didn't listen to me, but I'm right. As long as either Romney or McCain gets the nomination, Hillary loses.
As with the Ebay guy, I don't know that Obama can win, especially against McCain, but I know that he's the best shot. And because of that, knowing the way that my party has their collective heads shoved way, way up their asses, I feel it's likely that Hillary Clinton will indeed get the nomination. Fuck her.
politics,
righteous rage