Why I won’t vote for Hillary Clinton in the primaries
I’m not going to vote for Hillary in the primary even though we share the same gender. I will probably end up voting for her if she is the Democratic nominee. But I hope she isn’t.
Why? Several reasons. I’ve been thinking about how many people are disappointed in the way the Democratic majority in Congress has performed. In 2006 people voted for change and while the Congress managed to pass some important legislation in the beginning, it has yet to stand up to the Bush administration. Too many Democrats seem interested in opposing Bush only if they know they will win.
Right now, all the Republicans have to do is threaten to filibuster and the Senate majority leader throws up his hands and says there is nothing he can do. Bush vetoes an appropriation bill because it had a non-binding time line and the Democrats couldn’t over-ride the veto. “We don’t have the votes” was the reason.
So somehow, the Republicans are able to maintain party unity to get what they want and the Democrats can’t. The Democrats have the ultimate control of the purse as the majority party and refuse to use it–they don’t have to give Bush funding for anything if they don’t want to. But they aren’t willing to risk being accused of “abandoning the troops” in the next election.
I don’t blame the Democrats for not wanting to block funding–I don’t really expect them to do it. But there’s something to be said for politicians willing to put aside personal gain for the good of the party. And I don’t see Hillary Clinton as being that kind of person.
Take the issue of denying delegates to the states that held primaries earlier than the Democratic party had allowed. I’m not going to debate whether this was a good idea or not. The fact is that the decision was made with only one dissenting vote. So the candidates pledged not to campaign in
I’m sure she sees it as an example of leadership—she’s just helping those poor Democrats get the opportunity to have their vote count and if she happens to benefit, so much the better. So were Obama and Edwards suckers for following the party’s ruling (more or less)? At a time when she could have demonstrated some sort of party unity,
I see the same sort of behavior with
I have to admit that I haven’t really studied the policy differences between Obama and Clinton. Ultimately, I can’t imagine there being too much difference between the two. So what separates the two candidates then?
For me, the difference is going to come down to who is going to be a better leader, who is going to say “this is the right thing to do even if it may not be pleasant.” I want someone who will be able to convince the Congress to make some hard choices. And I just have a feeling that it’s going to be harder for
Filed under: Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton
Here is a well qualified female candidate and once again females are stabbing each other in the back. Never complain about the good old boy’s club or the inability to move up in a company if you are not willing to stand by a powerful, intelligent woman. Your chance is now ! Make a difference. Vote for Hillary!
I am supporting Obama over Clinton, but I do feel you are being a bit unfair to Clinton on a few points, particularly “she had to look all over the country for the state with the open seat most likely to be won by a Democrat before settling on New York”.
Originally, she was facing Giuliani, who was still a popular NY mayor, whose campaigning flaws had not yet been exposed, and polls showed a narrow race — certainly not a slam-dunk victory.
I’m hoping we can stick to the high road. One of these two are going to be the Dem nominee, and both are far, far superior to anyone from the other party. I don’t want to see what a Supreme Court with 4-8 more years worth of GOP nominees would look like — for the next 30 years.
I admit I was being a bit unfair about the open New York seat. And from what I understand, Clinton has been a very effective senator for New York. I don’t think that necessarily means that she would be the best choice for president.
As for stabbing her in the back…wow, I don’t even know where to begin on that one. And I’m not even going to try…
You base your concern on ideas of party unity, but Obama is the one preaching solidarity with Republicans, an end to divisive politics. He is the one who rolled over for nuclear energy and eviscerated his own bill despite Democratic support.
Even his voting record shows that he has voted with the Democratic party 96% of the time, while Hillary has done so 97% (1% is a lot when you think of the hundreds of votes they make every session).
Additionally, he has opted to simply not vote on 38% of the votes in the current congress (as opposed to Hillary’s 23%). Not voting completely undermines the strength of the party on any given vote.
Hillary left herself on the Michigan and Florida ballots to allow the Democrats in Michigan and Florida to have a say in the primary even though it means nothing to the convention. Edwards and Obama ignored those states because those states didn’t offer any real personal gain during the primary, and it freed them up to concentrate on other states. That was tactical on their part, not respectful of the party rules.
Being on the ballot didn’t go against the party’s rules, but it did remind Democrats in those states who might choose to vote R in November out of retaliation that they weren’t being completely abandoned by their party.
If party unity is really your concern, the candidates’ actions are far more telling than every third expose you read calling Hillary all-sacrificingly ambitious. All the candidates are ambitious, and they all want the nomination for themselves. Look at the media’s attacks on Hillary for what they are: the product of a press that knows that cat fights sell and a public prejudiced to believe that an ambitious woman is an inhuman bitch.
Hillary is the defender of the Democratic stance, Barack Obama is the centrist bridge-builder looking for a bipartisan middle ground. If Democratic party solidarity is what you want, Clinton is your choice.
(PS, the Washington Post has a great list of Senate voting records, complete with who voted against their party when and on what bills)
When I used the term “party unity” I knew at the time it wasn’t the word I was looking for. I’ll have to think about how to better state what I was trying to get at. I think you’re probably right about the way the press treats Hillary. When people start talking about women in a leadership position, it often seems like a no win situation. Leadership has been defined in male terms so if a women exhibits the leadership characteristics as defined by men, she is defined, as you put it “an inhuman bitch.” If she acts female, she’s weak. And right now, too few people realize that our definition of leadership is a male definition. It’s like in the 70’s and early 80’s when the suits women wore were just a “skirt” version of what men wore. They were expected to wear the same suit that the men wore to be taken seriously. They couldn’t wear the exact same suit for obvious reasons but what they ended up with was still a male definition of a suit. It has improved some, but not much.
And I know that Obama has votes that I won’t agree with just as Clinton does. Everyone has some specific issues that they rank higher in importance than others, nuclear energy may be yours and the flag burning law happens to be one of mine.
HILLARY 08!
i know she will go down in history for being one of the greatest presidents and woman ever!
I’ll be casting my vote for Hilary, and doing my part to see that Bexar County goes to her. Why? Simple - I want a Democrat to be president. John McCain will be the Republican nominee, and the simple facts are that OBAMA CANNOT BEAT MCCAIN. It WILL NOT happen. Forget stands on particular issues - this is the true bottom line. If we nominate Clinton, there’s a darn good chance we will have the White House for the next eight years. If we nominate Obama, we may as well not vote in November since it won’t matter anyway - a vote for Obama is a vote for McCain.
Why do you think Obama can’t beat McCain?
The Obama Dreamers! Stick to the real issues and get your heads out of the clouds, obviously it will take Texas & Ohio to see through this propaganda. I have a dream song, hope, etc. I want o hear about what you are going to do. I’m tired of the biased media coverage and how you the voters buy into this propaganda. If HILLARY DOESN”T GET THE NOMINATION, I WILL CROSS OVER, so that my heads are atleast not in the clouds…. Hope is not going to buy my ticket.. SO PLEASE TEXAS FROM AN ARKANSA………VOTE HILLARY……..
EXPERIENCE HOWEVER WILL… Go Hilllary
p.s. Get off the DREAMBOAT AND CATCH THE HILLARY TRAIN!!!!!!!!!!!
Bush gave the same speech about bring hope and unity to our country. Take a good look at where Bush has brought us - his obesession in the middle east, budget deficit spending and a diveided country… Haven’t learned your lessons yet?? Electing Obama based on his empty promises and hypes, I need to pray we are not going to repeat the Bush years again.
I believe that the Democratic Party has a mandate from every American, who is not a member of the corrupt corporate rich and who is not a supporter of politicians who side step the Constitution, to take the reigns of the U.S. presidency and do the right thing. Both Senators, Obama and Clinton, basically have the same ideology and both have overcome enormous hurdles based on pigmentation and gender to get to where they are now. It’s time to stop trying to find reasons why one won’t vote for Barak or for Hillary. Most importantly, all the undecided need to ask themselves, “Who can win against the Republican John McCain?” The next steps toward the White House for the Democratic candidate will be dependent on the national convention delegates and after that on the Electoral College. The Liberal Democratic Party and the Conservative Republican Party each must unite its electorate. Which Party’s favorite son can get the most Independents, moderates, and undecideds to commit and vote? That Party will win the presidency in 2008.
Basically, I agree with Margarita. Both would work to implement policies that I would agree with. There are policy differences, but they’re at the edges and something that would get lost in the legislative process anyway.
So who is going to beat McCain? I can’t tell you how many of my conservative relatives come unglued and start foaming at the mouth when you mention Clinton. This isn’t a matter of them “getting to know” Clinton, they can’t even tell you right now why they don’t like her. Now that probably won’t make a difference in Texas in the general election but would it in the battle ground states? This is why I am genuinely interested why people think Obama can’t win.
No more Clintons! Period. Many qualified women other than this woman. She is a liar. If she lies now, she will lie in the White House. She signed a pledge that Florida and Michigan would not count. She is a proxy for Bill’s third term. Sad to waste another term with a Clinton. They are not entitled to the keys again.
No snukes in snizzes ‘08
I love the “good ol boy” reference the first commenter makes. As if electing a person of color wouldn’t also buck that trend.
At this point in the game, I have switched over to Mr. Obama. As you said: on the issues they are virtually identical, and as far as legislative experience goes, she has him by a short nose (however I did look at the Library of Congress “Thomas” site, the public record of votes and introduced legislature, and Obama has her beat on implementing big changes and co-sponsors of bills-he just seems to get more people to work with him).
The main reason I am personally “switching-over” is her lack of common decency. I know politics are rough, but really…pulling-out letters he wrote in Kindergarten, calling him a plagiarist, insulting his wife, and now this “leak” from her staffers of a picture of him in a turban, clearly intending to paint him as a “terrorist” at worst, and a “foreigner” at best, is beyond respectable campaigning! The campaign denies knowledge of it, but won’t say it didn’t come from their camp–as well as responding with a passive-aggressive “well, if you are ashamed of it, then you’re really a sick person” (I’m paraphrasing, of course). Her duplicity, her vicious and mocking rhetoric, and her tendency to twist her opponent’s words just to take a cheap shot has grown considerably since her change of staff, and upon the knowledge that she needs Texas (and Ohio) to stay in the race. Frankly, I am insulted by her idea that the majority of people of Texas and Ohio are too ignorant to see through such low-tactics! A little bit of bickering–sure, it’s politics, but she’s really gone over the line now.
I would LOVE to see a woman as president–and by the by, I’m offended by an earlier comment suggesting a female vote for Obama is a stab in the back for women–what an ignorant comment! I will vote my mind and conscience, thank you! Regardless, I feel that the woman should be someone of moral standing and great inner strength. Sadly, I see Mrs. Clinton now as someone who will say or do anything to get what she wants, regardless of the damage it will do to her party or her government, and–most importantly–what is needed by the American people. I sincerely hope she changes her ways and learns to work better with others–the country needs her intelligence–but not her shifty tactics. Strength is not always shown in the attack, and wisdom isn’t always a gift granted from experience. We can’t afford petty bickering. We need to, as a nation, find some compromises on things we generally and historically disagree on. To me, Mr. Obama fits the bill. I’m hoping he keeps to the issues as he has been, and doesn’t take the bait. I guess this makes me one of those annoying “Obamaheads” or whatever everybody’s calling them.
There are so many reasons to vote for Clinton, but too many people won’t actually take the time to compare the candidates’ records and ideas.
Even though you write that the Democrats’ stances are the same Now on many issues, you fail to acknowledge who took these positions first.
Let’s talk about health care.
Which candidate rallied for universal healthcare from the start, when it was Vastly unpopular to do so? Which candidate has already worked successfully to provide 6 million Americans with insurance? And which candidate’s plan has the backing of the American Nurses Association, which represents the largest number of healthcare professionals in the nation?
Clinton.
Let’s talk about the economy.
Which candidate presented the first (and best) economic stimulus package while other candidates (and our President) played catchup? Remember, Obama supplied his less detailed, slapped together package days after Clinton did. He was obviously unprepared, or he would have had his plan out before or on the same day as Clinton did.
And speaking of the economy, which candidate was the first to speak of tying the minimum wage to Congress’ pay increases? Which candidate first submitted the plan to stop giving tax breaks to companies that shipped jobs overseas?
Clinton.
We need a leader, not a follower, in the White House. We need the person who sees the problem and finds a solution, not the one who starts working on the solution (or borrowing various solutions) after someone else is already moving on to the next task.
I’ll mention just one more example of the way in which Clinton is an innovative problem solver, and it lies in another sphere that Obama has less experience in - foreign relations. Clinton’s Vital Voices program, which she co-founded with former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, was used as a catalyst in the Irish peace process. The program continues to assist people throughout the world find greater economic and political stability.
I’m convinced that people who take the time to look at the records and the ideas of the candidates will find the substantive and significant differences the media pretend don’t exist.
I waited to reply simply because I really does not want to influence anyone’s vote. I love both candidates but I don’t believe this is Obama’s time. My reason for this opinion is the country is still divided among racial lines. Consider this, all the southern states have voted Republican in the general elections since 1965 except for two elections. Carter won GA and Clinton won Arkansas in their bid for the office. Kerry couldn’t carry one southern state even with Edwards, born in SC and home is NC. Gore failed to carry TN. Which one of those southern states will go with Obama?
Prior to 1965, thanks to honest Abe, the south voted democrat simply because Abe freed the slave. In 1965, the democrats passed the Voting Rights Act and Civil Rights Act which caused the “white flight” to the Republican party. Obama’s message is priceless but will it reverse “white flight” back to the democrats?
Finally, does anyone remember the Willie Horton campaign against the Dukakis run for the president? Remember Swift Boat campaign against Kerry? Kerry, a medal of honor and Purple Heart winner, was made to look like a draft dodger when the only draft dodger and slacker was his opponent. It makes me mad when I bring up Max Clelland’s campaign smear in GA. Max, another Medal of Honor winner, lost legs and arm, military record was also viciously attacked. Point is, there is no shame in the Republicans game. Can Obama withstand the attacks surly to come?
I hope so. I also hope I am dead wrong about the racial divide.