Skip to comments.Hillary's baggage is just too heavy for this voter to carry (A liberal's dilemma)
Posted on 02/05/2008 4:44:14 AM PST by fweingart
At the most recent Democratic debate, moderator Wolf Blitzer referred to "a dream ticket for the White House" - either Hillary Clinton for President and Barack Obama for veep or the other way around. Both candidates demurred, giving me the opportunity to describe my own dream ticket: Obama for President; Clinton for chief of staff.
That's the long and the short of it. Just about everything Clinton says about herself - her experience, her indomitability, her presumed ability to work long hours - says to me that she would make a swell chief of staff. Beyond that, she either lacks the qualities that would make a great - not merely competent - President or hides them from us, as she has occasionally done with her own pain.
My conclusions about Clinton, forced upon me by the need to vote in a Super Tuesday primary, come from her own campaign. Whether she meant to or not, she has presented herself as a model of caution, of experience hard-earned and not enjoyed and an inability to admit fault or lousy judgment.
Two matters stand out. The first, of course, is her vote in favor of the Iraq war. I, too, supported going to war, so I don't think this alone disqualifies her from the presidency. I do think, though, that her refusal to simply admit that her judgment - not simply her facts - was faulty says something about her. We all knew George Bush was going to launch the invasion and was not merely seeking permission to stare down Saddam Hussein. If Clinton did not know that, then her judgment was doubly faulty.
Her refusal - her inability - to simply confess poor judgment says to me that her vote was politically motivated. In that, she was not alone. All of her 2008 Democratic primary colleagues who were in the Senate at the time voted for the war resolution. Many other Senate Democrats voted against it - not on the basis of different facts but on the basis of a different judgment about the same facts.
If that were the only example of Clinton voting suspiciously like a presidential candidate, I would not be troubled. But in 2005, she co-sponsored a bill that would make flag-burning illegal. It just so happened that around that time I heard Associate Justice Antonin Scalia explain why he, a conservative so conservative you cannot be more conserv.ative, considered flag-burning a form of political expression. It was therefore, he said, protected. Precisely so.
Look, I know what Barack Obama was doing when he refused to confront his minister about the latter's embrace of Louis Farrakhan. He was ducking an issue with no upside for him. He will not get my Profiles in Courage award for this, but the rest of his record overwhelms this one chintzy act.
Not so with Clinton. The fact remains that as a politician, Hillary Clinton is a creature of her husband. This is reality, not a putdown. In this respect, she is like George W. Bush or any of the Kennedys now out there telling us how to vote. Even the mighty Teddy is the product of nepotistic politics, and his adoration of Obama is, I suspect, partly a function of Obama's qualities and partly a function of the perceived slight of John F. Kennedy by Hillary Clinton some weeks ago.
But for Hillary Clinton, the Bill thing looms larger. He was a good President with bad associations - beginning with Jim McDougal of Whitewater fame and ending with Marc Rich of pardon infamy. Bill Clinton has a tropism for the faintly corrupt and his wife has more than a tropism for him. He would stalk her presidency as he has her campaign, and when she vows that she alone would rule the White House, she is talking personnel, not marriage. It ain't the same.
So I vote, as I must, for Obama and against Hillary. This is not an easy choice. But the time has come and, really, hers has gone.
This may be Cohen's 'dream', but it is this conservative's nightmare!
IF he's smart (and that's a BIG if), and IF he's the Rat nominee, then I'll wager that he'll have nothing to do with the Clintons, especially since he's now got solid Kennedy backing and won't need the Arkansas Mafia to rally the Rat machine.
Is that anything like slightly pregnant?
Ah, c’mon, Ricky, you’ve been carrying her water for YEARS. How much heavier can the carpetbag be?
"Was" depends on the definitions of "Was", just as the Bill's definition of the word "Is", "Is". Other associations include Monika Lewinski, Gennifer Flowers, and Kathleen Willey. Perhaps this liberal conveniently forgot them.
This whole rat nominating process is becoming my dream. For years I hoped the rat would get exposed for the bigot he is. Now he is showing who he really is.
A dream for some - A NIGHTMARE FOR OTHERS!
In the past, it was easy for a lot of these rah rah boys and airhead cheerleaders to support Hillary because she was being criticized by the Republicans. This was a no brainer and it took no courage. It didn't matter what she was accused of, and it didn't matter if the charges were true. All they needed to do was give her the usual brainless cowardly support and they were safe. The only ones who would react would be the conservatives, but so what? These people knew that their fellow libs would give them cover and they needed nothing more.
Something has changed though. Surprisingly, not all the liberals are supporting Hillary! There are any number of old bull Senate Democrats supporting Obama, and a lot of other liberals are also supporting him. So what is a kool aid drinker to do now? It isn't as easy to give her the usual knee jerk support, because now, that support is going to be scrutinized by other liberals, and they won't give an automatic pass.
This article is demonstrative if nothing else, of the "cut and run" mentality of liberals. Cohen, and other liberals, are being called to make a stand. And suddenly, they have weak knees and they would frankly rather be somewhere else. It's hot, it's dirty, and it's uncomfortable as hell.
“In the past, it was easy for a lot of these rah rah boys and airhead cheerleaders to support Hillary because she was being criticized by the Republicans.”
You hit the mark dead on.
That’s a pretty decent analysis-—I think you’re on to something!
With those thighs she could carry a tank.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.