Sunday, January 06, 2008

Why I'm Supporting Hillary

This may be the strongest Democratic field in a long time. Any one of the top three would make a fine president, but here is why I'm supporting Hillary.

In talking about change, Hillary delivered the only applause line of the night. It resonated with women.

I actually applauded this comment: "Words are not action--and as beautifully presented and passionately felt as they are, they are not action. What we've got to do is translate talk into action and feeling into reality. I have a long record of doing that, of taking on the very interests that you have just rightly excoriated because of the overdue influence that they have in our government."

This one made me smile.

And I agree with this observation:
"...the exchange below will reveal if Americans are ready for a woman president. Showing fire when challenged has always been a dividing line for women in leadership roles. Has American grown up? Some will love it and some won't. But it is who she is. Strong. No doubt Chris Matthews and the Hillary haters will judge it otherwise. Women understand it."

In just a few days we will know whether or not the voters in New Hampshire liked these moments as much as I did.


John J. said...

There are two problems with Hillary's change stance. The first is that all of the changes she points to are the same things that every single Democrat on that stage stand for. SCHIP, health care for veterans, and so on are Republican vs. Democrat changes, not Washington changes.

Hillary's actions undercut that deeper change. She supports the lobbying environment that the American people want changed. That is her second change problem. Hillary is right, words are not action and her actions on this subject speak far louder than her words.

Swinebread said...

"any one of the top three would make a fine president"

That's a good point and I would clearly vote for Hilary in a general election. But I got tired of being told by the old guard who the candidate for the Dems was going to be. Let her earn it.

I’m also upset that she has not apologized for voting for the war in Iraq. There can be only 2 reasons for this. 1. She thinks it was good idea or 2. She’s trying to appeal to right-wingers. Both are terrible reasons not to so. The concept of her being the better choice based experience falls apart for me because of this. We don’t need another person in the White House that’s stubborn and doesn’t listen to anybody.

That said your right about the Republican candidates being a joke… They don’t get it at all… and thus will lose the executive branch.

BAC said...

John - when asked what he had accomplished as Senator, Edwards couldn't name a thing. Obama hasn't been around long enough to have accomplished much. I believe Edwards when he says he won't allow lobbyists in the White House. Obama plays poker with them on a regular basis. Hillary knows the good, bad and ugly about Washington, and is best prepared from day one to lead.

George Bush ran as the change candidate in 2000, and look where that got us. Saying you are for change, without outlining what that means,is meaningless to me.

Swinebread - Hillary has definitely earned the right to be the Democratic candidate. She has been vetted more than any other person running. And she has taken more direct attacks from the Republicans than Edwards and definitely more than Obama. Look at what the Republican machine did to John Kerry. He folded like an accordion. I don't think Hillary would fold.

Regarding the war, I don't think a 'President Hillary Clinton' would have ever taken this country to war with Iraq. And listening to Obama last night, he would attack Pakistan to get Osama. Look at how he framed that, compared to how Hillary framed it. He simply said he would attack. Hillary displayed a much better understanding of the region when she said that she would alert the Pakistani government of the incoming attack, so that they would not think it was an attack by India -- which might trigger a nuclear response by Pakistan. She fundamentally gets it. She gets how to conduct foreign policy ... I'm not sure Obama does.


Swinebread said...

The abusive attacks that both Clintons suffered from the right’s media machine are totally disgusting and prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that there isn’t a liberal media bias at all. It’s a myth created by the right. That said, Hilary, despite that abuse, earns the right to be the dems candidate by winning the most delegates. If that happens, then of course I’ll support her for president but that’s the process I meant by “earn.”

As for the war thing (and I’m not in the Obama’s camp either mind you) I’m only talking about Hilary’s vote for the Iraq War, which was a mistake. I’m not concerned about issues of the Middle East. The Dems generally have the correct idea about what to do including Hilary. What I’m talking about is an issue of honesty and knowing the candidate’s heart, about what she thinks and feels. Now, I suppose that opening herself up would make her vulnerable to attack by the righties but I want to see the human side of her not the carefully scripted face we always get. Admitting your mistakes is not a sign of weakness; it’s a sign of greatness IMHO. George Bush proved that.

The Democratic candidate will be decided long before I get a chance to vote anyway as the Oregon primary is next to last in the schedule. That being the case, I’m probably just going to vote for Kucinich. His beliefs are the closest to mine.

John J. said...

About the poker thing: please, when you are going to sling mud like that, at least give us a link to show where you are getting that information from. I did find the Tribune article on it though. In the article it says that he went with some fellow first term legislators he made friends with, and that the lobbyists that were there were largely diametrically opposed to legislation Obama worked on, including a very strong set of laws restricting lobbying.

Bush ran as a change president in the same way that Hillary is - a new person and new party in the White House. This, in my opinion, is the meaningless change that you are complaining about.

Oh, and saying you will attack bin Laden wherever he is, no matter who is protecting him, is not the same as saying you will attack the country that he is in.

BAC said...

John - It's only mud if it's not true. And while I don't think Obama is "Bush" at all, if you put their statements side-by-side they are nearly identical. The point is anyone can utter the word change, but what does it mean and how are you going to make it happen.

If bin Laden is in Pakistan, and smart bombs are heading his way, are you suggesting they won't hit the ground? And would you at least acknowledge that if there is tension between Pakistan and India, and Pakistan has nuclear weapons, and there are missiles heading their way it might be a good idea to make sure the Pakistani government knows they are not under "attack" by India? Hillary's answer demonstrated a much better understanding of foreign policy and how to keep us safe.


Fran said...

BAC, you know that I have tremendous respect for you, but I must respectfully disagree.

I will vote for Hillary if she is the Democratic nominee.

Trust me- I am as ready as anyone for a non white man to be president. A woman or a person of color- great.

But that alone is not reason enough for me. And I know that is not your only reason.

I have read every word of what you have written about Hillary. Trust me BAC, if anyone could sway me it would be you. However I have remained unswayed.

If I had to cast my vote today it would be for Edwards. I have supported Kucinich, but those days draw to a close, as I knew they would.

One huge issue for me around Hillary is that I am very mistrustful of all that AIPAC money. And I will disagree with on the point that you made, saying that you do no believe that she would have led us to war with Iraq.

And it is around AIPAC and her over the top (and she is not alone in this) support of Israel that I think would have had her do something similar.

And it is why she signed onto Kyl-Lieberman. That by the way is the most unforgivable act for me as far as Hillary goes.

After the AIPAC money, she is so hard wired to big corporate money. I mean I loved Bill, but that was his thing too. He figured out how to appeal to the working person and then also to the big cash money.

She is even more tied up into it... and let me say the two words that cut the closest to that- Rupert Murdoch.

You see that some of what I think is influenced by some things that happened in regard to my former employer, Hillary, Rupert and others. I am legally not at liberty to discuss it. Sorry to be all cloak and dagger. If you really want to know BAC I can give you some of the info privately.

Anyway, my far too long winded point is that I have a very hard time with Hillary Clinton. I just do. That said, I will support her if the day comes.

BAC said...

Fran - What I would like to see more than anything is a level playing field. Hillary has withstood attacks regarding actions that Obama has engaged in as well, but seems to be getting a pass from MSM. Put it all out there, and let the people decided based on all the information.

People seem to hate Washington lobbyists, yet one of Obama's national co-chair's is a registered lobbyist for Pfizer and PhRMA. I believe TIME magazine is looking into this at the moment.

And yes, the ethics bill says that Congress members can't sit down and eat a meal with a lobbyist, but they can attend all the lavish parties they want. The catch is they just have to stand up. Edwards claims that makes it okay because you "can't eat as much." What kind of a joke is that?

The latest is that even though it is illegal under NH state law to send prerecorded political messages to people on the do-not-call list. It doesn't appear that Obama is attempting to stop calls by Planned Parenthood that paint Hillary in a negative light. What makes that so tragic is that while in the State Legislature, Obama usually voted "present" on abortion-related bills. Present isn't a yes or no vote ... it's a way to not have to take an official position on a subject that he must be uncomfortable with.

There is very little that is unknown about Hillary. The same should be true for all the candidates before people go into vote.


Fran said...

Good morning BAC,

I must say that I could not agree with you more in that regard... The MSM is not fair about any of this. At all.

Add to that, Hillary has taken more licks than she deserves just because she is... Hillary.

However, I still stand by my position, while respecting your viewpoint, that she has more tied up in money than any other Democratic candidate and I do not like it.

As I said in my earlier comment, it is AIPAC that troubles me the most and I feel that way about all candidates. And they all take the AIPAC money. I don't know if it is by amount or not, but I believe she has the most "invested" in the Israel lobby.

And you do know I say this as a person with Jewish heritage, Israeli relatives and my own conflicted love of Israel.

Well, that is the Democratic process at work. We shall see what happens and as I said, if she is the nominee, I am voting for her.

I must tell you that I especially appreciate your very well educated and documented posts on this topic and comments too BAC. It is a rarity among a lot of shouting, even amongst those I call my blogfriends.

Peace sister!

Anonymous said...

Hillary was crushed in Iowa and it looks as though she's headed for a second- or third-place finish in New Hampshire. In other words, she's got surprisingly little support.

Even if she pulls out the nomination, she won't win the presidency. It's not that Americans won't elect a woman. They won't elect her. Her manner is offputting to many and that will cost her the election.

But frankly, based on the polls, she's already cooked.

BAC said...

Anonymous - I wouldn't write her obit just yet. She's not one to give up.

I hear that Jerome at MyDD has an interesting take on the primaries. I'm going to head over and take a look.


Anonymous said...

I watched that particular segment on BBC and I agree -- she honed in the message, ACTION (instead of fairy tales.)

Comments in Europe about her NH win centers on her so-called "tear-jerking" performance after Iowa and some are saying it was staged -- don't believe that for one moment.

To a particular commenter in my blog page who said her emotion was carefully stage, I said:

I don't believe that it was a carefully staged show of emotion. Mrs Clinton has been on the campaign trail way before the caucuses, she's been at the end of media brick batting;

I think that particular scene was caused by both physical-mental fatigue, her loss in Iowa affected her emotionally -- that was something that would have been very difficult to stage. (Do you remember when Maggie Thatcher lost her last general elections (issue: poll tax) -- she was in Paris at a meeting on an EU issue if I remember rightly... she had to cut short her trip after she was told that she had lost the Tory leadership. The Iron Lady broke down in tears.)

The assessment that Hillary has been held to standards the other candidates have not been subjected to is credible. I still have to see what the other candidates could realistically show against her track record."