Log in

No account? Create an account
Hogarth judge

February 2018



Powered by LiveJournal.com
Hogarth judge

Can someone explain Hillary Clinton to me?

Why would anyone vote for her?

Why is she running? What does she stand for? What does she have going for her, other than being the spouse of a caretaker President that I see as weak and a failure, with few significant achievements, and who was reduced to irrelevance for three fourths of his incumbency? Do significant numbers of Democrats truly feel that the Clinton years were their Camelot, something they want to revive?



You might not like the Clinton Administration, but I'm sure millions did and still do. I don't want words -- I prefer to see results. During the 1990s, many people including myself were pretty well-off. The same thing can't be applied to the current administration. Experience and results do matter. That's why Hillary won the "poor" votes, while Obama won the "rich" votes in New Hampshire. People need jobs, healthcare, and a good education. I'll take realism over dreams any day.

P.S. If you were still young during the 1990s, you should do a bit more research. :)
Bill Clinton got results? What were they?

Yes - it may have been the case that the economy was better during the 1990s, but I frankly doubt that Bill Clinton can take personal responsibility for much of it. Balancing the budget used to be a chiefly Republican concern, and the chief fiscal policy that made things better during the 1990s.

Hillary, as Senator, sponsored a video game censorship bill in the wake of one of the GTA kerfluffles. Joe Lieberman, senator from Tel Aviv, was her co-sponsor. Unless unequivocally renounced as a mistake, this sort of position disqualifies Hillary Clinton from serious consideration. I refuse to vote for any politician that makes a habit of exploiting stupid moral panics, especially ones with an undercurrent of Momism and parental advisories.

Seen these? I found 'em useful.

Re: Seen these? I found 'em useful.

Those are quite good. I especially liked:
In my opinion, it is a little late in the day to become sentimental about a woman running for president. The political moment for feminine role models, arguably, has passed us by. The children who are suffering in this country, who are having trouble in school, and for whom the murder and suicide rates and economic dropout rates are high, are boys — especially boys of color, for whom the whole educational system, starting in kindergarten, often feels a form of exile, a system designed by and for white girls.

In the absence of a truly libertarian Democrat, one starts to look for libertarian Republicans. Again, "Why does it seem to be the Republicans who are more vocal about reforming our drug laws? Why has no one in the Democratic Party campaigned to have felons who have served their time made full citizens again?" You'd think that both the Christians and the libertarian wings of the Republicans could make common cause on these problems. At least some Christians have read enough of their Bibles to move past the "tough on crime" malarkey of last year's right wing.

OTOH, ending the Iraq war, and ending it yesterday, is the most immediately pressing issue. Right now, Clinton is the Democrat candidate I trust the least to get it done: she voted for the war, after all.

Edited at 2008-01-14 03:33 pm (UTC)