Why I’m voting for Hillary Clinton….
As promised here is reader Jiminy Bizbo’s post on why he is voting for Hillary Clinton.
unedited text from Jiminy Bizbo
My Choice - My Voice - Why Hillary Clinton Is The Best Choice For President of the United States
It has been with a careful mind that I have ultimately decided that Hillary Clinton is the best candidate for the office of President of the United States. Having watched the slow progression of women’s roles through the years, women remain slighted on such issues as salary, and their role when combined with a husband such as Bill Clinton. Our country has come along way since women were given the right to vote in 1920. This election is not about race or gender, but I am very proud to be a Democrat voting in this historical election.
Because of the failed policies of the Bush Administration, our country cannot forfeit compromise with our leadership. We cannot afford so-called “voter errors” that remove the will of the people. We have watched as our constitution and our rights, from the First Amendment to the Fifth and beyond are stripped for us in the name of “good” to protect us from “evil”.
Our reputation nationally has been marred greatly. Night after, night the news is fed to us by controlled media outlets that broadcast what we see. It saddens me that on a regular basis it is forgotten that we are at war not only with Iraq, but also with Afghanistan. We were told that the “war against terror” would be swift and victorious. I wonder how the general public can buy into such logic, while today we still have our military sitting on the border of North and South Korea some 50 plus years after this conflict was considered “resolved”. How could we have been so gullible?
At home, we’ve watched as Kodak jobs moved out of the country, with tens of thousands of jobs lost. Foreclosures and tax rates skyrocket along with the price of food, medicine and fuels. Hostility and anger rise to levels of so called “Patriot Acts” that define that even the expression of disagreement about war or leadership can enact one to be considered a terrorist or “non-American”.
Our next President will have one of the most daunting challenges presented to any other leader ever elected to this country. Inheritance of two wars, a crippling national debt, and an economy that many ponder is already in recession, heading for depression, and ecological and social healing that by themselves are gigantic in resolution.
Hillary Clinton has lived through these changes in our country and our world with the understanding and impact of a wife, mother, a working woman, and a First Lady. Her background in law and government has been forefront for most of her adult life. She helped to reshape the role of “First Lady” and was ahead of her time in seeking resolution to the lack of health insurance coverage as well as the direction that the pharmaceutical companies and medical industry were headed. At that time she accepted the task in 1993 when the President asked her to chair the Task Force on National Health Care Reform. She continued to be a leading advocate for expanding health insurance coverage; ensuring children are properly immunized, and raising public awareness of health issues.
Here we are now 15 years later, and no one laughs at the concept of reform, and each and every candidate, including Republican candidates has their own form of “solution” to the problem of health care reform. Imagine the altered outcome that giving both Mrs. Clinton as well as the issue itself the credibility that should have been granted, instead of the mockery and intimidation that was unleashed by many 15 years ago. Many of those individuals even in 1993 considered that it wasn’t a “woman’s” place, and it certainly wasn’t the role of a “First Lady”.
It wouldn’t be the last time she would be expected to have to stand shoulder to shoulder with the men in Washington, not only on legal affairs and accusations - none of which were ever brought to fruition - but also her personal life, in a manner that no other citizen has had to contend with on an international level. I give her great respect for not only holding her head up, but for being able to work through her problems in her marriage with her husband, but also publicly stating that it was in the best interest of their daughter as well. Today, in a time where 50% of all marriages will end in divorce, and the very definition of marriage itself being carved by government, the strength and grace she has shown time and time again under pressure has been incredible.
Her experience in the White House gives her a unique level of knowledge that no other candidate can make claim to. The fact that her husband, former President Bill Clinton will work together with her makes me feel secure in my choice in knowing that the intensity of the problems we face as a nation, will be reviewed by some of the best and most qualified individuals in the world. Some have stated it’s the equivalent of getting two presidents with one vote. I’m not ashamed to say that I think that is a wonderful thing, and the ability to be proud once again of the leadership of this country in itself - priceless.
Hillary Clinton didn’t come from privilege. She came from humble roots - just like the rest of us. Her love of country and the laws and politics of our country have made her a true leader, not only in her role as First Lady, but also being the first First Lady elected to the U.S. Senate and the first woman elected statewide in New York. Each and every time she has been challenged, she has met or exceeded the bar without hesitation or reservation. As President, I would expect nothing less from her.
At the time of her graduation and while delivering her graduation speech, Mrs. Clinton said, “The challenge now is to practice politics as the art of making what appears to be impossible, possible.” I don’t think she would realize then, the power of those words and how representative they are of the times we live in today. Our next President will be asked to do the impossible, and to fix a huge and mounting array of problems and deficits.
Hillary Rodham Clinton, without any doubt or reservation, is the best-qualified person to be elected President of the United States. I hope you join me in pulling the lever for her in November and being a part of history as well as the start recovery for our great nation.
Amen!
I might have felt this way six weeks ago. But if you honestly can vote for her after the incendiary — and yes, Rove-like — tactics that she has allowed to permiate the campaign, then you are ceding the high ground. You are endorsing the very politics that infuriate you when employed by Republicans.
That is the harsh, but honest, reality. And I’m frankly stunned to see so many voters able to act like it’s “just part of the game.” Well, it is, but it shouldn’t be.
Like those “tried” with failure during the debates, which backfired when the “boys” attempted to gang up on the “girl”?
That was more “Rove-like” than anything I’ve ever seen…
Jiminy,
If you truly feel that way, then you are choosing to blind yourself from the facts. The boys “ganged up on the girl?” Go back and watch the debate. Edwards was tough with her, but he wasn’t vicious. Obama, as the frontrunner at the time, hardly raised a finger. Are you under some mistaken idea that Obama attacked her in that debate? He most certainly did not.
But I understand that when we want someone to win, it’s easier to cover our eyes when ugly things come from our candidates.
That’s not just my opinion Jeremy:
Obama and Edwards Tag-Team Clinton
Narrowed Democratic Field Faces Off in First Debate Since Iowa’s Stunning Results
http://abcnews.go.com/story?id=4091841
I’m afraid I think Hilary is just another DLC (Democratic Leadership Committee –the right wing of the democrats) candidate.
I don’t think Bill did a very good job as prez for working people. What he did with welfare was shameful and will come back to haunt democrats,. he passed NAFTA and lot of other pro-business legislation. His economic policy wil better than Bush was not pro-ordinary citizen, He built up the expectations being a progressive candidate but governed otherwise.
perhaps Hilary is not her husband but she is not a dyed in the wool progressive either, just look at her current health plan — very bad.
her defense of her war vote is facetious.
Anyone is better than Bush, and I’m not saying she is the devil or anything but Hilary is not the best candidate we could run nor the right person for the job. We don’t need another DLC candidate.
Comparisons done between Clinton and Obama show that their policies are nearly 97% the same - but it’s that 3% that makes all the difference.
This is a very well-written piece. However, I come away with a feeling of personal drama much more than of legitimate “resume” experience. A little less Frontline, a little more VH1 Behind the Music.
Whatever she went through with her marriage, I kind of feel like using this as a criteria for her election is, . . well, a bit sexist, or at least a very outmoded sense of feminism. If this were a man who went through the same thing, we’d just say his marriage was marred by scandal and that would be a point against him.
This piece, while weaving together a lot of important threads, doesn’t really connect the problems we face with the qualifications you cite for Hillary as president.
As for health care, to my mind, Hillary kind of dropped the ball back in ‘93. Yes, there was a lot of sexism involved in the Republican resistance, but a good argument cannot be unmade, and she failed to make a good argument by releasing a policy that was so over-complicated that it was pathetic. The Republicans deserve some “for shame”s for the resistance, but she is not guiltless in the failure.
I think that there is barely a hands-breadth between Clinton and Obama on most issues. The economic policy comparison this blog did this weekend kind of confirms most of that. As I said from my endorsement of Barack, I sense that he’s is the type of executive that can hire good people and listen to what they say. I get a sense of micromanaging wonkishness from Hillary that I don’t like in a leader.
Hi DFE,
I’ll agree with your statement. There is much to be said, and much to learn, but I did try to keep my piece short, and tailored it to what I consider to be some of the important points to me personally…
Why I CANNOT vote for Hillary–thanks to Sam for these well written reasons!
1. As a member of the Walmart board of directors she shaped policies which drove manufacturing jobs to China and closed locally owned business throughout America.
2. In 2005, long after the rationale for the invasion of Iraq was shown to be founded on lies, she continued to refer to the war (in a two page position letter to complaining constituents) as an “integral part of the war on terror.” Given her intelligence and connectedness the only possible rationale for her position was the desire to look “strong on terror” as she made a run for the presidency. Excuse me, but human lives were at stake.
3. She voted for the Liberman resolution, giving Bush the green light to invade Iran. See rationale above.
4. She has taken more money from big corporations and lobbyists than anyone else. And they will expect a return on their investment. Whose country is this?
5. She evokes more hatred from the right wing than Osama Bin Laden. And this hatred will energize & mobilize their base and further divide the country. As many of you know, the right-wingers have made a scathing, full-feature movie about her, on the shelf and ready to go if she gets the nomination. They are far better prepared to swift-boat her than anyone else.
6. She represents the old-style Democratic machine, corporate-owned politics of the past, NOT the Howard Dean “democratic wing” of the Democratic Party.
My money says you have shopped at Walmart.
Just being a PIA (pain in the A**) by throwing something out there and be nice when attacking but…
Did Obama vote for or against the Kyl Lieberman amendment? I think he didn’t vote. Where does he stand on that as indicated by his voting record? Same with “the war” did he ever vote for funding for the war?
Hillary raises a lot of money from Corporate Donors - Does all the money Obama raised thus far - the hundreds of millions of dollars - all come from small donors? I don’t think so.
I wish this author (Sam I guess) would focus more on why they are voting for someone than against someone else.
The bigger question is will authors like this back the eventual nominee even if it is not who they preferred in the primary.
Just asking…
On Obama and Kyl-Lieberman: He didn’t vote at all, and said so publicly. The amendment doesn’t actually *do* anything, but merely tries to put members of Congress on the record as having a blood-lust for Iran and a third war, or as being a Commie-F*6-Junkie, Chamberlain-style appeaser whimp (in fact, I believe that’s in the language of the bill, LOL). It was a trap amendment, like all those “I’m a patriot” bills and amendments after 911, meant to shut up opposition or leave them exposed.
Obama had the cajones to walk away from the whole thing, and it was the principled move.
Obama’s donors: no, not all donors are small donors, though I’ve contributed in modest ways for the first time in my life. At the same time, there is a difference between taking money from an individual who is in this or that business and taking money from a group whose sole purpose is to influence Washington in ways that benefit a specific group. An individual can be many things, but a lobbying firm can be but one.
Acrimony aside, I don’t think there’s any question that all of us will be pulling the lever for the Dem in the general. I’ll probably need to get way-drunk immediately after, if it’s Hillary, but I’ll be doing it.
And if it is Hillary, I think a vice presidency might be in the making for Barack, and I think he’d take it. Other way ’round? I don’t think that’s going to happen.
I’d be more inclined to have the VP be John Edwards, or Al Gore, who is not, to the best of my knowledge, bound by term limitation…
On money: According to OpenSecrets Obama has raised $25 from PACS. That’s not a typo — twenty-five bucks. Hillary has raised about a million bucks from PACs.
http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/index.asp?cycle=2008
Open Secrets doesn’t track it, but Obama has had contributions from over 500,000 individual contributors. That’s far more than the number I’ve seen from Clinton.
As you know, where money’s involved in politics, it’s not “all or none”, it’s “better or worse”. The facts show that Obama’s money raising is better than Clinton’s, since he uses more smaller donors and accepts essentially no money from PACs.
Nice try rotten
My point was Obama like Clinton gets money from companies.
Goldman Sachs, for example, contributed over 400K
Check out this link.
Sorry, no. Here’s the fine print:
That link is the list of who employed the people who donated to Obama. By that standard, Eric Massa takes “corporate donations” whenever he accepts money from someone employed by Kodak.
Typically, “corporate donations” means donations from corporate-sponsored PACs. Corporations are barred by law from directly contributing to federal campaigns.
There’s no clean money in elections, but I’m correct in saying that Clinton has taken corporate PAC money and Obama hasn’t, and I also believe that my use of “corporate donation” is consistent with the way it is used by Democratic candidates.
Since 2003, executives and employees of Exelon, which is based in Illinois, have contributed at least $227,000 to Mr. Obama’s campaigns for the United States Senate and for president. Two top Exelon officials, Frank M. Clark, executive vice president, and John W. Rogers Jr., a director, are among his largest fund-raisers.
Another Obama donor, John W. Rowe, chairman of Exelon, is also chairman of the Nuclear Energy Institute, the nuclear power industry’s lobbying group, based in Washington. Exelon’s support for Mr. Obama far exceeds its support for any other presidential candidate.
In addition, Mr. Obama’s chief political strategist, David Axelrod, has worked as a consultant to Exelon. A spokeswoman for Exelon said Mr. Axelrod’s company had helped an Exelon subsidiary, Commonwealth Edison, with communications strategy periodically since 2002, but had no involvement in the leak controversy or other nuclear issues. . . .
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/03/us/politics/03exelon.html?hp
All true. I’m sure we could go find a number of donors to Mrs. Clinton’s campaign who are corporate employees of corporations we don’t especially like.
The overall point is that Obama has a larger set of small money contributors, and a non-existent set of corporate PAC donors. That’s the difference in the total money picture between him and Clinton.
Not exactly. One is touting himself as Mr. Clean, when in fact he’s not. Clinton hasn’t made those allegations. She admits it.
I could throw a million pennies tonight into the Clinton campaign…would that be the equivalent to a million small money contributions?
No, it would be one contribution, Jiminy.
I thought that progressives would appreciate a candidate who was able to excite 500,000 people to contribute to his campaign. Apparently, fewer is better. I stand corrected.
The facts remain. Clinton takes PAC money. Obama doesn’t. Obama has more contributors than Clinton. Make of that what you will.
Some of the loss of jobs at Kodak was due to moving jobs overseas, but the vast majority of job losses had nothing to do with jobs moving overseas. It had to do with something called digital photography.
Regarding voting for Clinton … now that Edwards has dropped out of the race, I am leaning towards Clinton, but not without some reservations. Her support of the
waroccupation in Iraq is the primary reservation I have (yes, I know now she is against the occupation). But on a lot of issues, I do agree with her. I’d still prefer to vote for Edwards, and if he is on the ballot, I may just go ahead and pick him anyway.Digital photography could not be developed in the United States? It’s that old line dj_paige…“It’s the economy, stupid”
The United States has done little or nothing to spur economic growth of almost any technology and instead has become the receipient of the “goods”, without the benefit of the “jobs”.
That’s a leadership issue not only with this country, but with Eastman Kodak’s management as well. Double edged sword indeed, but try to tell that to the people who worked at Kodak, and have lost their homes, their jobs and their security.
We, as a country, need to do better - need to do more.
Eastman Kodak had been chasing the tails of many photographic competitors for years. There has been a gross lack of innovation on their behalf as mentioned by jiminy above. They had ignored their own backyard for a long long time and the parallels echo well beyond Rochester and jobs sent oversees.
And that little thing called digital photography….how’s that treating them these days. Too little, way too late.
I hate to say it but I think that in 10 years time Kodak will exist only to make accessories and bling for emerging technologies in the photo world they once dominated.
The beast that ate Eastman Kodak was complacency.
We really do need to do better.
Jiminy -
Thanks for taking the time to contribute…
Thank you! And big thanks to Rochester Turning for supplying such a valuable platform for this and every other issue that confronts our community!
[...] you to all who contributed (Jiminy Bizbo, Rottenchester, Dennis, W and Anna). Great essays today, and [...]