By now you all know that I am solidly in the "anti-Hillary camp". I do not consider her to be at all trustworthy, principled, or progressive, or even especially effective. I've just been reminded again of why. And no, it's not the gay marriage thing. Let's not forget that Obama also "evolved" on the issue, just to be fair. Hell, I made the exact same transition, from soft support for "civil unions" to full-on gay marriage, so I can't gripe about that.
This article in The Nation is just a quick reminder of yet another reason why Hillary Clinton is a terrible candidate and not at all the President that we need right now. Sending our troops to die in a needless war that we started because of lies is not "supporting" them.
And this is on foreign policy, her supposed strong suit. Even looking back on her tenure as Secretary of State, what did she really accomplish? "She didn't burn the store down" isn't saying much. Let's not forget that she was known as THE hawk of the whole administration, much more than the guy who ordered all the drone strikes and killed Bin Laden.
You know what? In 2000, "Don't burn down the store" might have been enough. Maybe she could have handled the White House back then, even with the hysteria of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy. But in 2016, it's not enough to just hold the steering wheel still. We need a drastic course correction, and I don't think Hillary Clinton can do that. I think she's too conservative for that.
Let's face it, there is only one reason why anyone is talking about this triangulating, calculating, conniving politician, this plastic Wall Street toadie as the next POTUS, and that is because we're overdue for a woman President. That's it. Period. We're overdue for a woman, and she's a woman, the most visible and ambitious. If she were a he, he would have been forgotten (or consigned to a C-list job on CNN, same difference) years ago, and all the MSM buzz would be about Sarah Palin. I'm serious. (And yes, I just used the words "Sarah Palin" and "serious" back to back- ugh...)
Why am I so dead set against Hillary Clinton? Couldn't my invective just as accurately describe any of a hundred male politicians? Yes, of course, but first of all, by asking that, aren't you protecting her and giving her a pass on her bullshit just because she's a woman? Can you at least ask yourself if you are? For what it's worth, if any of those hundred male sellouts run for President I won't spare them either.
Why am I so dead set against her? It's all the puffery and fakery. It's because far too many on the left are so enamored with the idea of a woman President that they're not stopping to ask anything about who that woman really is. Well, I'm sorry but we are in no position to elect someone just because she's a woman. Who that woman is as a person matters a great deal. We didn't elect Obama just because he was black. That was just a nice bonus, though that too was overdue. We elected him because he wasn't Hillary Clinton. He ran as an insurgent outsider against the ultimate insider. He ran as a level-headed progressive alternative to two establishment pro-corporate war hawks and the idiotic nutjob the biggest war hawk of all picked as a running mate.
Why am I so dead set against her? Because she's sucking all the oxygen out of the room and we're not talking about the issues, or finding a better candidate who is stronger on those issues. I wish the focus were on Elizabeth Warren. God I wish she would run. I would drop everything to go work for her campaign. If she won't, then maybe Bernie Sanders, uphill battle and all. Howard Dean could mount a comeback. Or why don't we think outside the box and draft Robert Reich? He'd make a great President, especially now.
Why am I so enamored with all of these "longshots" and not the "inevitable" (yeah right) HRC? Because the last thing we need right now is Wall Street running the show. What we really need right now is nothing less than the second coming of FDR. Or at least Kennedy. Consider the magnitude of our problems, from our broken political system to climate change. We need someone who can see not only problems, but opportunities, and not just opportunities for her own ambition, but for all of us. For example, our crumbling infrastructure can be rebuilt, only better. To do all this we need principled leadership with VISION, not someone who can't go to the bathroom without consulting a pollster.
We have the resources to solve our problems. There are enough smart people to fill all the big chairs. (Smart people, not cronies like Larry Summers.) No, a President alone can't solve all of our problems. We also need a MUCH more progressive Congress that can actually get something done. Still, we do need leadership, someone who can carry forward Obama's work, and yes, improve upon it. We need someone we can trust at the helm, someone who will truly fight for us, and that is not Hillary Clinton.