An Excellent Reason to Vote for Obama
None other than Leonard Peltier. The Clintons did not free him when they could (or should) have. Can you say Political Hypocrisy?
Thursday, February 22, 2007
None other than Leonard Peltier. The Clintons did not free him when they could (or should) have. Can you say Political Hypocrisy?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
4 comments:
Hmmm. Punishing Hillary for Bill's decision hardly seems fair. Although no one said life was fair, right?
Oh gosh, everyone knows Hillary was Co-President. You can't have it both ways. Either she participated in the administration or she didn't. Are you saying she didn't hold any sway over Bill's actions or decisions? What on earth would make her qualified to run a future administration then?
I'm of the opinion that Hillary had plenty of pull regarding clemency and had they both been more courageous (in the face of the FBI), Peltier would be free today. But it has always been the Clinton way to promise one thing, then provide another, hasn't it? They fold like lawn chairs at fatty conventions every time the GOP started a stink. Don't Ask, Don't Tell....
I'm not punishing Hillary for Bill's decisions, I'm just not giving her my vote. She is a Clinton, after all. We need someone with more conviction in there this time around, I'm afraid.
Participating in the administration isn't necessarily the same as being the one who makes the formal and final decisions. And it's a stretch to conclude from my statement that "she didn't hold any sway over Bill's actions". As for your "promise one thing, then provide another" charge, I'd need more info. What I remember from the Clinton administration is that things in our country were far better than they are now. Not perfect, but definitely better. The GOP didn't just start a "stink" they tried to get the man impeached for lying about an affair. For me, it's a little early in the game to blithely hand the conviction stick to Barack because he looks and sounds good.
Indeed, things in our country were far better under the Clinton administration. What bothered me about that presidency, however, was Clinton's lack of ability to truly get things done. For all their liberal talk, they were pretty conservative. When it came down to brass tacks, the Clintons didn't do much to advance the liberal position at all. Hence the eventual loss to the GOP.
Examples include: Don't Ask, Don't Tell. The Defense of Marriage Act. The snail's pace reaction to Rwanda. Not to mention the healthcare debacle. Then there's Lani Guinier, Welfare reform travesty, and how they reacted to the Seattle WTO protests (treating them as a bunch of terrorist radicals in the media). For a few days he even shocked his advisors with talk of including labor rights in the WTO. They then backed away, of course. NAFTA was an embarrassing default to corporate America, and I won't even get started on the whole Monica foible. Yes, things were better then, but that may have been despite Clintons in the white house, not because of them.
I don't support Barack because he looks or sounds good. I'm supporting him because he's NOT Hillary Clinton, the most divisive creature in American politics, and one who fancies herself a qualified presidential hopeful, despite a long sequence of failures and centrist policy. I only wish there was a better female candidate who could take her place.
Post a Comment