Home     Writers     Op/Ed     Book Reviews     News     Bookstore     Photoshops     Submit     Search     Contact Us     Advertise  
  You are here: 

Wed

23

Jan

2008

Think About It (Before it's too late)
Wednesday, 23 January 2008 14:01
by Stephen P. Pizzo

I want to speak directly to supporters of Hillary Clinton. No, not speak... plead.

I remember the last time I wanted to reach out and shake a bunch of fellow progressives. It was back in 2000 when Ralph Nader was running for President. A lot of what Ralph was saying was true and attractive to long-suffering progessive voters. Meanwhile, Al Gore, had picked the worst possible moment in history to have an identity crisis and was proving to be a disappointment as a candidate — to say the least.

Nevertheless many of us worried that Ralph could sap just enough votes from Gore to toss the election to Bush. And, with a little help from the Supremes, that's precisely what happened. I have that same fear again. If McCain ends up the GOP candidate, rather than the more clearly flawed Romeny or Giuliani, Hillary Clinton will not sashay to the coronation she had once envisioned. Instead her built-in high negatives will drive many independents back into the GOP camp and she will re-energize a currently dispirited GOP rank and file.

Worse yet, Democratic voters, many of of whom simply cannot stomach Hillary Clinton, will simply not vote if their only choice is between John McCain and Hillary Clinton.

That's all it would take to tip the "Red state/Blue state" calculus to a McCain victory next November. And if that happens, and we end up with another Republican in the White House a year from January, the blame for that will lay directly in the laps of those of you who have been hypnotized into making Hillary the Democratic party nominee. Yes it will. And then, like those Nader voters of 2000 your only comfort will be your self-serving belief that, "at least I did the right thing," even if contributed to the wrong outcome.

If that does not convince you that Hillary is a bad bet, ask yourself the following question:
What serious person would serve as Vice President in a "Billary" administration?
I keep hearing Hillary supporters suggesting that a dream ticket would be a Hillary/Obama or Hillary/Edwards ticket. What are you guys smoking? Edwards and Obama are serious fellas. Neither would want to serve four years as window-dressing while Hillary and her defacto VP, Bill, run the country from the White House family quarters.

Can you imagine that? Try. Because if you can get your heads around that one you will understand that Hillary Clinton is the worst possible of choices. Already we are seeing hints of the spousal dynamic that would play out if Hillary and Bill end up back in the White House. It will be four years of Bill and Hillary against — everyone else, including members of their own party.

Just last week both Rahm Emanuel and James Carville — both longtime Clinton loyalists, got into shouting matches with Bill over his bellicose defense of Hillary. Reportedly each man told Bill, in no uncertain terms, that he was splitting the party, alienating black voters and scaring the hell out of wavering white voters.

To paraphrase Bill's response, according to reports, "Bite me! Mind your own damn business."

Well, this IS your business. It's all our business. We've just paid a staggering price for ignoring these same warning signs eight years ago. Are Democrats really going to make that mistake again?

I have warned from the start that there are only two possible outcomes if Hillary Clinton becomes the nominee of her party:campaign for President: She could lose, or she could win. Either outcome would thrust our already battered and exhausted nation into another four years of division and animus — not to mention reruns of the "As The Clinton's Turn," spousal soap opera.

So, Hillary Supporters, think again. The nation would move forward under a President John Edwards. And the nation would be elevated by a President Obama. But a President Hillary Clinton would mean trading divisive George W. Bush for an equally divisive Hillary R. Clinton.It would mean four more years of Washington food fights. Four more years of the now all-too familiar,"your-mother's-so-fat" levels of debate. And four years of watching Hillary act like Margaret Thatcher on the world stage while channeling Eleanor Roosevelt here at home — a schizophrenic balancing act even a shape-shifter like Hillary Clinton won't be able to pull off.

But so far that argument has not seemed to dissuade Hillary's supporters. So let me just leave you with this little mental exercise:

Our nation's founders didn't create the vice presidency as a ceremonial post. They lived in a time when folks regularly dropped dead at relatively young ages. So our founders created the post of vice president as a kind of constitutionally empowered spare, should something prevent the president from completing a full term in office.

So, if nothing else convinces you to reconsider your support of Hillary, close your eyes and try to imagine the kind of doormat of a person required to serve as vice president in a Hillary/Bill administration.

Then ask yourself if that's the kind of person you want as president-in-waiting. You should do this because voters certainly will imagine just that as their finger hovers over the candidate's name in the voting booth next November.
More from this author:
Predictions for 2007 (6831 Hits)
by Stephen P. Pizzo The War: Jenna & Barbara Bush will not be part of their dad's troop surge. Ditto for any member of the Cheney clan. ...
White House Chess (6381 Hits)
by Stephen P. Pizzo The Washington media spent the holidays trying to guess what the President's new plan for Iraq might be. Meanwhile in the...
Fine Mess You Got Us Into This Time (8010 Hits)
by Stephen P. Pizzo At the moment all the focus is on what George W. Bush is going to do about the mess he's made of Iraq. But the larger...
New Lies Forward (6264 Hits)
by Stephen P. Pizzo Well it's a new year, and you know what that means... time to update the administration's list of stated reasons for it's...
The GOP's Comprehensive Immigration Reform Scam (6826 Hits)
by Stephen P. Pizzo Traditional conservative, William F. Buckley was once asked how he would describe a “liberal.” He thought for...
Related Articles:
About (12523 Hits)
Atlantic Free Press was founded in September 2006 by Publisher Richard Kastelein of V.O.F. Expathos, in the Netherlands and Editor - Journalist Chris...
Midterm Elections 2006: It's Always Darkest, Right Before ... It Goes Completely Black (10340 Hits)
by Phil Rockstroh If voting could change the system, it would be illegal. --Theodore Adorno "I can't go on. I'll go on....
It's Election Eve, Do You Know Where Your Country Is? (8008 Hits)
by Frank Lindorff When you go into the voting booth tomorrow, here are a few things you need to think about. First of all, this is not a...
They Hate Our Freedom: The Truth about the Military Commissions Act (8450 Hits)
By Aaron Sussman On October 17th, with Dick Cheney, Alberto Gonzales, and Donald Rumsfeld standing behind him, George W. Bush solemnly ...
So the Democrats Won – What About the American Empire? (7473 Hits)
by Shepherd Bliss The Democratic Party prevailed in the Nov. 7 midterm elections. "We’ve just moved out of a straightjacket," a...


Add this page to your favorite Social Bookmarking websites
Trackback(0)
Comments (4)add comment

PF said:

0
The Three Stooges
It is difficult for me to fathom how Mr. Pizzo, who knows more about government corruption and the cesspool that is electoral politics than most of the rest of us, could actually ask us to choose from among these monsters. Of course Hillary would be a nightmare, as would Obama and Edwards. Obama's Senate mentor is Joseph Lieberman, for whom he campaigned (against an erstwhile antiwar candidate) in 2006. The now-anti-corporate Edwards earned $500K with a hedge fund during his hiatus from the Senate, "learning about the needs of the poor." They all list Goldman Sachs, Citibank, and myriad corporate law firms on their top contributor lists. (Check out opensecrets.org.)

The primary system is a diversion from real politics. None of these clowns will remove all troops from Iraq and Afghanistan, repeal the Military Commissions Act and the Patriot Act, cut the "Defense" budget that is sucking the life from our economy, or stand up to Wall Street. None will support a single-payer health care system that a majority of Americans want. All have voted, and will continue to vote, for expanded surveillance of Americans. All want to EXPAND the military, so that the national guard to remain at home to take on the rest of us. Edwards has made passing comments that the "war on terror" is merely a marketing slogan, but has since backed away from it; the others rebuffed him on this. Is this any kind of alternative?

The country faces economic and political disaster over the short term. We need to mobilize and organize opposition that is independent of the twin parties. The majority of Americans want to end the war and the militarization of our society, want to protect their civil liberties, protect Social Security and pension rights, restore the now-forgotten "safety net", provide universal health care independent of the insurance industry, and get a better life for themselves and their loved ones. Voting for these Three Stooges, or voting in this corrupt and rigged system at all, is a diversion from our real task. We need to come together in opposition to these clowns, Mr. Pizzo. You know better than what you have written here.
 
January 23, 2008
Votes: +0

Thomas Markham said:

0
alternative, sustainable community advocate/activist
I couldn’t agree more with the previous comment on “The Three Stooges” running for the Democratic Party presidential nomination. Our political and electoral system is beyond broken; it is a very bad joke and a distraction by design to keep people from focusing on what needs to be done to bring about meaningful change.

We have been drugged into a stupor of complacency through our consumerist lifestyles, a reflection of the banality and homogeneity of a global market which is no respecter of bioregions, cultures, traditions or the natural world and its relationships. Instead of freedom we have choice, instead of values we have lifestyles, and instead of a sacred sense of awe toward the natural world that we inhabit we have ideologies, dogmas and creeds. We citizens of the western democracies have become solipsistic consumers indifferent to the squandering of the natural world and our complicity in the systematic degradation of those lower on the hierarchy than ourselves as the mechanism of the state are employed by the ruling elite in ever-more draconian strategies of surveillance and control. Any pretence of democracy withers and the political forum is over-run by the titillating mediocrities of this sound-bite era, as blatant self-interest on the part of the world's most powerful nations becomes an excuse for every kind of collusion in the politics of occupation, corruption and violence. We in whose names these wars are being fought have allowed our horizons to shrink so that most of us can’t see much further than the nearest shopping-mall. Our programmed sense of “American Exceptionalism” and “manifest destiny” convinces us that we are the privileged ones, the citizens whose comfort and security ultimately merits any injustice, any violation of human rights, against the immigrants, fanatics and foreigners who threaten our vacuous existence and sense of entitlement.

We need to wake up and “resist” in effective ways the “powers that be” and those “stooges” who do their bidding. As a populace, workers and consumers, we have far more power to effect change than we have been brainwashed to believe. We must reject a system that no longer works for us and our best interests and the common good (if it ever did) and create independent alternatives. There are presently no viable alternatives, as options like the Green Party are merely “Democratic Party-Light” and further shills for the capitalist/corporatist white ruling elite. Why do we not organize national strikes and boycotts for as long as is needed to force the “corporatocracy” that depends on our labor and dollars to bend to our collective needs and aspirations? Why is it that the citizens in the U.S. fear their government more than the government fears its citizens? What’s wrong with this picture? This is not the case in all other western democracies. If we can muster the collective will we can bring about meaningful (dare I say revolutionary) change and demand real leaders who truly represent our interests and needs and not just those of the “corporatocracy’s” bottom line. As it stands right now we remain our own (and the rest of the world's as well) worst enemy!
 
January 23, 2008
Votes: +0

P. Crosby said:

0
...
The decadence of a a society is a reflection of an educational system which has been nurtured and manipulated by a "delusive perception" of a domineering establishment. A society declining in morals provokes behaviours that every person likly believes and feels that they are servants and even victims of a 'dog eat dog' world. When morality declines competitivness and egocentric thinking increases, and that sense of fear is extracted away from the real issues and instead materialises at working and middle class levels.
We unfortunatly and purposfully live in a perpetual state of reality, and this reality has been created for the sole purpose of creating never ending consumer profits which feed into the coffers of perfidous creatures who are focusing on their own agenda's. Worst of all a perpetual existance creates an apthetic mind and that sense of hopelessness can easily be subjugated by the ruling establishment.
Anyone who thinks ouside of the self-created bubble is automatically laughed at by his fellow working class acquaintance and called a conspirace idiot because they have unconsiously been programmed and possibly feared to only think inside the bubble.
This subjection has been going on for atleast 200 years and it may take another 200 years for most of the population to finally wake up to the atrocity of a puppit government which has and always has organised in self-serving financial elites, and by then it may well be too late.
 
January 23, 2008
Votes: +0

Jimmy Montague said:

Jimmy Montague
I agree with comment No. 1 --
-- and I'll take that a little further: There are no "progressives" in the Democratic Party. Any person who can, in a room full of today's Democrats, draw three consecutive breaths without throwing up is not a "progressive".

There are two sorts of "progressives" running around today: One is the sort who believes in clean, constitutional government, effective regulation, and the rule of law, and has zero tolerance for political corruption and white-collar crime. The second sort is more pragmatic: They are people who formerly called themselves "liberal" -- which is another thing they are not. Now, their beliefs and behavior being such that they have made "liberal" a dirty word, they cast aside that label and call themselves "progressive," hoping no one will recognize them for what they truly are -- which is a label unfit to print here.

It is worth noting that the original progressives (Wis. Sen. Robert M. LaFollette, et al.) were maverick Republicans. True progressives remain mavericks. They are more apt to come from Republican or libertarian rather than Democratic stock but -- whatever their origins -- true progressives carry strong contrarian credentials.

In Election 2008, there isn't a single candidate from either major party who can wear the label "progressive" honestly. The best of them are merely whores. The worst are mercenary killers. No honest, intelligent person -- certainly no true progressive -- will vote for any of them.
 
January 24, 2008
Votes: +0

Write comment
smaller | bigger

busy
 

adsense

Top