Stop Hillary! Vote no to a Clinton dynasty (Harper's cover story)

[RufusTFirefly]

Stop Hillary!
Vote no to a Clinton dynasty

By Doug Henwood

...What is the case for Hillary (whose quasi-official website identifies her, in bold blue letters, by her first name only, as do millions upon millions of voters)? It boils down to this: She has experience, she’s a woman, and it’s her turn. It’s hard to find any substantive political argument in her favor. She has, in the past, been associated with women’s issues, with children’s issues — but she also encouraged her husband to sign the 1996 bill that put an end to the Aid to Families with Dependent Children program (AFDC), which had been in effect since 1935. Indeed, longtime Clinton adviser Dick Morris, who has now morphed into a right-wing pundit, credits Hillary for backing both of Bill’s most important moves to the center: the balanced budget and welfare reform. And during her subsequent career as New York’s junior senator and as secretary of state, she has scarcely budged from the centrist sweet spot, and has become increasingly hawkish on foreign policy.

Harper's: Stop Hillary (registration required, alas)

[belzabubba333]

1. why would i want to do that?

[RufusTFirefly]

2. Huffington Post summarizes Henwood's 5 major points

Here Are 5 Takeaways From The Harper's Anti-Clinton Story

2. Hillary Clinton is a hawk.

In addition to her support for the Iraq War, Henwood notes, Clinton also linked Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda. Such an accusation “was closer to the Bush line than even many pro-war Democrats were willing to go,” he writes.

The article goes on to say that during her time at the State Department, Clinton had a “macho eagerness” to call in the U.S. cavalry in foreign affairs. Quoting Time writer Michael Crowley, Henwood writes that, “On at least three crucial issues -- Afghanistan, Libya, and the bin Laden raid -- Clinton took a more aggressive line than [Defense Secretary Robert] Gates, a Bush-appointed Republican.”

The five (according to HuffPo's Sam Levine) are as follows:

1. Hillary Clinton didn’t do much during her time in the U.S. Senate.
2. Hillary Clinton is a hawk.
3. Hillary Clinton is ambitious.
4. Hillary Clinton is not idealistic.
5. Hillary Clinton has no problem representing the rich.

[belzabubba333]

8. well she's older and she's also been s.o.s. and the nation is more war weary now

[Kelvin Mace]

52. Adn she is just as hawkish now as before

and the nation is quite happy to be lied into war.

[marble falls]

11. Hillary is as much a politician as any man. That alone makes me look real closely at her.....

but not enough that if she gets the nod I'd vote for any GOP possibles I've heard about and I refuse to sit out the 2016 election or vote a "symbolic" 3rd party ticket that will still get us someone like Mitt Romney or much much worse.

[underthematrix]

35. I really don't like Hillary Clinton BUT

her policy frame is mostly the same as mine. That other crap is sort of what an inadequate man would say about a strong woman. I will vote for Hillary if she is the Dem Prez nominee but she will not be my primary choice.

[NobodyHere]

60. "3. Hillary Clinton is ambitious. "

We need to continue the tradition of putting non-ambitious people into the Presidency

/sarcasm

[RufusTFirefly]

62. Point taken. That's HuffPo's characterization though. Not Henwood's.

I think a better way to characterize the point in Henwood's article is as follows:

3. Hillary Clinton is a shameless opportunist.

[Maedhros]

4. For yourself, only you know the answer.

For myself, I care about the future of this nation and believe that Hillary would further cement the egregious Constitutional "reforms" wrought by the two Presidents who preceded her. She would also continue, with fervor, this nation's unconscionable military strong-arm policies.

[belzabubba333]

7. i think the key word in all that is - believe

[Maedhros]

12. My belief is based upon analysis of Hillary's past performance. [n/t]

[belzabubba333]

14. i understand but she's older has a grandchild, she's been s.o.s. and we are so war weary

you don't think any of that matters?

[Maedhros]

15. Having a grandchild is, IMO, irrelevant when considering for whom to vote.

When she was Secretary of State I disagreed strongly with her rhetoric and policies.

As for war weariness, it is my opinion that our country is not NEARLY war-weary enough.

Hillary Clinton marches lockstep with those forces in the U.S. Government that exalt Wall Street at the expense of working Americans, who believe in using American military might to force compliance with the American Hegemony and who routinely ignore the wants and needs of ordinary citizens in favor of the wants and needs of the moneyed power-players. A vote for Hillary is a vote for all of the above, which I will not do.

[nichomachus]

5. I say you don't

As long as you like living in a corporate dictatorship that is locked into perpetual war - merely to enrich the MIC corporations.

As long as you figure you'll have no need for Medicare or Social Security -- which the Clintons tried to sabotage in the '90s and were stopped only by Monica Lewinsky.

As long as you don't care how many jobs are shipped off shore leaving Americans begging for minimum wage jobs with no benefits.

Otherwise, you might want to look elsewhere.

[bigwillq]

3. That's what I plan on doing.

No more Clinton. No more Bush.

[JoePhilly]

6. And if it's Hillary V Jeb??

[bigwillq]

9. Move to Canada

[JoePhilly]

10. Good

[1StrongBlackMan]

50. Perfect.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

36. Hillary is so yesterday. Time for a fresh face with fresh ideas that inure to the benefit of Main Street, not Wall Street.

[Logical]

41. Me too! nt

[aquart]

13. Dynasty. Now there's an old, familiar buzzword.

We finally have a woman whose resume is UNEQUALLED in the history of this nation and you just brush it off.

Not to mention her favorability ratings.

And her war chest.

Not to mention the support of some of the best people we know.

Damn. This candidate could win! With just her first name, like a rock star.

She won't be perfect, but I've never been impressed by demigods. And I want Warren and Sanders and Franken in the Senate holding her dainty feet to the fire.

But you all keep looking for that sure lose candiate of impeccable virtue.

If you all want to make her answer for her husband's economic policies, do it. Make her clarify her positions. She should.

But take that filthy red flag "dynasty" and stuff it in an orifice.

[Maedhros]

16. Her resume is unequalled?

How? One term in the Senate and a stint as Secretary of State? I'm sure we can find some historical examples that equal or exceed that resume.

All your arguments make sense if the only criterion is winning the election. However I have other criteria, among which are curtailing elective warfare, effectively regulating Wall Street, avoiding disastrous trade agreements, and re-establishing basic civil rights such as habeus corpus and the First Amendment. Hillary will not do any of those things, so if she wins the President has a -D after her name but nothing else changes.

Vote for whomever you choose, but Hillary will not get my vote. I want my vote to mean something other than just metaphorically shuffling up to the ballot box and glumly checking the box marked "Hillary" because I have no other choice. I will never do that again. I do have a choice, and I intend to exercise it.

[RufusTFirefly]

17. And don't forget the Keystone XL pipeline

Clinton Keystone Dodge Prompts Donors to Rethink Support

Wealthy Democratic environmentalists are considering withholding support for a 2016 Hillary Clinton presidential bid unless she reassures them about their top priority: Killing the Keystone XL pipeline.
...
So far, Clinton has demurred on Keystone -- she declined to answer directly a question about it during a March 5 event in Vancouver -- even though it was under review by the State Department for much of her tenure as secretary.

[AtomicKitten]

56. Keystone and the Clintons.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023022353

[RufusTFirefly]

57. Love the graphic! Thanks!

Assuming you're familiar with this report, but just in case...

Cornell Report Busts Myth of Keystone XL Job Creation

In fact, in Pipe Dreams? Jobs Gained, Jobs Lost by the Construction of Keystone XL, the institute says more jobs could actually be destroyed than created by the pipeline.

[AtomicKitten]

58. de nada

[RufusTFirefly]

59. (I snuck in a little extra info since you posted)

See above.

[peacebird]

26. Plus a million!

[Hoppy]

18. Its not her resume thats the problem, its the content of that resume.

She has been less than useless... she has caused harm.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

37. Precisely! Hillary is pure form over substance and her stance on many major policy issues would be a disaster for this country.

[Mz Pip]

19. Perfect is the enemy of the good.

What ever Hillary is, she'll be a gazillion times better than Randy Paul or Ted Cruz, or Mike Huckabee.

[Maedhros]

21. I keep hearing this "don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good" nonsense.

It's not as if Hillary is a beacon of shiny wonderfulness marred only by a single, tiny blemish. On the whole her policies are absolutely abhorrent to my ideas of what it takes to be a "good" (not "perfect&quot President. I have to squint my eyes real hard to see those few areas in which she supports policies I agree with.

I'd suggest "don't let Beltway certitude be the enemy of real progress."

[wyldwolf]

22. Two questions for you. Try not to divert or avoid them.

Disclaimer: If someone to the left of Hillary (or the right) wins the primary, I'll work and vote for that person with the same zeal I will for Hillary if she wins.

Now the questions:

1. Will you vote for Hillary if she wins the nomination?
2. If not, do you plan to encourage others not to?

[RufusTFirefly]

23. Why is it that Hillary supporters run away from her record and insist on loyalty oaths instead? n/t

[wyldwolf]

25. Did you change your name? And who has done those things you mention?

So you won't make a loyalty oath to the Democrat who takes on Paul or Bush or Darwin knows who?

[Mz Pip]

53. I'm not a Hillary supporter

She hasn't declared and FWIW would not be my first choice. No one has asked me to declare my loyalty to Hillary and I certainly don't have any illusions about her record.

However, if she is the nominee I will support her.

I do agree that just about anyone on DU would be a better choice than and of the lunatics the GOP is likely to put forth.

[peacebird]

27. I'll answer

1. No
2. Yes

[wyldwolf]

28. I didn't ask you but I'm glad you're on the record.

[peacebird]

29. You're welcome, and I have always been on the record re: refusing to vote/support HRC

[Hoppy]

46. If she gets the nomination, (Sp. Mon. forbid) I will respond as I did with Obama's runs.

I will vote for her against a Repuke but not one penny, one bumper sticker, one yard sign... nothing more than the vote.


I was right on how Obama turned out. I am also right on Hillary.

[wyldwolf]

47. Maedhros has several different names, apparently

[RufusTFirefly]

30. Yes. The noxious notion of "electability" is a strong-arm attempt to squelch fresh ideas

Candidates become electable when the people decide they are, not when some sort of corporate star chamber hands down a decree.

[Maedhros]

39. Indeed!

I will vote for the candidate with the best ideas. I cannot be responsible for the votes wasted on the rubber stamp, go-along-to-get-along candidate.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

38. Abhorrent is putting it mildly.

[LawDeeDah]

31. That is true, but it may also be true that is the plan.

Sure Hillary looks good compared to a bunch of insane ridiculi. On that note, anyone here on democratic underground is qualified to be a better President.

[RufusTFirefly]

32. Yes. There may be an attempt to turn our elections process into professional wrestling

Where the audience is entertained, but the outcome is already determined in advance.

I refuse to play along with this charade.

[wyldwolf]

24. Using an accurate definition, it doesn't even apply to Hillary. Just another leftist talking point.

In traditional dynasties, rule is inherited. If one can extend that to mean people from the same family elected in free and fair elections, then one can easily make the case that it extends to people in the same party. So if a Democrat follows a Democrat, that's a dynasty.

[Logical]

42. War chest? She just fucking paid off her old 2008 debt last year. Nt

[wyldwolf]

20. I can't WAIT to vote for Hillary. My daughter is playing hooky so she can press the button for me.

[Logical]

43. Get ready for disappointment. Nt

[tularetom]

33. I'm going to apply the "beer test" to potential presidents

I will only vote for presidential candidates with whom I would like to "have a beer". I learned that this was a valid reason for electing a president back during the campaign of 2000 when I was told that people would like to "have a beer" with junior bush but not with Al Gore.

Unfortunately, I could never even imagine myself "having a beer" with H. Clinton. She appears to be a very shallow person of limited analytical and political skills, and a sock puppet for her more personable, outgoing and quicker thinking husband. I could imagine "having a beer" with Bill Clinton, even though I believe that on balance he was a pretty lousy president. He seems to have an interesting approach to life. I could imagine "having a beer" with President Obama, even though I disagree with a lot of his recent acts as president.

Who among the current crop of presidential hopefuls would I "have a beer" with? That's a tough one. Definitely none of the republicans, and not H. Clinton. Probably not Bernie Sanders even though I agree with almost everything he says. He comes off as pedantic. I definitely would "have a beer" with Elizabeth Warren, although I doubt that she has a snowballs chance of being elected.

I'll probably wind up having a beer by myself on election night or else with my son in law who disagrees with every political position I take but is a great drinking companion.

[DFW]

68. I've "had a beer" with all three of them.

Sorta, anyway. I hate beer, hate the taste, hate the smell. I will not touch the stuff. But I've had time with them all.

Bill Clinton is the most engaging president I ever met, although I consider Obama at least his intellectual equal. He's just more reserved on a personal level. Hillary is, too, to some degree, but she warms up quickly. She got dumped on so heavily during Bill's administration and during the 2008 campaign, her radar for attack by friendly fire is always on high alert.

One time, during Bill's administration, she was to meet with my parents for five minutes at the White House. She and my folks got to talking, and she warmed to them immediately. When her aide came in to say the five minutes were up, she told her aide to push things back 20 minutes, and spent half an hour with my folks. No politics, just personal stuff.

I agree with Howard Dean that younger blood needs to be out there trying for this job, although not the likes of Rand Paul or Marco Rubio. If we can't come up with anyone better, then I'll take the line of Dennis Kucinich's wife, and say, OK, age doesn't matter. Except that, yes, it does. I wish we had someone with JFK's charisma and Harry Truman's fortitude.

But back in the real world, if it's a choice of Hillary versus ANY Republican, I won't even hold my nose. The Democratic candidate for President will get my vote in 2016 because I don't want Rand Paul or Jeb Bush picking Ruth Bader Ginsburg's successor. Scream "corporatist!" if you must, but a President Hillary is FAR preferable to that scenario. Cheney is gone, but Roberts and Alito are not. Citizens United was decided while Obama was in office, but it was still decided by Cheney, not Obama.

[blkmusclmachine]

34. ,

,

[TN-Dem]

40. Not my first choice

Long time since I have posted on democratic underground lol. Hillary Clinton will not be my first choice in the primary but she is someone I can get behind if she is our nominee. I refuse to #1 vote GOP, #2 vote for a third party and risk someone like Rand Paul winning or #3 sitting out of this election. I am hoping that Howard Dean will run again in 2016. The first Presidential campaign I ever worked for was Howard and I would love a chance to do it one more time.

[whistler162]

44. Lots of desperation in the air lately.

[UCmeNdc]

45. Stop Jeb Bush! Vote no to a Bush dynasty!

This would make a great Harper's cover story!

[JayhawkSD]

48. One word: Nicaragua.

If you have to look up her relationship to the word I feel sorry for you. You have not been paying attention, or you simply don't want to hear anything which does not glorify Hillary, but that word alone should disqualify her for world leadership.

[world wide wally]

49. Far be it from me to criticize what anyone may think of Hilary or any other candidate, but

Is focusing on the shortcomings of other Dems that much of a priority right now when weare two weeks away from a possible Republican takeover?
Hilary is inconsequential for another two years and this is your priority?

No wonder we lose elections.

[gwheezie]

51. I'll vote for her again

for the same reason I voted for her before. I think she can handle the GOP in congress better than any other dem who might run.

[Beacool]

54. Yawn...........

I don't give a crap what anyone on the Right OR Left thinks of Hillary. If she runs, I will be there and work as hard as I did in 2008 for her campaign.

As for the Clinton "dynasty", she's Bill's wife. She's not his daughter. It' not a dynasty unless Chelsea runs for president. Besides, the Roosevelts and Kennedys are political dynasties too and between both families they produced three fairly good presidents.

[whistler162]

55. Well thanks for providing another good

reason to vote FOR Hillary Clinton. Anyone that causes so much unmitigated panic in pundits can't be as bad as I thought she was. Keep it up and maybe she will invite you to her Inauguration.

[RufusTFirefly]

61. You have a perverse way of choosing presidents.

Personally, I'm still searching for a reason to vote for her. Haven't found one yet.

[craigmatic]

63. Technically it wouldn't be a dynasty unless Chelsea was running. They're more of a power couple.

[RufusTFirefly]

64. Agreed. Technically.

I think that there's an understandable dismay with the fact that with a population of nearly 320 million, we seem to be looking to the same few politicians again and again. It seems to be signs of a sclerotic political system and a failure of the imagination. I primarily blame money and a corporate media (or am I repeating myself?) for limiting our choices.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

65. I didn't think that one can have a dynasty of 1?

[Rosa Luxemburg]

66. We need a Democratic president next time round

[RufusTFirefly]

67. Yes we do! It's been a while! n/t