Posted: 30 Jan 2008, 10:23 MST
Categories: 2008 Election | Politics | Rant
Over the last several weeks, I've lost all respect I had for Bill Clinton.
Here he is, the de facto head of the Democratic Party (and hugely popular within it), and he's not just campaigning against someone else in his party, he's trashing someone else in his party. But this person isn't just "someone" else -- this person is the future of the Democratic Party. What Barack Obama symbolizes and what he brings to the discussion is what is so-badly needed in the Democratic Party and in this country. I can understand Bill wants to get Hillary elected, but he is grossly overstepping his bounds. First we had the "fairy tale" incident in South Carolina, then the Reagan-quote smearing, then he literally got red-faced with a reporter in Nevada (over the bogus lawsuit) and in South Carolina (about why the media is bad -- typical Clinton spew). It is becoming more and more clear to me that he's not just helping to get his wife elected, he's running for a third term.
Here we have a hugely historical moment -- the first woman president. But that moment is fundamentally trashed because of Bill. I ask feminist Hillary-supporters to answer this question: where would she be without her husband? I have no doubt she would still be a very powerful lawyer for some prestigious law firm (or perhaps even her own) or even somewhere in elected government, but I firmly do not believe she would be a major candidate for president if not because of her husband. So what does that say for feminism and the first woman president? The popularity of Bill, I think, is what her campaign is hoping for -- for people to say, "hmmm, well the 90s were pretty good, and Bill Clinton was in charge then, and here he is again wanting to get back in the White House, so I think I'll vote for him again, errr, I mean his wife." (The last South Carolina Clinton ad played exactly to this). I don't argue the 90s were good times and that we need to move again toward good times, but the 90s were also a very partisan times (think government shutdown). To not associate the Clintons with this partisanship is to not associate water with a flood.
When Bush was elected in 2000, I think people assumed characters from the first Bush Administration were going to reprise roles in a second Bush Administration (some did return, but not too many). With a second Clinton Administration, you can bet there will be reprisals.
First, there's Bill himself. If he's this vocal and this visible in a primary election, what exactly will his role be if she's elected president? We'll have an unsettled, unsatisfied, unscrupulous, and unelected person calling shots. He's such a huge character and has such a huge personality that there isn't any possible way to contain him. I can understand peoples' longing for good times, times of prosperity, times of peace, but there is such thing as a Constitution. Not only should he not be in the White House for a third term, he'll be unaccountable. Dangerous, if you ask me.
Second, Hillary's post-Iowa speech dripped with old-faces. Standing behind her were Bill, Madeleine Albright, and Wesley Clark. The old guard. No doubt they'll play a role in another Clinton Administration.
Reprisals aside, what bothers me most about the Clintons is not just that they have to win, but the blatancy in which they do everything they can in order to win. First we had the misleading misquoting of Barack's Reagan statement and the incredibly false social security mailing in Nevada. Now, we learn that Hillary will do what she can to get delegates from Michigan and Florida seated at the Democratic Convention. She wasn't supposed to campaign in Michigan, which she didn't, but she was the only one of the three (Obama, Edwards the other two) who left her name on the ballot. No one else ran there, but she "won" so she has to collect a prize that the DNC said doesn't exist. And now that she "won" in Florida, she wants to cash in. Why wasn't she this vocal about having Michigan and Florida delegates count before she won the uncontested popular vote? She wants to change the rules whilst playing the game. She, and now Bill, disgusts me.
Barack recently said something to the effect of, "in November, I know Hillary's supporters would also support me [if I'm the nominee], but will my supporters also support her [if she's the nominee]?" I, for one, will go on record right now stating there is NO circumstance in which I will vote for Hillary Clinton for president. NONE. The Clintons, I think, were responsible for a good portion of the partisanship and divisiveness we have today that grew out of the 90s. I want no more of that. Time to move on.
In endorsing Obama, The State, the largest newspaper in South Carolina, said this:
The restoration of the Clintons to the White House would trigger a new wave of all-out political warfare. That is not all Bill and Hillary's fault -- but it exists, whomever you blame, and cannot be ignored. Hillary Clinton doesn't pretend that it won't happen; she simply vows to persevere, in the hope that her side can win. Indeed, the Clintons' joint career in public life seems oriented toward securing victory and personal vindication.
I absolutely cannot buy the argument, "well the Republicans will be throwing fire in November, so we ought to nominate someone who can throw fire back." Yes, let's fight fire with fire and perpetuate the divisive hatred we have in this country. Good idea.
Why can't Dems say "enough is enough" and instead nominate someone who believes in fighting fire with water? It's time for a change, and the Clintons -- plural -- don't represent change.
Obama does.
