I want to take a few choice paragraphs from the late, great Molly Ivins regarding Hillary Clinton and her primary run...
( http://www.cnn.com/... )
Enough. Enough triangulation, calculation and equivocation. Enough clever straddling, enough not offending anyone This is not a Dick Morris election. Sen. Clinton is apparently incapable of taking a clear stand on the war in Iraq, and that alone is enough to disqualify her. Her failure to speak out on Terri Schiavo, not to mention that gross pandering on flag-burning, are just contemptible little dodges.
The recent death of Gene McCarthy reminded me of a lesson I spent a long, long time unlearning, so now I have to re-learn it. It's about political courage and heroes, and when a country is desperate for leadership. There are times when regular politics will not do, and this is one of those times. There are times a country is so tired of bull that only the truth can provide relief.
This was posted January 20th, 2006 a little over a year ago. One has to wonder out loud: how are the HRC supporters willing to continue to support a Democrat who is so utterly out of sync with the vast majority of Democrats, not to mention the American people at large in a time when we obviously need a new direction and a true leader?
As Molly noted over a year ago, "if no one in conventional-wisdom politics has the courage to speak up and say what needs to be said, then you go out and find some obscure junior senator from Minnesota with the guts to do it."
Like Jim Webb in Virginia or John Edwards. Hillary Rodham Clinton is a politician, maybe a brilliant politician, but only a politician. She is no leader and she appears to have zero political courage and it tells.
"In 1968, Gene McCarthy was the little boy who said out loud, 'Look, the emperor isn't wearing any clothes.' Bobby Kennedy -- rough, tough Bobby Kennedy -- didn't do it. Just this quiet man trained by Benedictines who liked to quote poetry."
--that's political courage. Russ Feingold has that. Al Gore has it. Jim Webb has it. Jon Tester has it. Barbara Boxer has it. There are hundreds of others I could mention as well. Hillary Clinton does not have it. She does not eat babies, she simply has no courage. She is not a leader.
What kind of courage does it take, for mercy's sake? The majority of the American people (55 percent) think the war in Iraq is a mistake and that we should get out. The majority (65 percent) of the American people want single-payer health care and are willing to pay more taxes to get it. The majority (86 percent) of the American people favor raising the minimum wage. The majority of the American people (60 percent) favor repealing Bush's tax cuts, or at least those that go only to the rich. The majority (66 percent) wants to reduce the deficit not by cutting domestic spending, but by reducing Pentagon spending or raising taxes.
The majority (77 percent) thinks we should do "whatever it takes" to protect the environment. The majority (87 percent) thinks big oil companies are gouging consumers and would support a windfall profits tax. That is the center, you fools. WHO ARE YOU AFRAID OF?
News brief to DLC supporters. You guys are the fringe element in American politics today; the 'elitists' who are out of touch with the American public. I wonder if Rahm Emmanuel can even read a poll sometimes.
Like Molly says, "War brings out the patriotic bullies. In World War I, they went around kicking dachshunds on the grounds that dachshunds were "German dogs." They did not, however, go around kicking German shepherds. The MINUTE someone impugns your patriotism for opposing this war, turn on them like a snarling dog and explain what loving your country really means."
It appears HRC is apparently a political coward who has been beaten by patriotic bullies. It's a shame but her own fear of being branded 'soft' or a 'dove' has made her bleat like a sheep with regard to Iraq; and now she wants to act tough by not stating the obvious--"I was wrong"?
Please.
In addition to this telling moment, there are stances that should disqualify her at least from a progressive perspective:
Her economic policies bear the unmistakable stench of neoliberalism--like most everything else emanating from the DLC. 'Free trade' zealots have managed to eviscerate the American middle class by favoring a policy of de-industrialization, outsourcing, and off shoring. This helps the wealthy accumulate more profit more quickly at the cost of the livelihoods of hundreds and thousands of American workers. It's an ethical abomination flying under the flag of 'free trade'. HRC is for it and so are her millionaire backers. To state the obvious, this is not a progressive plank.
If she's elected, her foreign policy will be constrained by the need to look tough because a) she's a Democrat and b) she's a woman, and c) she has a not so secret love affair with the AIPAC
We've already seen how HRC has historically reacted to this interpretation. For years she has refused to call for an end to the Iraqi war, until recently she dragged her feet on demanding withdrawal (until she has sufficient political cover to come out in favor of withdrawal, natch) and she seems unable or unwilling to give up the ole AIPAC love affair. So let's just say she certainly isn't going to be setting any records for rapidly getting us to a sane (ie, non-bellicose based) foreign policy.
I don't hate HRC, I think she's a brilliant and manipulative politician who would be an unmitigated disaster for the vast majority of people in this country. Like Molly Ivins, I think most Democrats will think likewise, too--at least they ought to, for the good of this country.