Thursday, March 6, 2008

It's Time To Take The Kid Gloves Off

Senator Obama, sir. It’s time to let it all hang out. We have sixteen years of well-documented psychodrama from the two “adult” Clinton’s to draw from. Let’s get on with it. You have been restrained and gentlemanly. But now is not the time. Didn’t that creep Wolfeson just compare you to Ken Starr for suggesting that it was time for her to release her tax returns? Well, let’s go real down-and-dirty-Ken Starr. She says she’s been vetted? Not for the past almost eight years. But I’ll bet the babes are going to be coming out of the woodwork with their trophy samples of Bill’s DNA once the press stops cowering at the prospect of taking on the Clinton Machine. Who made the gentlemen’s agreement not to look too carefully at the wanderings of Bill? And why?

I always kind of held it against her that she stood by her man. Oh, I could see it during the time in the White House, but once that was over, off with his head. My god, how much humiliation must we all endure? What kind of example is this to give a daughter? Is accepting his philandering the price you pay to get to use his political capital? That’s some kind of deal with the devil.

But if she’s going to use her experience as First Lady, say somehow that it’s relevant, then her one and only real and valid experience is her attempt to give us universal health care. It was a colossal failure. It set us back. And her penchant for secrecy and her stubbornness played a huge part in the failure. It earned her a reputation as a…….what’s the word I’m searching for????? She was not collegial. I would guess she didn’t play well with other’s as a child.

None of this past experience qualifies her in any way to be President and only exposes her greatest weakness. It is her judgement. Again and again, it is her judgement. She is so cynical that she is counting on chivalry from you, since you are so naive as to offer “hope” and “idealism” to a bunch of “kids." She is willing to get down in the mud. Her image of herself as the first female President is too real, and she has made too many nasty compromises to get there, to give it up, no matter the cost, even if it means John Mc Cain wins this one, even if it means the destruction of the Democratic Party, and then she runs again in four years. So get ready to play dirty.

1 comment:

K McKiernan said...

Hey, Utah,

Hope things are well with you.

"Taking off the gloves" as you put it is what will divide this party. The beauty of our two candidates is that relatively speaking they are very cordial and display that they can provide teamwork. This is crucial because I believe the final ticket should be Hillary/Obama.

It is crazy (or rhetorically smart) to paint what Hillary has done as of late as "attacking." Sure, this woman knows how to fight dirty and we have not seen dirty. We have not even seen anything compared to what John McCain or the radical republican nuts (remember swiftboat) can do. Running an ad which showcases you as strong and merely implies you have more experience than anyone else, is not an attack on Barack Obama. And to be honest, I WOULD want her getting the phone call. He can get the phone call in a few more years when he knows a little more about Washington and its workings.

Ok, instead of writing and writing a huge response. Let me try my best to pare it down into 5 top reasons we need to stop bashing Hillary, refuse the negative constructions of her, and most importantly, nominate her and not Barack.

1. She is a fighter and its what we need. We construct out own hope. The onus is on each of us to say and do Barack's great rhetoric. It sounds good, but WE need to put it to action. With our hopes and her fighting, we can actually move people out of poverty, into healthcare, and bring respect back to our country.

2. She has experience. People can denigrate her WH experience all they want, but she knows the business of running this country. She saw it first hand and I think she had a hand in it. Bill and Hillary have always seemed to be more business partners than lovers. They fell in love through their world/political savvy. They may have rocky emotional love issues, but what matters to us, what SHOULD matter to us is their politics and world views and human views. They have been focused and diligent to these goals their entire lives.

RE: White House... She did not sit and smile at her cowboy. Nor did she provide iconic fashion statements like others. Rather, she traveled the world countless times meeting important diplomats, bridging gaps of diversity, fighting for children and human rights.

3. She has made mistakes. Yeah, that's right, mistakes are part of experience and I would rather have a person who has made mistakes and learned from them, become more agile and complex because of them, than someone who through lack of experience has not made as many. Or, rather, who has refused to really vote or be a part of issues to be able to avoid tricky issues... issues the Republicans will doggedly pursue and highlight.

4. This election is about the economically oppressed. Its about those working so hard and barely getting by if even that. Hillary is their champion and they vote for her in droves. She is the blue collar choice... this election is about them.

5. She will win against McCain. Conventional wisdom (Read: media constructions) says Obama will beat McCain. No. I think Hillary has a better chance and here is why:

*SHE has endured the Republican Smear Machine for 2 decades. He can't endure a mild ad right before a primary.

*SHE knows how to fight past her last breath. She is good in the clutch. She will do what it takes to win, period. And we, democrats, need to win.

*SHE has worked on both sides of the aisle--fashioning a partnership and displaying the ability to unite, not just orate about uniting. Think the adage: Actions speak louder than words. He has words. She has actions behind her words.

*SHE has-here is the biggie-won the biggest states. Period. No Democrat in the last 20 years has lost the Ohio primary and gone on to win the nomination. No Democrat in the last 20 years has lost the Texas primary and gone on to win the nomination. For decades, the person who wins the White House has won Ohio. With her decisive win in Ohio she is positioned to win the White House.

How on earth can we expect Obama to win the White House when he did not carry one single large state? If the states had been all delegates to the winner (as it will be in the National Election), she would be the nominee. J and I counted. Obama would have 1,279 delegates at this point to Hillary's 1,363, and that is not even counting her unrecognized wins in Michigan and Florida. They WILL vote in November, and if hers had counted, she would be up to 1, 676 at this point. She holds in Penn--which is nearly 200 more. Plus, she holds more super delegates.

Obama could not win Ohio, Texas, California, or New York. I doubt he will win Penn. He has won many states, but think about those states. Those are red states which will go to McCain. He won those states against her because of the democrats in those states, more were African American. However, there are more redneck, racist, conservatives in those states than there are African Americans and Democrats in general.

Everybody keeps talking "math"... but the math now is not indicative of the the real math come November. She has won the states which will probably go Blue for her, he has won the states that will most likely stay red.

SHE has shown she can win the states that matter.

I admire Barack Obama, but if Democrats truly mean what we say... if we really, truly want a win in November, we need to go with the lock, and with the facts and informed opinions above, Hillary is the way to go.