 |
Hillary Must Not Be the Democratic Nominee |
 |
Hillary Clinton must not be the Democratic nominee for President in 2008. Her politics are misguided, weak, and dangerous. She has shown her willingness to compromise on core party principles and moral issues. The Democratic base must not accept such a candidate.
I would happily vote for the Hillary Clinton of 1993, a woman who stood for something beyond political convenience. But the Hillary Clinton of today is a shrewd, calculating person. She has no clear loyalties - not to her origins, not to her own former politics, and not to the Democratic base.
Hillary’s messages on issues are so vague as to be meaningless. Listening to her speak, you might be inspired - until you realize that her boring ideas have no substance. Is that because it’s early in the campaign, and the time isn’t right to make specific proposals for domestic or foreign policy? With Hillary, the truth is far worse: over-advised and dispassionate, she will always take the political position she feels is safest, even a moderate Republican one.
Progressives must realize that Hillary’s “frontrunner” status is a big problem, one that threatens the realization of our most cherished aims. The issue goes beyond one nomination and one election, right to the heart of how the Democratic Party defines itself. Right now the Party is divided into two factions: One group supports caution and centrism. The other advocates a stronger progressive message. Hillary belongs to the first group - the same group that has allowed the Iraq War to drag on and permitted abuses of the Constitution by the Bush administration.
What’s at stake for the Party? The question of how to respond to the humiliations of the past seven years. What is the lesson of Bush’s presidency, the American occupation of Iraq, and the erosion of American civil liberties by the Patriot Act and FISA? Are we living in a conservative country that will punish Democrats for having too strong a message? Or is it that Democrats have not been strong enough? Do Democrats need to stand in the center - or even the center right - to survive? Or is centrism going to leave Democrats looking like just a wimpier version of the Republicans?
Progressives are pushing the Party left, but their work has not been easy. The battle to ensure that Hillary Clinton is not the Democratic nominee in 2008 is only the latest in a series of internal party battles. In 2006, Howard Dean’s 50 State Strategy faced off against Rahm Emmanuel’s conservative approach of targeting only “swing” districts. The success of Chairman Dean’s tactics demonstrated that the Democratic Party can be aggressive, visionary, and victorious. Going a step further, the ongoing Bush Dogs campaign is pushing the message that Democratic officeholders need to uphold certain core principles no matter how conservative their home districts are. In other words, why stop with electing Democrats across the whole country? Let’s make sure these politicians are real Democrats.
Fighting to prevent Hillary’s nomination is the next logical step. Let’s challenge the party’s leadership, at the highest level, to be real Democrats. As the battle to reshape the Democratic Party continues, the grassroots must not allow Clinton to define the Party in 2008.
What can you do?
1. Do not accept the “frontrunner” narrative.
Hillary is not my frontrunner. Polls at this early stage of the game only have the meaning we give them. If we buy the story that she’s the frontrunner, then narrative becomes reality. Let’s refuse to treat her like she’s already been crowned, and instead treat her like just another candidate.
2. Support another candidate thoughtfully.
Find a candidate who’s different from Hillary, and be able to explain your choice. Does your candidate truly represent and serve the base? Let Hillary supporters know - there are better candidates out there.
3. Support anti-Hillary voices.
Support an anti-Hillary blogger. Send relevant news articles and blog posts to your friends. Donate to organizations who are working to build a more progressive Democratic Party. Or, if you like what you’ve read here, contact me directly at ish@theseminal.com and visit The Seminal reguarly to read our updates on Clinton’s campaign.
If Hillary is chosen as the nominee, whether you vote for her in the presidential elections is your choice. But in the primary season, progressives should work to promote progressive candidates. Hillary is not a progressive candidate. If you are a Hillary supporter, I encourage you to ask yourself whether her stances on issues line up with your deepest values. And if you are not a Hillary supporter, I encourage you to add your voice to the conversation, and help steer the Democratic Party away from compromise and cowardice, toward a meaningful vision of progressive politics.
I think that you should add this review to VoteSpin!
Note that in the roll call above, Biden, Dodd, AND Edwards also voted for the USA PATRIOT Act. And Obama probably would have voted for it if he’d been in the Senate, but that’s debatable.
I have problems with all the candidate’s stance on the Patriot Act. I hope someone is going to repudiate that real soon, and it looks like Edwards, with his Foreign Affairs piece questioning the war on terror, might actually do it. But the jury is out there.
As for Hillary, the democratic primary is a choice. There are better Democrats on the ballot than Hillary, and I intend to vote for one.
Part of the problem is that the left isn’t fielding any worthy candidates. Hillary is the front runner because she is the best choice out there, which is really scary considering I agree 100% with your review of her. She stands to get the comination because the other candidates out there are worse than her in a variety of different capacities.
The only thing that pleases me about this is that her nomination will all but guarantee a Republican victory in 2008, because no moderate, centerist or undecided voter will vote for her for all of the reasons you cited above.
While I respect your view, I disagree with it. I am firmly in the camp that believes that it is much closer to truth and to a stance of principled effectiveness to undrstand that the American system requires compromise and working towards apositive future withg others, not an exercise in ideological purity. I believe that such purity is as unattractive and potentially dangerous on both the right and the left.
And please, if you look a the big picture, many moderate, centerist and undecided voters will of course vote for her. Like it our not, the majoroty of voters in this country don’t apply the litmus tests I see many of you applying.
I think you have to be careful here. I personally don’t want a candidate who doesn’t compromise on anything. As Craig correctly pointed out, that leads to gridlock, opposition, and polarization. But at the same time, I don’t want a candidate that compromises on everything. That means he or she stands for nothing, and it also makes him or her easier to take advantage of by people who are willing to not compromise.
It comes down to core democratic values for me. In each election cycle, there are a couple key issues that will be politically tough to get accomplished once elected, and that are the issues that most Americans care about. Those issues this cycle are Iraq and probably healthcare. I want to know that when push comes to shove, when the politics gets rough, that my candidate will fall out on my side of the argument. No matter what happens, through all the media spin and compromise and whatever, on these issues he or she has my back.
When Hillary says she’ll wait for her second term to try and pass healthcare reform, or when she refuses to define her view of the mission in Iraq or apologize for her war vote, that says to me that she doesn’t have my back on those issues, and that’s a problem.
I’m not saying many moderate voters wouldn’t vote for her or that she’s unelectable. They are all electable (sorry arclightzero, you really should read some polls…). However, if you want to get past the weak Democrat meme, to start playing like winners, then you have to stand up for something. Not all the time, not on every issue, but something.
I like your characterization: it aint the same Hillary we knew back in the day.
What may be the single best reason to not vote Hillary doesn’t seem top be getting any attention. Simply put, WTF is it with having the WH in the hands of TWO families for 24 or 28 years?!?!?! Jeebus! Who comes after Hillary, Jenna? Chelsea?
Aw sh*t. Putting on my optimist hat, I can only hope that her latest incarnation is a very deliberately calcaulated charade (well, of course it is that) but maybe, just maybe, she’s doing whatever it takes to get elected, then will drop the charade and start exacting vengeance on the vast ight wing conspiracy. Yeah, figure the odds.
Ron Paul. Ron Paul is the real deal. He won;t infringe on your rights, he will stop the war, and he will tame the Fed and out 9 trillion dollar debt. Ron Paul should be the GOP and Democrat nominee.
I think if Hillary gets elected we’ll have bigger civil liberties impeded than what’s in the Patriot Act. This is a camp who threatened a major magazine (GQ) into revoking an article (which wasn’t negative but the truth). And what about this:New York restaurant owner Nino Selimaj is no longer voting for Sen. Hillary Clinton after getting a letter from Bill Clinton’s office demanding a photo of daughter Chelsea posing with Selimaj be removed from his Italian bistro’s front window. How’s that for Big Brother and removing civil liberties. Wake up people, this is socialism!! Scary stuff here. These are powerful people who think they can take liberties away when it suits them and keeps them powerful. Don’t buy it. The Dems can do MUCH better than Clinton for nominee.
Hillary’s gun grabbing tendencies will hurt her. And thats an encroachment on civil liberty.
If the “inevitable” narrative being promulgated in the main stream media echo chamber has any basis in reality, I have to conclude that Hillary’s nomination and victory in the general election is so assured that she presumably DOESN’T NEED MY VOTE.
Accordingly, I WON’T BE GIVING IT TO HER. I will absolutely not vote for her in a primary or general election because she has absolutely nothing to offer in the way of meaningful change to our system of government. She is also completely uninspiring and her teeth-clenched, risk-averse performance in debates and on the talk shows evokes fingernails on a chalkboard.
I’ll absolutely be exercising my right to vote, but I’ll either abstain from voting in presidential race, or I’ll take a hard look at a Republican candidate. That’s how deep my resistance to Hillary is, and I sincerely consider myself a (moderate) Democrat.