November 08, 2007

Why I'm Endorsing Hillary Clinton

That does it. The final, frakking straw.

I have five main political interests, as things go; climate change, agriculture, women's rights, war and corporate power. All of the major presidential candidates have entirely worn out their welcome with me on one or more of them. Or started off bad and have failed to convince me that they're truly reformed from their positions of a few years or months ago. And let's not even get into healthcare. National insurance plans with private sector partnerships, my donkey.

Partisan leanings? Eh. I've long said I'd vote for the Democrat. Also that I'm not inspired by any of them like with Dean in 2004. They don't do IT for me. If I'm supposed to pick someone because I just like them and am really motivated by them, or their policies, well, I've got a pretty high threshold for that. My only honest reaction is 'why can't I pick Gore, like I wanted to in the first place?'

My presidential primary strategy has been to ignore the candidates as much as possible unless they do something that annoys me. I listened to them at the DNC winter meeting, at the Yearly Kos debate, and then at the last debate. Really, I've had other things on my mind and I don't live in an early primary state, anyhow.

Yet I do know that, because I tried to listen to it like a voter instead of a blogger hoping for a story, Clinton was the only major candidate I remember at all from the Yearly Kos debate. She was the only one who had the guts to be honest about telling us something she knew would be hideously unpopular, and did the hard thing instead of insulting our intelligence to avoid getting booed.

And while I've mostly been able to tune the candidates out, I haven't been able to get away from the persistent annoyances of their attackers. OMFG, a millionaire lawyer who doesn't go to Supercuts, even though he gives a damn about people who've seen the business end of a food stamp! Jumpin' Jehoshaphat, a multi-ethnic lawyer who went to a funny school in a foreign country and has a name that doesn't just scream One White Guy! Holy Cannoli, Batman, a female lawyer who's gotten high dollar campaign contributions from the lobbyists of the industries whose executives just give to her opponents directly!

Unfortunately for me, and for you if you're not a Clinton fan, some of the most annoying critiques of Clinton come from the blogosphere. That, I can't tune out, which is probably why they annoy me so much. Everyone notices the pebble in their own shoe. Alternately, there's the rank sexism, though that mostly comes from the pundits.

So, because I've already included her in my blanket endorsement of whatever Democrat wins, and because it may give people like David Mizner and Chris Matthews screaming fits of high-pitched apoplexy, which will greatly comfort me when stupid Democratic policies are driving me up a wall; I hereby endorse Hillary Clinton for the Democratic nomination for president in 2008.

You know how much good my endorsement will do for Clinton? I predict, none. You know how much good it will do for me? Negative. Now, when I bitch about candidates, as I've always done, people will say I'm doing it because I've endorsed Clinton, instead of because her opponents tick me off. And when I criticize her, they'll probably just say that I'm doing it to preserve the illusion of balance, instead of because she ticked me off. And I'm probably going to have to put up with crap from readers, with whom she's about as popular as she is with me, or worse, saccharine pats on the back from her supporters for finally coming around.

What will people say when I still bitch about candidates being attacked unfairly? Hopefully, they will be justly confused, if they're that sort. I will do a little dance of joy.

This is a proposition with no tangible upside for me. But the same goes for the alternatives. At least this way, I get to annoy people who deserve it. Sorry if you oppose her and don't deserve my ire, but sometimes a person just has to take what they can get and call it a day.

At least she has a decent energy plan. That's not nothing. Sigh.

Anyway, a big thanks to all of Hillary Clinton's detractors for helping me make up my mind about this. Fences make for uncomfortable seating, and just imagine how much time you've saved me sitting there poring over all the policy programs which haven't a chance in hell of making it as-is through our Russert-whipped, telecom-purchased, twitchy as a cat in a rocking chair factory Congress. Now I can continue putting exactly as much attention into the primary process as I had done before, while getting maximal return on the irritation factor of my writing.

Posted by natasha at November 8, 2007 04:51 AM | Elections | TrackBack(2) | Technorati links |
Comments

While I am certainly not ready to join you in supporting Hillary, I decided some time ago that the entire Presidential sweepstakes is little more than an empty carnival charade meant to enrich the major media outlets and deny the American people a voice. There are no real leaders running on either side, and those who seem, more often than not, to have a grasp on the issues that face us (Edwards, Dodd, Kucinich, Gravel) are not going to be elected. They are failing not because of their message, but because they cannot get their message across to the American people, and the American people are blissfully unaware of what the f&*%k is going on in their own country - much less the rest of the world.

I think the most important issue we face is returning to Constitutional government and I rather doubt any "serious" candidate for President is going to go in and willingly relinquish the imperial powers accumulated over the last decades. If we are to regain Constitutional government, it must be a priority of the next Congress.

I am writing off the Presidential race as a loss and concentrating on defeating Republicans and Blue Dog/DLC Democrats in the Congress. IMHO, that is a more productive use of my typing time.

Posted by: Charley at November 8, 2007 05:31 AM

Hillary is such an ambiguous president candidate. First she votes against ethanol then she changes her mind and decides to support it in her energy plan. In the last debate, she contradicted herself in different subjects, which is obvious in this video that compares her many contradictions at the same day: http://www.weshow.com/us/p/22225/the_politics_of_parsing_by_hillary_clinton
You guys that have watched the debate or this video that shows just some of her obvious contradictions should agree with me that we just can't vote for a so clearly pathetic candidate.

Posted by: John at November 8, 2007 05:48 AM

You are a great American. Hillary is the only hope we have for turning this country around. A lot of people give her a hard time for switching positions so often on issues, but I fail to see how that's relevant to anything. Hillary Clinton is the only candidate that has these 4 attributes: integrity, honor, patriotism, and compassion. I double dog dare any of her detractors to find another candidate with these attributes.

Posted by: Vote for Hillary Online at November 8, 2007 07:07 AM

Well, after the recent DFA national vote giving a crushing victory to Kucinich, I can't say you're the only one who's responding out of frustration with the situation.

Me, I've just learned to tune out the plays to emotion and the attacks, and focus on who says what and does what. I'll stick with Edwards, thank you.

Posted by: palamedes at November 8, 2007 08:09 AM

my thesis is that since they are all scoundrels, the issue becomes- which scoundrel will be easiest to keep in line ? Still haven't decided.

Posted by: Huskarl at November 8, 2007 11:05 AM

It has long been my contention Our Little Tin Pot would dissolve Congress as (variously) obstructionist or ineffective, declare Martial Law and “postpone” 2008 but

… of late it has come to mind that what with the clowns “The Right” is running this cycle and the virtually indistinguishable policy position of “The Left” forerunners from their counterparts, that “The Right” is throwing this election to “The Left” to mollify the rubes with an illusion of change and get their cumulative failures off the radar for a while.

Hillary, a Rodham, is as much of dynastic "old money" as Bush, and would be merely an illusion of change. There is, afterall, only One Party: The Corporation. And their playbook is seventy-five years old.

Posted by: Thomas Ware at November 8, 2007 11:36 AM

Kerik indicted oncharges of corruption

Posted by: ccoaler@hotmail.com at November 8, 2007 04:45 PM

Bravo!! I can't say that Hillary Clinton is perfect and thank God!! Who could call Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln, TR, FDR, Truman, etc..., perfect? The Kossacks and various other liberal bloggers have gone so over board in being critical at any sign of imperfection in Clinton that you would think that she was a Republican.

Sure, she has warts, just like all the other candidates. I came into this thinking Richardson was going to get my vote. Now I believe he'd be a good cabinet member. I then began to lean toward Edwards, but still find him not up to snuff on foreign policy. I also gave Obama a very close look, but he turned out to be more fluff and one speech then a viable candidate. Ultimately, I realized I was staying away from Clinton only because I wanted her to be perfect. She is not. However, for my money and vote, she is by far the best candidate in every respect.

Excellent piece. I endorsed her, too, but only my cat showed up for my press conference.

Posted by: Scott at November 8, 2007 04:58 PM

In the end it's the lesser of evil.
jo6pac

Posted by: jo6pac at November 9, 2007 12:41 PM

Democracy for America

WOW this looks cool. I wish I'd known about it.

Posted by: Huskarl at November 9, 2007 03:42 PM

LMAO, Briliant! This is exactly what makes you all part of the 'reality based community'. Because everyone knows that the choice of who to support in a presidential primary is best if made out of spite.

Ever think how many of us won't bother to show up in the general after a year and a half of 'clinton derangement syndrome' accusations? Using the language and tactics of the right isn't going to convince us that you aren't closet right wingers, now is it?

Posted by: Soullite at November 14, 2007 07:17 AM

You think that *I'm* a closet right winger? Are you high? I know you've been coming here plenty long enough to understand why that's just about the most ridiculous thing you could say.

I've already said that I like and dislike the candidates in about equal measure, such that I'd vote for any of them in the general. They are all miles better than the Republicans. I also said that I don't mean to 'spite' even all the people who don't favor Clinton.

But I do not like the way she's been attacked from certain quarters. And those people who have responded to her candidacy with sexism, hysteria and some measures of misinformation, those people I don't mind flipping the rhetorical bird. All the candidates are DC insiders, even IMO Obama and Edwards, and I'm just not sold on them when it comes to the fine print.

Under the circumstances, I feel I might as well throw darts at a board. And I genuinely, swear to gods, really feel that way.

Posted by: natasha at November 14, 2007 03:22 PM

Hi! Nice site!

Posted by: jack at November 15, 2007 06:57 AM

Hi! Nice site!

Posted by: jack at November 15, 2007 06:58 AM