>> Friday, March 21, 2008
a few caveats before you take this endorsement the wrong way:
1. i think a lot of the clinton hate is ridiculous. she's just beholden to corporate interests, focus-grouped to death, strategic and ambitious. so is obama, he just pulls it off better, and more honestly.
2. i think the entire electoral process, from the money, to the delegates to the two-party stranglehold to be a human rights violation and preposterous. the countries founders must be vomiting in their graves.
3. i think the current incarnation of the u.s. goverment and it's neo-conservative capitalist cronies are continuing to be the best argument against (coerced) capitalism and (coerced) government.
4. i think that real change, hope or health has to come from ourselves, not elected officials. they can only facilitate our own illumination, not be the cause of it.
so for years i was a clinton supporter. i am a radical (though not "seperatist"), sex-positive, anarcho-feminist, and in a (maybe sexist way) truly wanted a woman in the white house. i felt a woman would have a much better chance than any man to address the rampant sexist heirarchy in u.s. policy, domestic and foreign. it was a good enough reason to support clinton, although there were others... she is obviously a hard-worker, erudite, and not afraid of adversity... good qualities in a leader.
also, i'm sure that she and bill have an AMAZING little black book, with at least a few shady entries that might come in handy in the oval office.
however, over time she has exhibited certain behaviors that show concerning qualities in a leader. she has dodged fairly simple questions, or given answers that insult the intelligence of the voter. she has been overstated her role in various foreign policy events, and almost certainly lied about policy stances, such as her position on NAFTA. she is also unlikely to win the pledged delegate count or the popular vote, but may win more superdelegates. however, a win like that would overturn the popular vote, and would be just as bad as bush being selected by the supreme court in my opinion.
most heinously, she has claimed the john mccain and herself have passed the commander-in-chief test, but not obama. this begs the question, does hillary really prefer john mccain as president to obama? even though he jokes (JOKES!) about bombing iran, even though he says we could be in iraq for 100 years? is that really what a commander in chief is supposed to be like? shame on you, hillary clinton.
obama catching flack for reverend wright is ridiculous. many people are doing a good job refuting these issues. he's hardly any more fringe than any republican candidate's pastor.
finally, obama has pledged to have a dialogue with cuba's new leader, where as hillary won't even meet with whoever it is. it's a little thing, but it represents a bigger idea. the u.s. has reacted unilaterally for too long, claims diplomacy as a principle, but rarely is diplomatic in practice. you have to keep your friends close, and your enemies closer. people knew that over two thousand years ago.