Ding. Dong.
posted by binijuktyasen
"The Case Against Clinton"
I will never understand the appeal of Hilary Clinton.
“The Case against Clinton”
I will never understand the appeal of Hilary Clinton.
The most striking aspect of her candidacy was her “lack of a penis.” This, I can understand, as, ever since puberty, I too have been inexplicably drawn to many a woman on account of their presumed “lack of a penis.” The absence of a penis has, time and time again, convinced me to overlook the most egregious aspects of a woman’s personality: the shrillness of her voice, her inability to admit her own mistakes, and her tendency toward disingenuity. So I can sympathize with those suckered into supporting the Hilary Clinton campaign. The “lack of a penis” makes for a very compelling argument in most every situation.
Bill Clinton came into office promising the American people that the “era of big government is over.” While far from a socialist myself, those words were, nonetheless, a source of much concern. For the last twelve years, the absence of “big government” had meant a drastic reduction in spending for programs that largely affect those of the poorer, swarthier persuasion. And one could never slight Clinton for not maintaining his integrity, at least, in this regard. Over the next eight years we witnessed Welfare warp into Workfare, while the pork in the military budget went relatively unharmed.
Clinton, to his merit, had a benign impact on the economy, at least, in the short term. And, to be fair, this is the most any president can and should aspire to; presidents have very limited control in dictating the pace of economic growth. Most economists have come to the consensus that the effects of a president’s economic policy are more readily transparent in the term of their successor. Clinton was in large part the beneficiary of the dot com boom. And in this sense, all credit should be attributed to Al Gore, because, as we all remember, he was responsible for inventing the Internet.
But history has not been half as forgiving to the Clinton fiscal policy. The North American Free Trade Agreement has had a devastating impact on our economy, taking jobs out of the hands of hardworking Americans and putting them in the hands of even harder working Indians. It facilitated the ability of multi-national corporations to cower in the tax shelters of the Caribbean and made our markets more susceptible to the fluctuations of the global economy at large. At the time, NAFTA was lauded as one of the great successes of the Clinton years, a remarkable display of Clinton’s post-partisan ability to unify the New Democrats and Reagan Republicans behind a common cause.
In George Bush’s first few years, we witnessed a downturn in our fortunes, a falling from good graces. Of course, Bush’s irresponsible tax cuts, coupled with the Enron fiasco and the trauma of 9/11, squandered a surplus and endangered Social Security, conveniently enough. But part of this blame must be attributed to the failed policies of the Clinton administration, NAFTA undoubtedly helped facilitate our economic demise.
Hilary Clinton, remarkably, was all too willing to take the credit for Bill Clinton’s supposed economic success. In fact, in those early days of inevitability, these golden years were the focal point of her campaign, the subject of much wistful, wishful thinking. It was the only leg she could comfortably stand on; every other aspiring nominee dwarfed her in terms of time spent in elected office. So it seems only fair to attribute to her the many failings of her husband along with his few successes. Speaking of failure, I forgive Hilary for her failure to secure Americans the right to universal Health Care. Yes, a public servant of more nuance and dexterity would have managed to negotiate some sort of compromise, managed to put the fears of Harry and Louise to rest. But one cannot fault her for trying. And one cannot blame her for failing miserably.
Speaking to her votes on issues regarding foreign policy and civil liberties, which in this day and age, have become all too unfortunately intertwined, her record has been, unlike like her husband, unimpeachable. Her vote to give George Bush the authorization to go to war, her unequivocal approval of the USA PATRIOT ACT, her support for the Lieberman amendment to label the Iranian Republican Guard as a terrorist organization, her absence on the vote to grant telecommunications companies immunity from stampeding over an American’s right to privacy, and her sudden change of heart against the Iraq War the moment it became politically expedient, all of these carefully parsed, poll-driven decisions speaks volumes for themselves. And for this, I give her all the credit she deserves.
Heaven knows Clinton’s surrogates, namely, her husband, have done a remarkable job of convincing me to never cast a vote for her again, either as President of the United States or as the Junior Senator from the state of New York. And I can only pray that Obama has the foresight to not offer her the Vice Presidency. But aside from the shameless race-baiting and the unsubstantiated accusations of sexism, it was the vitriolic tone of her campaign that was most troubling. Clinton proved that the primary concern of the Clinton campaign was Clinton herself. Need I retread over that worn path, where time and time again she proved, through gaffe (?) after gaffe (?,) her willingness to sacrifice the well-being of the party for the sake of her candidacy?
Now, Hilary Clinton supporters have soured in the waning days of her campaign, clinging to their misguided notion of the popular vote and their vague indictments of Obama’s electability. And one can’t fault them. Over this trying primary campaign, tempers flared and emotions ran strong. And now it’s over. This stark reality has yet to hit some of them, including Hilary herself, still basking in the spotlight, still reveling in her delusions.
It’s now time for us together and confront the walking cadaver that is John McCain, to stand firm in our opposition to a neoconservative agenda that perpetuates wars of aggression and offers relief to those in least of need of it. Obama has offered Clinton the olive branch and now, the question is, will she be, for the first time in a long time, willing to put her petty ambitions aside for the good of her country, and accept it?
I will never understand the appeal of Hilary Clinton.
The most striking aspect of her candidacy was her “lack of a penis.” This, I can understand, as, ever since puberty, I too have been inexplicably drawn to many a woman on account of their presumed “lack of a penis.” The absence of a penis has, time and time again, convinced me to overlook the most egregious aspects of a woman’s personality: the shrillness of her voice, her inability to admit her own mistakes, and her tendency toward disingenuity. So I can sympathize with those suckered into supporting the Hilary Clinton campaign. The “lack of a penis” makes for a very compelling argument in most every situation.
Bill Clinton came into office promising the American people that the “era of big government is over.” While far from a socialist myself, those words were, nonetheless, a source of much concern. For the last twelve years, the absence of “big government” had meant a drastic reduction in spending for programs that largely affect those of the poorer, swarthier persuasion. And one could never slight Clinton for not maintaining his integrity, at least, in this regard. Over the next eight years we witnessed Welfare warp into Workfare, while the pork in the military budget went relatively unharmed.
Clinton, to his merit, had a benign impact on the economy, at least, in the short term. And, to be fair, this is the most any president can and should aspire to; presidents have very limited control in dictating the pace of economic growth. Most economists have come to the consensus that the effects of a president’s economic policy are more readily transparent in the term of their successor. Clinton was in large part the beneficiary of the dot com boom. And in this sense, all credit should be attributed to Al Gore, because, as we all remember, he was responsible for inventing the Internet.
But history has not been half as forgiving to the Clinton fiscal policy. The North American Free Trade Agreement has had a devastating impact on our economy, taking jobs out of the hands of hardworking Americans and putting them in the hands of even harder working Indians. It facilitated the ability of multi-national corporations to cower in the tax shelters of the Caribbean and made our markets more susceptible to the fluctuations of the global economy at large. At the time, NAFTA was lauded as one of the great successes of the Clinton years, a remarkable display of Clinton’s post-partisan ability to unify the New Democrats and Reagan Republicans behind a common cause.
In George Bush’s first few years, we witnessed a downturn in our fortunes, a falling from good graces. Of course, Bush’s irresponsible tax cuts, coupled with the Enron fiasco and the trauma of 9/11, squandered a surplus and endangered Social Security, conveniently enough. But part of this blame must be attributed to the failed policies of the Clinton administration, NAFTA undoubtedly helped facilitate our economic demise.
Hilary Clinton, remarkably, was all too willing to take the credit for Bill Clinton’s supposed economic success. In fact, in those early days of inevitability, these golden years were the focal point of her campaign, the subject of much wistful, wishful thinking. It was the only leg she could comfortably stand on; every other aspiring nominee dwarfed her in terms of time spent in elected office. So it seems only fair to attribute to her the many failings of her husband along with his few successes. Speaking of failure, I forgive Hilary for her failure to secure Americans the right to universal Health Care. Yes, a public servant of more nuance and dexterity would have managed to negotiate some sort of compromise, managed to put the fears of Harry and Louise to rest. But one cannot fault her for trying. And one cannot blame her for failing miserably.
Speaking to her votes on issues regarding foreign policy and civil liberties, which in this day and age, have become all too unfortunately intertwined, her record has been, unlike like her husband, unimpeachable. Her vote to give George Bush the authorization to go to war, her unequivocal approval of the USA PATRIOT ACT, her support for the Lieberman amendment to label the Iranian Republican Guard as a terrorist organization, her absence on the vote to grant telecommunications companies immunity from stampeding over an American’s right to privacy, and her sudden change of heart against the Iraq War the moment it became politically expedient, all of these carefully parsed, poll-driven decisions speaks volumes for themselves. And for this, I give her all the credit she deserves.
Heaven knows Clinton’s surrogates, namely, her husband, have done a remarkable job of convincing me to never cast a vote for her again, either as President of the United States or as the Junior Senator from the state of New York. And I can only pray that Obama has the foresight to not offer her the Vice Presidency. But aside from the shameless race-baiting and the unsubstantiated accusations of sexism, it was the vitriolic tone of her campaign that was most troubling. Clinton proved that the primary concern of the Clinton campaign was Clinton herself. Need I retread over that worn path, where time and time again she proved, through gaffe (?) after gaffe (?,) her willingness to sacrifice the well-being of the party for the sake of her candidacy?
Now, Hilary Clinton supporters have soured in the waning days of her campaign, clinging to their misguided notion of the popular vote and their vague indictments of Obama’s electability. And one can’t fault them. Over this trying primary campaign, tempers flared and emotions ran strong. And now it’s over. This stark reality has yet to hit some of them, including Hilary herself, still basking in the spotlight, still reveling in her delusions.
It’s now time for us together and confront the walking cadaver that is John McCain, to stand firm in our opposition to a neoconservative agenda that perpetuates wars of aggression and offers relief to those in least of need of it. Obama has offered Clinton the olive branch and now, the question is, will she be, for the first time in a long time, willing to put her petty ambitions aside for the good of her country, and accept it?
| < I've been watching Morning Joe for all of 5 minutes | There goes the Iranian-American vote... > |
Ding. Dong. | 2 comments (2 topical, 0 hidden)
Ding. Dong. | 2 comments (2 topical, 0 hidden)
