I really wanted to blog about something more cheerful—like War & Peace or my passionate and newfound hatred of David Baldacci, or even about the glorious uncheerfulness that is Garfield Minus Garfield. HOWEVER, I am compelled…FORCED even to vent about what I’ve learned from Hillary Clinton.
This article was inspired by two things; the horrendously arrogant talk of offering the VP slot to Obama and a new column by Andrew Sullivan. First, lest anyone accuse me of having rose-colored glasses concerning Obama’s politics, I don’t think he’s been much better on tailoring himself for voters than Hillary has, and here’s my proof.
Should Hillary Clinton give up? (Unfortunately) no. You see, somehow, she keeps pulling some magical rabbit out of her hat and somehow, she stays in the game. But saying “somehow” is a big stretch. Afterall, it’s only through dirty campaign tactics, blatant lies, silly melodramatic accusations to the press, and hypocritical straw-man attacks on Obama that she has kept herself viable. And why do I say that? It comes down to the simple explanation that she has nothing that Obama doesn’t have. What experience does she have? Since when being first lady all of a sudden make you an expert on the Presidency? ESPECIALLY as national security matters are concerned! Moreover, as a Senator, Hillary has not particularly distinguished herself as an enlightened decision-maker. In fact, the best example of this is the Iraq War. She supports the war in 2003, and to this day STILL refuses to account for the switch in her viewpoint (IS there an appropriate explanation? Maybe there is! WHO KNOWS?). Furthermore, her ridiculously hypocritical attacks on Obama in what she callsNAFTAGatethe link is an excellent analysis of the whole affair, in my opinion) are just continuing proof of her gut-wrenchingly awful campaign tactics.
And now, havingdragged Obama into the mudwith her (to Obama’s detriment, and a decision by him that I’m not the least bit supportive of), she continues to tear this party apart simply because she’s capable of doing so and the cost of it isn’t too great in pursuit of her dream. As Andrew Sullivan says:
They have been thinking of this moment since they were in college and being a senator or an ex-president or having two terms in the White House are not sufficient to satiate their sense of entitlement. Even if they have to put their own party through a divisive, bitter, possibly fatal death match, they will never give up. Their country, their party . . . none of this matters compared with them.
And some people might think, “What about Obama? Why shouldn’t he walk away?” A) he’s leading in the delegate count, and B) he has motivated and pulled out voters the Clintons never could have, boding well for a Democratic victory in November. Clinton is losing (barely, I understand) in the delegate count, and is guaranteed to alienate a significantly large and probably decisive portion of the voters in November. To me, both of those reasons are enough.
Really, the policy differences between Obama and Clinton are relatively miniscule. I mean, sure there are significant ones like health care, or smaller ones like Cuba policy, but when it comes down to it, we’re not choosing a candidate for their policy, we’re choosing a candidate for their leadership ability. Maybe Obama won’t be as good as I’m hoping, but that’s part of what he’s inspired in me—the idea that he is; and I believe his experience, however allegedly limited it may be, is enough to demonstrate his viability. Clinton has not demonstrated anything more to me than a desperate machine hungry for power, even if I have her wrong and she means well, she hasn’t been able to convince me of that. And one way or another, she’s driving this race, her party, and, in my opinion, this whole country into the ground.
So this is what I’ve learned from Hillary Clinton. As grand or well-meaning as my goals might be, I’m resolving to always know or be aware of when it’s time to walk away.
-Sean
Read more