I posted the Top 10 reasons I will not support Hillary Clinton for President a few weeks ago on October 28th. I now have to post the Top 11 reasons I will not support Hillary Clinton for President because of a very troubling incident over the weekend involving Sen. Clinton. I have added as my Number 3 reason the newest addition to my list because it is one of the most disappointing actions taken by the Clinton campaign, and I feel it ranks right up near the top of the list. I have also added some new information about My Number 2 Reason, because of a so called "lost vote" on Iraq in 2002. Below is my original post along with my newest additions.
This is a quick summary of the reasons I am not supporting Senator Clinton for President:Number 11: Senator Clinton cannot stand up to the Republican "Swift Boat" style attacks.Number 10: Senator Clinton is not Bill Clinton, and she is being disingenuous about her record.Number 9: Senator Clinton is reported to have been verbally and physically abusive to her Secret Service detail.Number 8: Senator Clinton is reported to have been involved in illegal phone tapping of political rivals.Number 7: Senator Clinton's campaign has been involved in illegal fundraising efforts.Number 6: Senator Clinton asserts that it's good to take lobbyist contributions. Number 5: Senator Clinton has personally tried to limit freedom of speech as Senator and in her campaign for President. Number 4: Senator Clinton has put power over principle, and is not a strong moral leader. Number 3: NEWLY ADDED: Senator Clinton's campaign told supporters to ask Sen. Clinton only specific questions given to them by the campaign. Number 2: Despite assertions to the contrary, Senator Clinton has consistently supported the Iraq war, and has not repudiated her war vote. Number 1: Senator Clinton does not offer substantially different foreign policy on Iraq, Iran and North Korea than that of President Bush.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
I consider myself a pretty liberal person who generally supports most of the Democratic positions on domestic and foreign policy. I have dreamed of winning back the White House for the last eight years since George W. Bush became President. We have witnessed a series of disastrous foreign and domestic policy decisions that have left our country weakened and have eroded precious liberties and freedoms we had taken for granted. I was dismayed when four years ago John Kerry lost his bid for President. During the 2004 Primary, I originally supported Dennis Kucinich, but later decided to support General Wesley Clark. Once Kerry was the nominee, I rallied behind him, hoping that his war credentials and long experience would lead our party to victory. As I sat in my Dayton hotel room and watched Kerry concede defeat my hopes for a more prosperous future faded. I've had time to reflect on the many mistakes that were made back in 2004, and I am determined to prevent those same mistakes from being made again. I knew I was pretty liberal growing up. When you come from nothing, and see poverty everyday you tend to care about those who are less fortunate and struggling. The Democratic Party to me stood for equality and expanding opportunity to those who need it most. I generally supported Bill Clinton's administration during the late 1990's when I was in high school. After all, Bill Clinton was a good President especially when compared to the current one. I had always thought it would only be logical that Hillary Clinton would be our President at some point. I was a huge supporter of Hillary Clinton for years. I have always thought that America has needed a serious change, and the idea of having new perspectives from a woman President is something I have enthusiastically supported. I never really thought Hillary was as charismatic as Bill Clinton, but I believe in judging people based on their moral character, their experience, their track record, and their positions. Many of her domestic issues are in general agreement with mine, and I think that many of her proposals would be good for America.
Over the last year I have really had an opportunity to research further into Hillary Clinton's positions. After a long, hard look at all the candidates for President and especially Sen. Clinton, I was forced to re-evaluate some of her positions. After months of research and soul searching, I feel it is time for me to absolutely, unequivocally come out against Senator Clinton's Presidential campaign. The reason I am writing this article now is because as I conducted research on Sen. Clinton and listened to what she and the other candidates have said over the course of the last year, I have discovered several things I never knew about Senator Clinton. These discoveries have led me to totally oppose her nomination by the Democratic Party, and if nominated, to totally oppose her election as President. To put it bluntly, if Sen. Clinton is the Democratic nominee, I will vote for a third-party candidate. I refuse to play into the lesser-of-two-evils mentality, even if that means my vote acts as a spoiler. My values and beliefs guide me to choose a person with strong moral character even if that person doesn't have a so called "reasonable" chance of winning. Below are the ten central reasons I will not support Hillary Clinton for President, and I want others to read my rationale and decide for themselves whether Senator Clinton would be a strong moral leader for our country.Below is a very thorough description of my rationale for not supporting Senator Clinton for President:Number 11:One of my main arguments against Sen. Clinton prior to some of these recent revelations was that Sen. Clinton would face the most opposition by Republicans. People have fond memories of Hillary and Bill Clinton, but they also have myopic vision when it comes to how much negative also accompanied their White House years; Whitewater, Paula Jones, Healthcare Reform, Monica Lewinsky, "The Vast Right Wing Conspiracy" and on and on. She is one candidate who could galvanize Republican opposition despite the disenchantment with the Bush policies and the Iraq War. While Democrats have fond memories, they also don't seem to understand how divisive a public figure she has become whether deserved or not. The Republican Party will "Swift Boat" her and they will bring up past baggage of the Clinton Presidency. I don't believe that she will stand up well against those types of attacks in a General Election, but even these problems are minor in comparison to some of the more recent events involving Sen. Clinton. Number 10:Sen. Clinton has continued to bask in good poll numbers nationally. She is some 30 percentage points ahead of her nearest challenger, Barack Obama. The reason is fairly simple. Many Democrats rank Bill Clinton as one of the best Presidents of the 20th Century. Thus is the problem. There is group think in America which has made the argument that Hillary Clinton would be a continuation of Bill Clinton's Presidency; a sort of duel Presidency. Hillary Clinton has made two arguments about why she is best qualified to be President. One is that she is her own person, that she will be calling all the shots and her experience as a U.S. Senator has prepared her to be President. The other is that she is more experienced because she is the wife of former President Bill Clinton.On the campaign trail, Sen. Clinton has repeatedly linked herself to Bill Clinton's domestic policy successes, while at the same time distancing her campaign from his less successful policies (ie. "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" and NAFTA). In many ways her strategy has been successful. She has walked a fine line, and hasn't tripped over it, yet. While Sen. Clinton undeniably knows from experience what it's like to be in the White House, she did not serve in an official capacity on important foreign and domestic policy. Her one foray into domestic policy, healthcare reform, was an utter failure, and is something that is a problem for her to this day. The issue is not that her time as first lady isn't relevant to her campaign; she undoubtedly gained important knowledge and experience as first lady; instead, it's an issue of linking her experience to that of her husband's Presidential legacy. Hillary Clinton wasn't President during the 90's, last time I checked. I don't believe that she is justified in trying to take credit for the "good" policies of the Clinton Presidency, while also disavowing herself of the "bad" policies. It's funny how one can do that if one is not in fact responsible for those policies. If you are responsible for them, you can't cherry pick which policies you like and which ones you didn't. I am especially incensed with her continued assertion that she knows how to create a Balanced Budget because she was First Lady during a time when we had a balanced budget. It's simply not a valid argument, and it's one that is troubling to me because it's disingenuous to say the least.Number 9:One of the recent reports I came across suggested that Hillary Clinton's public and private persona are quite different. Several books written about Hillary Clinton have suggested that as First Lady, Hillary Clinton was verbally and even physically abusive towards her Secret Service agents. According to the allegations made by several of her former Secret Service agents, she allegedly screamed profanities at secret service agents on a regular basis and even reportedly threw a book at a secret service agent hitting him in the back after Clinton suspected him of listening in on a conversation. It's hard to verify these kinds of accounts, but they do come from reputable sources who did apparently work for the White House. Some of the language allegedly used by Hillary Clinton is pretty vulgar in these books. One account has the then First Lady telling one of her secret service agents, "If you want to remain on this detail, get your f***ing ass over here and grab those bags!" after the agent refused to carry the bags because he needed to keep his hands free in case of an incident. Another has her confronting one of the agents saying "Get f**ked, get the f**k out of my way! Get out of my face!" If true I think these allegations show a different Hillary Clinton than the one she portrays to the American people. Because there are multiple reports of her being abusive to State Troopers, Secret Service agents and others, I am inclined to believe that there must be some grain of truth to them, but without video or audio recordings of any kind, this is impossible to verify. Not having any direct evidence other than the witness accounts, I consider this just an indication of Hillary Clinton's character. Number 8: According to the book "Her Way" written by a Jeff Gerth and Don Van Natta, Hillary Clinton listened to a secretly recorded cell phone call of her political rivals in 1992. If the allegations are true, this is obviously illegal activity. You cannot secretly record phone conversations. Sen. Clinton has said publicly that she is against wiretapping without a warrant. Is this hypocrisy, or worse, was Hillary Clinton involved in illegal phone tapping of political rivals? This would be as big a story as Watergate when Nixon was wiretapping his political rivals. I haven't seen much news coverage of this, but Tucker Carlson recently revealed this story on MSNBC and I think he summed it up best by saying;"If this were a story about Rudy Giuliani from 1992, it would lead every show on MSNBC, there's just no question it would, I mean - you know it would. Rudy Giuliani using a police scanner to listen to people's cell phone calls, holy smokes man." Number 7:The Los Angeles times has reported allegations that Senator Clinton is soliciting contributions from Chinatown by having Chinese neighborhood associations put pressure on immigrants to give to Sen. Clinton campaign. The times reported that poor residents of New York's Chinatown gave Clinton's campaign $1000 and $2000 contributions. Many of those contributors were dishwashers and waiters in low wage jobs. A single fundraiser in Chinatown, an area known for its urban poverty yielded over $380,000 for Sen. Clinton in April of this year. For some perspective, John Kerry's entire presidential campaign only received $24,000 from Chinatown. That's a 1600% increase in money from a historically impoverished neighborhood. When The Los Angeles Times examined more than 150 Chinatown donors who provided checks to Sen. Clinton, they discovered that one-third of those donors could not be found using property, telephone or business records. Most are not even registered to vote, and those who were tracked down said they gave to Clinton because they were instructed to do so by local association leaders. Senator Clinton has asked for help from many in the Chinese community during the campaign, including Chinese neighborhood associations which are involved in criminal enterprises such as gambling and human trafficking. Obviously all of that money came from somewhere, and it most likely wasn't from the immigrant workers themselves. Did these Chinese associations demand that residents send Sen. Clinton checks given to them by the associations to bolster Clinton's fundraising? Did Clinton ask these associations to do so? Those are questions yet to be answered, but regardless of whether they are ever answered, they indicate Sen. Clinton's lack of ethical fundraising standards. This isn't the first time Sen. Clinton's unethical fundraising methods have been in the headlines. Senator Clinton recently had to give back over $850,000 in bundled contributions from Chinese investor Norman Hsu after it was revealed that he was a fugitive in connection to a fraud case. The $850,000 return was the largest return of contributions ever by a Presidential Candidate. Number 6:While many other candidates have decided not to take money from Washington Lobbyists and Political Action Committees, Hillary Clinton has said that she believes that taking money from PAC's and Lobbyists is good because it helps to include many important constituencies. Asked if she will continue to take money from lobbyists at a YearlyKOS convention, Senator Clinton said; "Yes I will, because you know a lot of those lobbyists whether you like it or not, represent real Americans, they actually do. They represent nurses, they represent social workers." -- "They represent corporations that employ a lot of people. So you know the idea that somehow a contribution is going to influence you, I just ask you to look at my record." Asked if she is influenced by lobbyist money she told the crowd, "I have to say that I don't think based on my 35 years of fighting for what I believe in anybody seriously believes I'm going to be influenced by a lobbyist or a particular interest group." To which Sen. Clinton was booed by the crowd. The reason she is being booed is because of the reasons I outlined earlier. The influence of money on politics has become so rampant, so tangled, that it's nearly impossible to tell whether these interest groups have solicited favors such as votes in return for raising money for campaigns. What Senator Clinton failed to mention is that those lobbyists also represent big pharmaceutical companies, energy companies, government contractors such as Blackwell Security, a private security contractor which was recently in the news for murdering innocent Iraqi's, and many others with huge stakes in the government. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that they will do whatever it takes to elect candidates sympathetic to their interests. Whether she has acted ethically, and whether she has acted criminally are two separate things altogether. Senator Clinton may not have broken any laws, but for her to say that those millions of dollars in lobbyist contributions haven't had any influence on her votes in the Senate is at the very least misleading, if not an outright lie. Number 5:I am troubled by Senator Clinton's apparent contradictory actions on important freedom of speech issues over the last 7 years. This year alone, she has censored people at campaign stops who have banners or signs not favorable to her campaign. Her way of censoring is subtle and would go unnoticed if people weren't paying close attention. A very well documented instance occurred at the University of Colorado-Denver campus in which volunteers were instructed to block signs not favorable to the campaign with large signs which read "Hillary Rocks Colorado". It was well documented by several people present at the event. When Ron Paul supporters moved their sign the Clinton volunteers moved their sign in front of them time and time again. Video of the incident was posted on YouTube. While it may be rude to have Ron Paul signs at a Hillary Clinton rally, that doesn't mean that you should silence their voices. In Portsmouth, New Hampshire a woman was threatened with arrest if she brought a sign that read "No First Strike on Iran" to a Clinton campaign rally. She was told that it was a "no-sign zone". It was later reported that this was not in fact true. Pro-Hillary signs were permitted, and the event was filmed for an upcoming campaign Ad. For Hillary, it's all about keeping on message, and not allowing any dissent to be expressed. This is supposed to be a democracy, and the Democratic Party has always stood up for freedom of speech.
This isn't Sen. Clinton's first attempt or even the most glaring attempt to censor free speech. She has even directly tried to silence her critics at forums. When Randall Rolph asked Sen. Clinton at an Iowa forum why she voted for the Kyl-Lieberman amendment, Sen. Clinton accused the man of being a plant by another campaign. She rebutted him by saying, "what you read to me, that someone obviously sent to you, is that..."
She was then interrupted by the Rolph who was obviously upset with her suggestion, "I take exception, this is my own research, I have…." But he was once again cut off by Sen. Clinton who said, "Well let me finish, let me finish telling you…" The man is heard talking over Sen. Clinton saying, "These are my words, no one sent that to me. I am offended that you would suggest that." Sen. Clinton then offered a back handed apology while still insinuating that he was a plant from another campaign saying, "Well then I apologize. It's just that I've been asked the very same question in three other places." Well the reason that Sen. Clinton was asked the same question by people in three other places is because people are not interested in giving George W. Bush any authority to widen the Iraq war into Iran. Instead of trying to question the motives of voters, how about taking responsibility for your votes and answering questions truthfully. Sen. Clinton has also shown that she has an unrivaled ability to stay on her talking points and to squelch bad press. When Sen. Clinton found out about a negative press story to be published in GQ magazine about infighting within the Clinton campaign, Sen. Clinton offered them a choice; print the story and lose all access for the planned December cover with Bill Clinton, or kill the article. In the end, GQ bowed under the pressure. Look for a nice and rosy Bill Clinton interview in the December issue of GQ. It is this command of the media by the Clintons that keeps the press from reporting many of the negative stories about Hillary Clinton. Either toe the line, or lose access to the Senator or the former President. This may be a smart move politically, but I think it does tremendous damage to our system of free press. You will be hard pressed to find the kinds of stories I have reported here on the Mainstream Media. You have to go to local sources for information, and do thorough investigations just to find these kinds of reports. Senator Clinton also voted for an amendment banning flag burning, and has tried to ban video games which promote violence or indecent behavior. Whether you agree that people should go burning American flags or not, or whether you agree that there is too much violence on TV, to ban it outright is to erode our freedom of expression and freedom of speech. I obviously have strong views, and in some countries I wouldn't be able to say the things I do, so when it comes to my First Amendment right's I am a strong believer that any attempt to erode free speech or to strip Americans of their inherent right to defend their beliefs cannot be tolerated.
Number 4:Sen. Clinton has put power over principle time and time again. Whether it is taking money from Washington lobbyists, or taking positions to try to triangulate the best election strategy, Sen. Clinton has not proved to be an effective moral leader who leads with conviction and belief. She has not shown consistency on many important issues both on domestic and foreign policy. She has moved towards the center on issue after issue during the last 7 years in an attempt to prove that she is tough on national security, and that she isn't the liberal left-wing Democrat that the Republicans have tried to paint her as. Sen. Clinton has taken positions on foreign policy that seem so overly hawkish, that it makes you wonder if her beliefs are genuine, or if it is all an attempt to make her look tough. She won't admit to a mistake, in an attempt to appear invincible and flawless. She has never said her vote on Iraq was a mistake, and maybe it's because she truly doesn't believe it was a mistake to invade Iraq. If Sen. Clinton thinks it was a mistake, she needs to say so, and if she is not willing to say it was a mistake, she needs to go on record on why it wasn't a mistake, but she can't have it both ways. Sen. Clinton's strategy for her campaign has been to appear invincible and inevitable. It has been largely successful. Sen. Clinton is driven by polls and triangulating the best political position to win an election, but lacks conviction and moral leadership. I don't believe that she is either invincible or inevitable, and I think that many of the reasons I am laying out demonstrate precisely why. Many view her as calculating and inauthentic because she takes calculated positions, and doesn't say what she really thinks in her answers to questions. Many of her answers seem like they have been wrung through a filter of about a dozen advisors before she actually says them. They are so chock full of double speak and generality it's hard to decipher their true meaning, which is exactly what the Clinton campaign intended. Leaving things vague is better than making specific plans, because they are open to a degree of interpretation, and can never be used against you in a General Election. For instance at the MSNBC debate, when asked how she would deal with Social Security, Sen. Clinton essentially refused to answer the question saying she wouldn't have anything on the negotiating table. She offered no ideas what-so-ever on how to fix Social Security. Interestingly, it has been recently reported that she has told some individuals what her views are on the subject, but she has so far been unwilling to discuss it publicly. Making Social Security solvent for future generations is the one issue that no one in Washington wants to touch. Then there was her answer at the Debate on how she would deal with a terrorist attack if she were President. She deferred the question saying that she wouldn't answer hypothetical questions. The problem is, these are not hypothetical questions, they are real, and the American people deserve an honest answer.
At the CNN/YouTube Debate, Sen. Clinton was asked if she would meet with leaders in Iran, North Korea, Venezuela, Syria and Cuba without pre-conditions. She said that she would not meet with the leaders of those nations without conditions. Sen. Barack Obama however said that he would be willing to meet with the leaders of those nations without conditions to forge a diplomatic solution. The next day, Sen. Clinton called Obama "naïve and irresponsible" for suggesting that we directly talk with Iran or North Korea. Just a few weeks ago, Sen. Clinton in talking about Iran said that "I would engage in negotiations with Iran, with no conditions". Again you can't have it both ways. Is it only "naïve and irresponsible" when your political rivals say it? Sen. Clinton's answers are so convoluted one can't pin down a definite answer. It only reinforces the idea that Senator Clinton will say and do anything to get elected. These responses show just how cautious and calculated Sen Clinton has been. Unfortunately, we don't need a calculated, poll driven leader. You can't lead if you can't tell us where you are going. We need principled and moral leadership with a vision for the future.
Number 3:
UPDATE: I have been forced to add one more reason to my original post because I think it is a critical issue at a time when we need a President who will not be just a continuation of the kind of Washington politics we have become accustomed to for the last several decades. I have decided to add this as the Number 3 reason that I cannot support Hillary Clinton for President.
As I have already discussed, the issue of Freedom of Speech and being willing to answer tough questions honestly is something we must have in our next President. Unfortunately, Sen. Clinton has once again decided not to embrace Freedom of Speech and is not willing to answer tough questions.
At an event in Newton Iowa, Muriel Gallo-Chasanoff a student at Grinnell College asked Sen. Clinton a question about her plan to address global warming. The student was filmed asking the question, but was also filmed winking at one of the Clinton staffers after asking the question. When this "wink" was caught by journalists, the questioner was asked afterwards whether she was asked by the staffer to ask the question. She told the journalists that she was approached by Sen. Clinton's staff and told that she should ask a specific question about policy. When asked to comment, the Clinton campaign confirmed that they in fact did ask several students to ask specific policy questions.
When CNN interviewed Muriel Gallo-Chasanoff, she said she thought the Clinton campaign was being "dishonest" by asking supporters to ask specific questions, and said that the incident has made her more cynical about politics.
Gallo-Chasanoff told CNN, "I sort of thought about it, and I said 'Yeah, can I ask how her energy plan compares to the other candidates' energy plans?'"
According to Gallo-Chasanoff, the staffer replied that "'I don't think that's a good idea," "because I don't know how familiar she is with their plans."
He then opened a binder to a page that, according to Gallo-Chasanoff, had about eight questions on it.
Gallo-Chasanoff said, "The top one was planned specifically for a college student," " It said 'college student' in brackets and then the question." she told CNN.
Her analysis of this behavior being "dishonest" is an understatement. This wasn't an impromptu moment in which students were just suggested to ask general questions about policy. The Clinton campaign had very specific questions, with details specific enough to even the kind of person who would be asking them, in this case "college student". It was a deliberate action to try to control the message of the Clinton campaign and to constrain Freedom of Speech. These are the same tactics used by George W. Bush in his public events, fielding only favorable questions, only allowing favorable signs at events, and not answering the tough questions which need to be asked.
Taken alongside the censorship of Ron-Paul supporters at an event in Denver, rejecting people with political signs not favorable to Sen. Clinton in New Hampshire, and Sen. Clinton's refusal to answer questions about Social Security or Drivers Licenses for Illegal Immigrants, this incident reveals a pattern of suppressing dissent, and not answering tough questions. This is not the kind of leadership we need in America at a time when so much is at stake.
We need a leader who will answer the tough questions with clear conviction. We need a leader who will not constrain Freedom of Speech. We need a leader who will always be honest about the issues and who will be honest about what needs to be done to deal with the problems we face as a nation. This is one of the most disappointing actions taken by the Clinton campaign, but unfortunately, this isn't a surprise given Sen. Clinton's history. This is why when I originally wrote this article, I made the issue of Freedom of Speech one of the most important reasons I cannot support Hillary Clinton for President, and actions like these only reinforces my real concerns about where our country is headed on our First Amendment Rights. Number 2:The second most important reason I refuse to support Hillary Clinton for President is one of the central issues in this campaign; Iraq. Sen. Clinton was wrong on Iraq, and refuses to say that her vote for the Iraq War Resolution was a mistake. If Senator Clinton had actually read the classified 2002 National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) on Iraq, she would have seen that there was quite a bit of disagreement on whether Iraq had WMD, and whether they posed a significant and imminent threat to the United States. But she didn't read it, along with many other Senators. Even if she did read it, would it have really changed her mind on Iraq? Obviously many Senators didn't think it was a good idea. Sen. Byrd, Sen. Levin, Sen. Durbin, even Republican Sen. Chaffee voted against going into Iraq.
This is bigger than just voting to give President Bush the authority to Invade Iraq, Sen. Clinton has refused to even say that going into Iraq was a mistake. Sure, she has criticized the Bush administration's handling of the Iraq War, but she has yet to say that we should have never gone into Iraq. How many times can she say, "If I knew then, what I know now, I wouldn't have voted for the resolution."? Well if we all knew then, what we all know now, 80% of the American people wouldn't have supported going to war with Iraq.
It's easy to criticize the management of the war, but if Sen. Clinton truly believes that the Iraq War was truly justified, she should just come out and say it, instead of deferring the issue. I don't see people hammering this home, but I believe that she truly believes the Iraq war was justified, and only wishes it were better managed. Sen. Clinton has said that she would not pledge to remove all troops from Iraq by 2013. That is over 5 years from now. Sen. Clinton believes she is best qualified to "fix" the Iraq War, but she hasn't offered a real plan to end it. Senator Clinton today claims that when she voted for the Iraq War Resolution, she was in reality only voting to give inspectors more time and to give more time for diplomacy. What many people don't realize is that Sen. Clinton's assertion that when she voted for the Iraq War Authorization she was doing so to support more diplomacy is not actually true.
On October 10th 2002, one day before the Iraq-War Authorization vote, Sen. Clinton voted against an amendment to the Iraq-War Resolution sponsored by Sen. Carl Levin that would have required the diplomatic emphasis that Clinton has said she was supporting through her vote on the Iraq War-Authorization. This so called "lost vote" on Iraq, Levin Amendment Number 4862, was designed to curb the rush to war by requiring a two-step process before Congress would actually authorize the use of force. The amendment called, first, for the U.N. to pass a new resolution explicitly approving the use of force against Iraq. It also required the president to return to Congress if his U.N. efforts failed and, in Senator Levin's words, "urge us to authorize a going-it-alone, unilateral resolution."
Also on October 10th, Senator Clinton voted against The Durbin Amendment Number 4865, which was designed to amend the authorization for the use of the Armed Forces to cover an imminent threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction rather than the continuing threat posed by Iraq. Like the Levin Amendment, the Durbin Amendment required the President to come back to Congress to get authorization for war. It was a less forceful Amendment than the Levin Amendment, but was yet another opportunity for Sen. Clinton to assert her desire for "more diplomacy". Again she refused to take that opportunity.
Senator Clinton actually voted against "more diplomacy" not once, not twice, but three times when she voted for the Iraq War Resolution. Senator Clinton has never fully explained why she voted against the Levin Amendment and the Durbin Amendment to the Iraq-War Resolution. Sen. Clinton has never explained why she says she was actually voting for "more diplomacy", while at the same time she voted against an effort to require diplomacy, and to restrict the President in his rush to war. These "lost votes" have never been raised as an issue in this campaign, but they are very important in the context of judgment and being honest with the American People.
The American people certainly knew that the Iraq War Resolution was paving the way for War, the mainstream media reported that vote as an authorization of force on Iraq, so how an "experienced" Senator such as Hillary Clinton did not know or believe that the resolution she voted for gave the President a carte blanche for war is beyond my comprehension, and it is inexcusable. Number 1:Sen. Clinton has not offered a substantial difference in foreign policy than that of President Bush. Change cannot be a bumper sticker slogan. Sen. Clinton has repeated the same views on foreign policy as George W. Bush. Asked in the CNN debate if she thinks America is safer since 9/11 she said "I believe we are safer than we were." This has been the same message that President Bush has been saying over and over again since the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan. In a speech at an AIPAC meeting on Iran, Sen. Clinton told the crowd, "We must not permit Iran to build or acquire nuclear weapons, and in dealing with this threat as I have said for a very long time, no option can be taken off the table." If that sounds familiar perhaps it is because it has been repeated before. In a meeting with Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert in June of this year President Bush said the following regarding Iran: "My position has not changed. All options are on the table. I would hope we could solve this diplomatically." Today, America is closer to war with Iran than at any other time in the last 8 years. The idea that Senator Clinton wants to pursue the same pre-emptive strategy as the Bush administration with regard to Iran is unbelievable, and unacceptable. Sen. Clinton recently has come under fire for voting on the Kyl-Lieberman Amendment which designated Iran's Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist organization. It's well deserved criticism; her vote for the Iran Amendment was the wrong vote at the wrong time. We all know very well that President Bush and Dick Cheney are gunning for war with Iran. They want to use any excuse to take out the Iran Revolutionary Guard, and to disable Iran's nuclear reactors and other nuclear facilities. Because Iran's Revolutionary Guard has been providing support for Iraqi fighters and have sent bomb making parts to insurgents, Bush could use the Kyl-Lieberman Amendment as justification for war with Iran. For Sen. Clinton to vote to give this President a mandate to escalate the Iraq war into Iran, is in one word, irresponsible. After she called Senator Obama "naïve and irresponsible" for suggesting that we directly talk with Iran, Sen. Clinton then announced that she would have direct negotiations with Iran without conditions, and yet still says that "no options can be taken off the table" with regard to Iran. She has wavered back and forth on so many foreign policy issues that I cannot keep count. Everything she says is so nuanced that trying to decipher the true meaning is nearly impossible.
One either concludes that Hillary Clinton is a War Hawk in Democrats clothing, or is an Anti-war Democrat pretending to be a War Hawk, pretending to be a Democrat. Either way, Sen. Clinton isn't being upfront with the American people. She is trying to have it both ways, but she certainly cannot be both a Dove and a War Hawk. This indecisiveness leads me to question Sen. Clinton's motives, and her thinking on the most critical issue facing America, our national security and foreign policy. This is the most important reason guiding my decision to not support Hillary Clinton for President, but is only one in a series of issues that I have considered for the last year. My Conclusion:The question I have asked myself over and over with Sen. Hillary Clinton is this; Can a candidate who has created so many enemies, has so much political and personal baggage, and who regularly engages in divisive negative politics unite a divided and discontent American people with a sense of hope, prosperity and a new direction? Senator Clinton has made many enemies among people left, right and center, and I question whether such a person could truly govern effectively. I question whether such a person could listen to concerns from people from all walks of life. I believe that Senator Clinton has not shown a willingness to listen to the concerns of even those in her own party. I believe that she has tried to drown out the many questions of her foreign policy stances. If she cannot deal with questions from people within the Democratic Party, and isn't even willing to listen to those questions, how does anyone think she will be able to fend off Republicans in the General Election? I don't think that Sen. Clinton has proved to be someone who can unite the nation and offer a real and dramatic change from the Bush administration policies. Sure there are differences on some domestic issues, but on the most important issue, war and peace, Sen. Clinton does not offer the kind of change we desperately need. Senator Clinton also hasn't demonstrated the strong moral fiber that our nation demands. Allegations of phone tapping, illegal campaign contributions, lobbyist fundraisers and contradictory and wavering positions on important issues, all lead me to believe that Sen. Clinton is just another Washington politician who will say and do anything to get elected. Sen. Clinton isn't someone who puts principle over power, and above all Sen. Clinton doesn't support the kind of extraordinary change we need to restore America's reputation here and around the world. We need decisive leadership in America, and Sen. Clintons ever changing positions on the war, and so many other issues demonstrate that Sen. Clinton with all of her "experience" is not ready to lead America.
Choices:There is one more reason I will not support Hillary Clinton for President. It's simple; we have better choices in this election. We do have a chance to change our politics in America. We have several great candidates who do represent the kind of change we need in these times of crisis. Sen. Barack Obama is a leading example of the kind of change we need. While I respect many of the other candidates, Sen. Biden, Gov. Richardson, and Sen. Dodd, and I have a great deal of admiration for Sen. Edwards and Dennis Kucinich, I believe that Sen. Obama has the moral character and the fresh ideas to move America forward into a more prosperous future. Sen. Obama is not perfect, but he does offer a substantial change over the kind of disastrous leadership we have had under George W. Bush, and Sen. Obama has a much greater change of winning the General Election than any other Democrat running. We have real choices in this campaign, and we do have an opportunity to win in 2008 if we have the right kind of leadership. The Clinton machine isn't inevitable, we hold the power in this democracy; the power of our voices, and of our votes. I hope that the voters in Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada, South Carolina and states across the country will take a hard look at Sen. Clinton's record, and look at the record of Sen. Obama. I hope that voters will make the determination that the principles of the Democratic Party should always trump the powerful interests of one individual. As I became all too aware in 2004, long experience, and a long resume doesn't mean you will win an election, and it doesn't mean that you will make a great President. Only a principled leader who can bring people of different backgrounds together, who has a message of hope and opportunity, and who is willing to listen to the American people will emerge victorious and will be successful. Senator Obama is principled and stands by his beliefs of hope and peace and moving America forward. We have the power to change our country and the world! It's time to give the government back to its rightful owners, the American people!
Comments are closed for this post.
