Home » Blog » Why I'm Not Voting for Hillary
Blog for America
Why I'm Not Voting for Hillary
Recent attacks on Obama create doubt that Clinton is the best person for the job. A rundown of the reasons I won't vote for Hillary to be the Democratic nominee.
I do my best on my blog to maintain a modicum of objectivity- anyone who reads for a few minutes quickly discovers my progressive bias, but otherwise I try to be as fair as I can.
I have avoided naming a horse in this race for that reason, amongst others. The ridiculous media obsession with polling and image in the Democratic primaries drives me nuts. I mean, who really cares about Senatorial cleavage and haircut prices after all? This election is so critical we cannot afford to lose it, so I'm still trying to evaluate the best candidate for the general election, regardless of their religion, grooming fees, or any other trivial detail.
To be honest, I favor John Edwards and Dennis Kucinich, but as of yet I have not decided on who I'll vote for in the primaries. Mainly because my state (I live in Kansas City, but vote Missouri) has little or no effect on the overall contest. The nomination will be decided in Iowa and New Hampshire this year, so by Super Tuesday it will already be wrapped up.
That being said, this story has decided me against Hillary Clinton permanently;
A top adviser to Hillary Rodham Clinton's campaign said that Democrats should give more thought to Sen. Barack Obama's admissions of illegal drug use before they pick a presidential candidate.Not only does such a move smack of desperation, it also shows a continued pattern of Hillary not being able to control her staffers (or possibly deliberately setting them loose!) It's a cheap shot, and don't let the apologies fool you. It's likely some demographic somewhere needed a nudge, and Bill Shaheen was chosen to take the bullet and drop this garbage on the press. The apology only covers up the hit to absolve Senator Clinton of direct blame, while the effect of the move will still tweak her numbers. It's similar to the race-baiting tactics of the Right in that way, though admittedly not as harsh and immoral.
Obama's campaign said the Clinton people were getting desperate. Clinton's campaign tried to distance itself from the remarks Wednesday, and the adviser said later he regretted making them.
Bill Shaheen, a national co-chairman of Clinton's front-runner campaign, raised the issue during an interview with The Washington Post, posted on washingtonpost.com.
Shaheen, an attorney and veteran organizer, said much of Obama's background is unknown and could be a problem in November 2008 if he is the Democratic nominee. He said Republicans would work hard to discover new aspects of Obama's admittedly spotty youth.
"It'll be, 'When was the last time? Did you ever give drugs to anyone? Did you sell them to anyone?'" said Shaheen, whose wife, Jeanne, is the state's former governor and is running for the U.S. Senate next year.
"There are so many openings for Republican dirty tricks. It's hard to overcome," Shaheen said.
Clinton's campaign said it had nothing to do with his comments, and Shaheen said later he regretted them.
"I deeply regret the comments I made today and they were not authorized by the campaign in any way," Bill Shaheen said in an e-mail released by the campaign.
My point is America doesn't need another political machine at the wheel. The Clinton campaign's gaffes have shown that, at least in some small way here before the primaries, Hillary's organization can trump her leadership at times. Not to mention the political calculus of it; Bush set the precedent for handling past sins by avoiding all questions and casting aspersions on the questioners, so it's not like Obama doesn't have a hundred ways to offset this skeleton if he wins the nomination.
Leadership, morality, and great ideas should drive this contest, not political machinations and skullduggery. If the leader doesn't or won't eclipse the organization, we end up with a similar situation to the Bush debacle; disparate interests held together by political pressure from the machine and individual ambitions, rather than a true movement led from the front by someone with deep, progressive convictions.
Hillary's move here either showed her inability to reign in particularly vicious staffers, or worse, an underhanded play for a few more percentage points somewhere. Either way the politics trumped the morality, and I, for one, do not think we need more of that at 1600 Pennsylvania.
The Clinton policies that come with the machine are the problem more than the machine.
straight up noon here, good luck fixing the clock IT
I keep trying to tell them about this thread but I am stuck so far up I'm not sure anyone will notice.
Quite a list of baseball names accused of using steroids.
I'm disappointed but not surprised. I've been hearing most of
these names for some time.
---------
I think it's Hillary's policies and the machine that comes with it, Phil. Just
my opinion. I agree with all the mudslinging - attack the policies --
not the person - so far it appears that the Obama campaign are more
together than the Clinton one. But I still can't forget what Edwards and
Kucinich did last go'round.
National Journal Ratings 2006 -- Liberal voting records
- Kucinich, Dennis, D-Ohio-10 87%
- Obama, Barack, D-Ill. 86%
- Dodd, Christopher, D-Conn. 84%
- Biden, Joseph, D-Del. 77.5%
- Clinton, Hillary Rodham, D-N.Y. 70.2%
Couldn't find Edwards' National Journal rating, but did find this interesting characterization......
Edwards, on the other hand, had a moderate voting record during the first four years following his election to the Senate in 1998. The results positioned Edwards comfortably apart from Senate liberals, but not so far to the right that he locked arms with centrist Republicans. His consistent moderation placed Edwards among the center-right of Senate Democrats. But once Edwards decided to run for president and abandoned his bid for a second Senate term, his record moved dramatically to the left in 2003.
Why am I not surprised?
mary
Kucinich wasn't viable in many precincts in 2004 so throwing his supporters to Edwards had little effect but did have the intended effect from the Kucinich point of view of making Howard look worse than he really was, since Kucinich only did it because he thought Howard had slighted him.
I still can't forget what Edwards and Kucinich did last go'round.
Now that Edwards also opposes invading Iraq, they don't seem to be such good friends any more.
87.
audrey.nc
Thu, 12/13/07
12:52 pm
I would watch what Jane Harmon does on the House Intelligence committee if I were you.
sitka does the record matter or not?
maybe Edwards just saw the light about the corrupt system in DC and started to vote his true beliefs instead of playing along with the crowd
since Kucinich only did it because he thought Howard had slighted him.
Without going back in time and digging up an old quote, I seem to remember you saying he betrayed the anti-war cause in order to get a delegate.
If he did it for the petty reason you just said, then it's even worse.
Dodd and Feingold have the same rankings but you still have to think an arbitrary sort of votes isn't the whole story. That pairing makes sense though.
sitka does the record matter or not?
Not to some, apparently.
maybe Edwards just saw the light about the corrupt system in DC and started to vote his true beliefs instead of playing along with the crowd
If so, his timing just happened to coincide with his political needs.
In the Iowa debate Howard said "I am the only major anti-war candidate" or words to that effect and that is what ticked off Kucinich enough to make a deal with Edwards. It just fell into Edwards lap.Howard had the same kind of deal with supporters of Mosely-Braun.
I would watch what Jane Harmon does on the House Intelligence committee if I were you.
Watching inaction is pretty dull.
sorry about the weak dollar but I have to go cash in some soybeans, they just hit my $11.00 a bushel target and I need to make some sales
the weaker the better from a selfish point of view, but a country with worthless money doesn't have smooth sailing ahead in the economy
bbl
I want you to do something for me.
The Dems are caving to the putz in the white house.
We want OUT OF IRAQ. NO MORE MONEY FOR IRAQ.
PLEASE CALL THESE NUMBERS AND ASK NANCY PELOSI, STENNY HOYER, AND ALL THE DEMS TO STEP DOWN.
ASK THAT SPEAKER PELOSI TO STEP DOWN. SHE IS NOT DOING WHAT WE VOTED FOR.
NOW.
District Office - 450 Golden Gate Ave. - 14th Floor - San Francisco, CA 94102 - (415) 556-4862
Washington, D.C. Office - 235 Cannon HOB - Washington, DC 20515 - (202) 225-4965
The DSCC must be kidding.
The last I heard RFK,Jr. speak in person, he said that he is not a registered Democratic voter. He actually was bragging about it too and at the same giving a big thumbs up to his cousin's hubby's election.
Arnold Schwarzenegger is a BUSH Republican, period.
----- Original Message -----
From: Robert F. Kennedy Jr.
To: srowe@sti.net
Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2007 9:32 AM
Subject: Bluebirds
Dear Susan,
Where I live in upstate New York, I've recently seen robins and bluebirds show up in the middle of winter. And this past January, a friend of mine ate asparagus he harvested in the Catskills, which are normally frozen this time of year.
Global warming is no longer a distant threat. It's happening now. And we're running out of time to stop it.
But Senate Republicans are proving once again to be the most anti-environment legislators this nation has even seen. They continue to obstruct efforts to roll back greenhouse gas emissions, just as they've tried to block our agenda on everything from Iraq to children's health care this year.
51 Democratic seats in the Senate just won't cut it. If you care about taking bold action to restore a government that will actually serve the desires of its people, then you've got to care about expanding the Democratic Senate majority - and you've got to support the DSCC. Give right now and you can help the DSCC beat the ambitious weekly fundraising goals they've set for every week in this final month of 2007.
Click here to make a contribution of $50, $75 or more to expand the Democratic Senate majority in 2008. Make a donation by midnight tonight, and it will be matched, effectively doubling your contribution.
Most Americans want immediate action on global warming.
But then again, most Americans also want our troops out of Iraq, and health care for kids, and accountability for a runaway White House, and that hasn't stopped Republicans from trying to block action on those issues either.
The closer we can get to a filibuster-proof 60-seat majority, the better our chance to pass bills that will really create change. The DSCC is working to build a Democratic Senate majority in 2008 that can overcome even the most strident Republican opposition. Please support the DSCC before their crucial deadline.
Click here to make a contribution of $50, $75 or more to expand the Democratic Senate majority in 2008. Make a donation by midnight tonight, and it will be matched, effectively doubling your contribution.
The chance we have in 2008 is once in a generation. The Republican brand is held in lower esteem every day, and with them having to defend 23 Senate seats compared to only 12 for Democrats, we've got an opportunity for a monumental victory.
We've got to do the work to beat them now. We don't have a moment to spare.
Sincerely,
Robert F. Kennedy
in real dollars(last years) soybeans were higher a year ago, but as a real commodity keep up with a barrel of oil since they can make bio-diesel
the rest of you pay at the pump
as you know from my posts I don't let my own self interest influence what I think about the economy
a sick dollar is not a good thing as it will inevitably lead to higher interest rates
Howard had the same kind of deal with supporters of Mosely-Braun.
You've mischaracterized this before. M-B had dropped out and endorsed Dean. Paying off her campaign debts did make it look bought, but it's not the same as making a deal with pro war candidate Edwards when DK claimed ending the Iraq Disaster was his main concern.
In this matter, it's Kucinich I hold in contempt.
Only in his bluebird dreams.
---
Robert F. Kennedy Jr. endorses Clinton
Says candidate will facilitate change to reverse threat of global warming: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22024587/
10.
linda b
If all the Dems step down, we have only Republicans to take over!?!?!? Surely that isn't what you would want to happen.
We are not going to have an impeachment no matter what. It is far too late and the votes are just not there. Kucinich already brought out his impeachment resolution but there has been little support for it.
A sitting prez cannot be indicted but Bush will be indicted when he leaves office. If I see him behind bars or hiding out from the law on a foreign island for the rest of his life, that will make me much happier than a failed impeachment attempt.
19.
at the same giving s/b at the same time giving
Click here to make a contribution of $50, $75 or more to expand the Democratic Senate majority in 2008.
"Ma send some money now I need another chance.
You see your baby loves to dance."
With the devil, that is.
Ms Hillary C. is sooo out of touch with reality and lacks common sense. Poor woman.
Her "drug" attack on Obama is ridiculous. Obama spoke about his experimentation as a teenager years ago.
Perhaps Hill has forgotten that during a 2003 debate, all eight of the Dem candidates were asked if they had ever used marijuana. All but Carol Moseley-Brown answered yes. Carol took the fifth:)
There are to be NO Dynasties in the United States of America.
CNN, Al Gore, his Nobel Peace Prize and his speech to the UN Climate Conference in Bali
http://www.blogforamerica.com/view/23273...
If all the Dems step down, we have only Republicans to take over!?!?!?
It depends what's meant by "step down." If they're forced out of their leadership positions and replaced by RealDems who don't dance with Bush, that would help the country and the party.
There are to be NO Dynasties in the United States of America.
That's for the people to decide. We're half way to replacing the two corrupt parties system with a two corrupt families one.
BERNANKE BUCKS
http://www.counterpunch.org/roberts12132007.html
On December 8, Chinese and French news services reported that Iran had stopped billing its oil exports in dollars.
Americans might never hear this news as the independence of the US media was destroyed in the 1990s when Rupert Murdoch persuaded the Clinton administration and the quislings in Congress to allow the US media to be monopolized by a few mega-corporations.
Iran's oil minister, Gholam Hossein Nozari, declared: "The dollar is an unreliable currency in regards to its devaluation and the loss oil exporters have endured from this trend." Iran has proposed to OPEC that the US dollar no longer be used by any oil exporting countries. As the oil emirates and the Saudis have already decided to reduce their holdings of US dollars, the US might actually find itself having to pay for its energy imports in euros or yen.
Oil bills are only a small part of the problem. Oil minister Nozari's statement about the loss suffered by oil exporters applies to all exporters of all products.
A quarter century ago US oil imports accounted for the US trade deficit. The concerns expressed over the years about "energy dependence" accustomed Americans to think of trade problems only in terms of oil. The desire to gain "energy independence" has led to such foolish policies as subsidies for ethanol, the main effect of which is to drive up food prices and further ravage the poor.
Today oil imports comprise a small part of the US trade deficit. During the decades when Americans were fixated on "the energy deficit," the US became three to four times more dependent on foreign made manufactures. America's trade deficit in manufactured goods, including advanced technology products, dwarfs the US energy deficit.
There are two reasons for the dollar's demise. One is the practice of American corporations offshoring their production for US consumers. When US corporations move to foreign countries their production of goods and services for American consumers, they convert US Gross Domestic Product (GDP) into imports. US production declines, US jobs and skill pools are destroyed, and the trade deficit increases. Foreign GDP, employment, and exports rise.
The other reason for the dollar's demise is the ignorance and nonchalance of "libertarian free market free trade economists" about offshoring and the trade deficit.
There is a great deal to be said in behalf of free markets and free trade. However, for many economists free trade has become an ideology, and they have ceased to think.
Such economists have become insouciant shills for the offshoring interests that fund their research and institutes. Their interests are tied together with those of the offshoring corporations.
Offshoring interests and economic dogmas have combined to create a false picture of America's economic position. While the ladders of upward mobility are being dismantled, Americans are being told that they have never had it better.
I keep reading that there is all kinds of turmoil and finger pointing in the Clinton campaign and changes may be coming. There's nothing wrong with her campaign - it's the candidate they have to work with.
She is showing her true colors now with the Obama attacks. She is ruthless and will run over anyone to achieve her goals; ruining careers in the process. I've been involved in Democratic politics since 1968 with Gene McCarthy, and have always voted for the Democratic presidential candidate. If she's the nominee, I can't even hold my nose and vote for her.
18.
john nelson
Thu, 12/13/07
2:04 pm
Indeed, Mr. Nelson, yes, indeed.
Phil,
I guess it's sock it to Kucinih day, because you are feeling so protective of the Iowa Dem Party and the DesMoines Reg.
If you were to take Impeachment, Single Payer Health plan, ending Nafta, Cafta and "Shafta", Pulling out all of the troops (not just combat)no bases, Patriot Act, etc,etc.and put them in one side of a scales, then the stuff you've been talking about to justify muzzling Dennis sounds silly. I think you know how the scales would tip.
I started to watch the debates, it's all about Carolyn Washburn, her moment in the sun. Chris Dodd is the only one left with any integrity, but he'll be left behind soon, and it will be a fight to the last machine. not even worth watching at that point.
I will NOT contribute money to FIX THE BLOG, when a basic on any online org should be to have a well-functioning site and blog. That is a BASIS for continued donations.
Fixing the blog clock is NOT rocket science. Just DO IT and then show you care about supporting community. Then I'll contribute. But not a moment before.....
Susan...
What do you expect Harmon to do? I'll take a flying guess and say she doesn't care too much for Nancy.
Sitka
Thu, 12/13/07
2:06 pm
Part of a Senator's job is to REPRESENT his/her constituents. In case you hadn't noticed, NC is not the most progressive of the 50 states. Once Edwards decided he would not run again to represent NC, he was free to take his OWN positions, and define what/where he wanted to focus. Of course, he ran as VP to Kerry so was not in a position to take independent stands in that capacity. But afterward, he did.
He focused on poverty institute, apologized for his vote on Iraq and showed that he meant it by changing his position. You smear of him for votes as a Rep. of a fairly conservative southern state should be put in context.
What he's doing now is taking on directly the power of DC and the MSM, which is NOT an advisable move to make to get press. Yet, he is still within striking range in Iowa. After Clinton and Obama continue with the fighting (doesn't matter who starts it), voters will tire and begin to look for someone with solutions. Edwards will be there.
Robert Kennedy endorses Hillary, Bill Clinton becomes Bush Sr's adopted son. Entitled families who play together, stay together.
Senate Roll Call Vote on Energy Bill
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/ro...
Part of a Senator's job is to REPRESENT his/her constituents
The trouble with Edwards is, his record indicates he'll represent his Republican and corporate constituents if given another public office.
28.
audrey.nc
Thu, 12/13/07
2:28 pm
Just watch her. She is from one of the most progressive districts in California. She'll be up for re-election in 2008. In 2006 she some had very good competion in the Democratic primary. All the defense industry jobs that were at one time in this district have now none gone off shore. She almost lost the CDP's primary pre-endorsement at the state convention too. There was a lot of floor debate that went on and on about it.
After Clinton and Obama continue with the fighting (doesn't matter who starts it), voters will tire and begin to look for someone with solutions. Edwards will be there.
Obama seems to be coming out on top of the Hillary attacks. I expected him to respond in kind, but he's keeping above it.
It doesn't look like Edwards will be able to take his shots early and then sit back with an angelic smile on his face and pick up the pieces after the others tear other down this time around.
But it's kind of sad and bad that Edwardians have to hope for a mudfight and low turnout on caucus night.
Senate Roll Call Vote on Energy Bill
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/ro...
The vote was 59-40 -- one short.
One "Democrat" voted with the Reeps....
Bloody Mary Landrieu.
Bloody Oily Mary Landrieu.
She wants the oil and gas subsidies back in, no doubt. And Dems are about to do just that. It's Christmas time!!
Carolyn Washburn is asking the candidates what their New Year's Resolutions are. I guess nobody missed anything by not watching, or being there.
Sitka wrote: But it's kind of sad and bad that Edwardians have to hope for a mudfight and low turnout on caucus night.
Not hoping for that at all. Good caucus turnout will help Edwards. And the mudfight will continue regardless...that is what Clinton will do to try to bring down Obama. Has nothing to do with hope.
In the end, Iowa will turn to a third candidate, IMO. We'll see....stay tuned.
Good grief, I just watched the very end of the debate where they all extolled the virtues of Iowans and of IA being first. What are the rest of us, chopped liver? Would we throw rotten fruit? It was a loaded question...what were they supposed to say?
Horrible moderator.
Sure thing. That must be why he's out front talking about corruption and the need to take on those corporate interests.....are you even making sense?
Did you all see this story and watch this senator last night?
Sen. Kit Bond (R-MO), last night on PBS' Newshour:
GWEN IFILL: I just would like to -- but do you think that waterboarding, as I described it, constitutes torture?SEN. KIT BOND: There are different ways of doing it. It's like swimming, freestyle, backstroke. The waterboarding could be used almost to define some of the techniques that our trainees are put through, but that's beside the point. It's not being used.
***********************************
GA, throw this man out. Is he up this year?
New thread: http://www.blogforamerica.com/view/23271...
I watched the whole debate. This is a strong field. I back Edwards because of what he said at the end, that he feels it in his "gut". That the office belongs to the people and he is all about taking on the entrenched special interests, and he named names.
Kucinich should have been invited, he would have added to the debate. They could have dropped a couple of the questions to fit him in. (New years resolution?) Had he had a campaign here I'm sure he would have been invited to participate, and I don't think it will make much of a difference with his supporters who might be even more determined to come out and vote.
Indy.....
Dems are not only about to give the oil co's their x-mas, but they probably arranged for Landrieu to do that. she gets kudos from her people and the Dems get to say they tried, but the big bad minority woudn't let them.
I'm sorry, I just can't take the Iowans seriously. I just heard them saying that they take their caucuses seriously, yet if that were true, Dodd and Richardson and even Gravel and Kucinich would be polling better.
What they take seriously is their own importance and how the polls and CMWs tell them how to vote.
There is no excuse for Dodd being in single digits. The Register didn't give him any coverage, did it, compared to Obama and Clinton?
Fix. In. Iowa. Just. Like 04.
Sitka wrote: The trouble with Edwards is, his record indicates he'll represent his Republican and corporate constituents if given another public office.
Indy wrote: Sure thing. That must be why he's out front talking about corruption and the need to take on those corporate interests.....are you even making sense?
Talk is cheap. What doesn't make sense is putting Edwards' rhetoric ahead of his record.
I'm sorry, I just can't take the Iowans seriously. I just heard them saying that they take their caucuses seriously......
I heard one on NPR say, "If he doesn't have the time to spend in our state, we don't have the time for him." I've seen that sentiment expressed on this blog as well. Some of the self proclaimed guardians of our democracy aren't deep thinkers.
The rest of us are lucky if a candidate even finds time to visit our states because they all have to camp out in Iowa for a year and hold every voter's hand and tell them how pretty they are over a box of chocolates; and Iowans write off candidates who don't spend ENOUGH time (and money) in their state.
I am so tired of the far left once again hijacking this party, They are as bad as the far right. Wake up all, the nation will not elect another president with no experience. Do you want the republicans to win? Get back on the Hillary bandwagon before it's to late or Gulliani is a shoe in. Please learn from past, idealist don't win the generals.
Add your comment
(to reply directly to a comment, click the reply icon for that comment)Post closed to commenting
Videos of some of the 64 House Healthcare Heroes standing strong for a public health insurance option
Congressman Emanuel Cleaver
Congressman Lloyd Dogget
Congressman Keith Ellison
Congressman Bob Filner
Congressman Phil Hare
Congresswoman Lynn Woolsey
Congresswoman Maxine Waters
Blog for America
-
1 Turncoat Senator vs. 410,649 Americans
By Mary R on Nov 19, 2009 3:06 PM EST -
Send a message they can't miss
By Mary R on Nov 17, 2009 12:00 PM EST -
Will the real Democrat please stand up?
By Mary R on Nov 11, 2009 2:03 PM EST -
3 Million and Counting
By Mary R on Nov 6, 2009 12:47 PM EST -
Is Sen. Nelson listening to Nebraska?
By Mary R on Nov 6, 2009 12:31 PM EST
Recent Blog Posts
-
Sunday items
By Gerry Lykins on Nov 22, 2009 8:25 AM EST -
Friday finds
By Gerry Lykins on Nov 20, 2009 7:48 AM EST -
1 Turncoat Senator vs. 410,649 Americans
By Mary R on Nov 19, 2009 3:06 PM EST -
Nationalize all Health Insurance companies
By Carl B on Nov 19, 2009 3:05 PM EST -
Hanover Township 2010 Primary Election Candidates
By Trudy Zaja on Nov 19, 2009 2:26 AM EST
-
By Phil Specht on Dec 13, 2007 12:45 PM ESTHoward Dean is first. Attack Hillary and you play into her hand.
:58