Thought You'd Never Ask

Just mouthing off -- because I can.

Thursday, January 25, 2007

Why this suburban mom will never vote for Hillary

I like to think that whenever I vote my choice is never based on extraneous matters such as sex, sexual preference, race, skin-color, or religion, but on the quality of the ideas proposed and the character of the person running for office. That's why I don't rejoice that "a woman" has been elected or appointed to any given office, be it dog-catcher or Speaker of the House, just because I am "a woman." I can't think of a more demeaning and stupid reason to vote for someone than his or her gender, unless it's his or her skin color. I have more brains and independence (or so I flatter myself) than to huddle down into the swaddled emotional comfort of group identity politics--as, say, the Shi'ites or the Sunis or other such tribal clans of the Middle East seem to do.

So here's why this ostensible "soccer Mom," denizen of the 'burbs, with a mini-van and 2.0 adorable children, will never vote for Hillary Clinton for anything other than "most likely to scare a village": she's too leftist (perhaps even too socialist or even Marxist) for my taste.

It's not that I "hate" her because I'm a conservative or a libertarian; I don't "hate" her at all, since I can't say I even care personally about her, and "hate" is a personal emotion. Rather, I would never vote for her because, as in the cases of the rest of the Democrats running for President, the policies she would undertake to enact would be seriously detrimental to our nation's interests.

I won't even go into what I think of her character, other than to remind folks of a few--shall we say, uncomfortable--episodes of the past: Rose law firm billing records; Vince Foster/missing documents; cattle futures; the Castle Grande deal; Travelgate; and Whitewater. Anyone who is misty on the details can also revisit Hell To Pay and The Final Days by Barbara Olsen (Washington D.C. writer killed about Flight 77 on 9/11) and The Case Against Hillary Clinton by Peggy Noonan.

I do admit to taking pleasure in the fact that there are such bright conservative gals around these days who are such good writers.

And, I will admit to you that there is one area in which my emotions are aroused about Hillary Clinton. Every time I think back to her comment about the cookies:

HILLARY CLINTON: I suppose I could have stayed home and baked cookies and had teas, but what I decided to do was to fulfill my profession which I entered before my husband was in public life.

--I experience again that slap in the face delivered by someone off-handedly belitting my own decision to be a stay-at-home mother and wife for my family. What can I say, but that I'm human, and that do I feel resentment about that? Hillary, if only you knew what it is to "stay home and bake cookies and have teas," as you put it, maybe you would, in fact, know a little something about the kind of fulfillment many other women achieve, without putting their "professions" in jeopardy.

But this little emotional rough spot, for me, really has nothing to do with who is worthy to be elected President.

When it comes to that, Hillary, it seems, has absolutely nothing to say to me or for me, least of all in the political realm.

BONUS: Here's another summary of Hillary negatives from "The Progressive Review" to check before hitting the voting booth in 2008, which ends with this:

...There was a time when any sane campaign consultant and party leadership outside of Chicago would have told such a candidate to forget about running. But the assumption today is that all sins can be spun away.

It may seem that way, but it isn't true. The Democratic Party suffered in an unprecedented way at the national and state level because of Bill Clinton's misdoings. These scandals helped defeat two Democratic candidates for president and only in the last election were there signs of recovery.

The best favor the Democrats could do for themselves is to flush the Clinton name and its sorry memories down the toilet.

Ya think?

UPDATE: Nice pithy words in the British Times Online, where Gerard Baker calls the Clinton candidacy "a Grand Deceit, an entirely artificial construct built around a person who, stripped bare of the cynicism, manipulation and calculation, is nothing more than an enormous, overpowering and rather terrifying ego:

As you consider her career this past 15 years or so in the public spotlight, it is impossible not to be struck, and even impressed, by the sheer ruthless, unapologetic, unshameable way in which she has pursued this ambition, and confirmed that there is literally nothing she will not do, say, think or feel to achieve it. Here, finally, is someone who has taken the black arts of the politician’s trade, the dissembling, the trimming, the pandering, all the way to their logical conclusion.

Fifteen years ago there was once a principled, if somewhat rebarbative and unelectable politician called Hillary Rodham Clinton. A woman who aggressively preached abortion on demand and the right of children to sue their own parents, a committed believer in the power of government who tried to create a healthcare system of such bureaucratic complexity it would have made the Soviets blush; a militant feminist who scorned mothers who take time out from work to rear their children as “women who stay home and bake cookies”.

Today we have a different Hillary Rodham Clinton, all soft focus and expensively coiffed, exuding moderation and tolerance.

To grasp the scale of the transfiguration, it is necessary only to consider the very moment it began. The turning point in her political fortunes was the day her husband soiled his office and a certain blue dress. In that Monica Lewinsky moment, all the public outrage and contempt for the sheer tawdriness of it all was brilliantly rerouted and channelled to the direct benefit of Mrs Clinton, who immediately began a campaign for the Senate....

He gets it, and so do a lot of others. I don't give much for Hillary's chances of election.

UPDATE: "Forget the appeals to gender solidarity."


  • At Tuesday, January 30, 2007 11:51:00 PM, Anonymous Bookworm said…

    I second everything you say. Even when I was a good Democrat and charmed by Bill (something that's long worn off), Hillary never charmed me. For one thing, I struggled with a feminist who was in complete denial about the fact that her husband was a womanizing monster. It would have been more credible if she'd said I know what he is, but I adore him anyway because he gives me so much pleasure in other areas of my life. For this astute woman to pretend denial meant she was either a fool or a liar. Lovelorn I can tolerate; the other two irritate.

    Her frigidity is also extremely offputting. I don't expect my President to be my best friend (I don't need someone to feel my pain), but she's got the emotions of an artificial creation. This is strange considering that Michael Medved, a Yale classmate, freely admits that she was a lovely, kind woman (albeit a bit strange) when he knew her.

    And yes, her policies are just awful. For such a smart woman, why hasn't she figured out that wealth redistribution and too much government oversight in just about anything doesn't work? Her longstanding commitment to these failed policies, without ever questioning them, shows that she is a true Leftist believer. In her view, the problem is never the theory, it's the capitalist fools who have tried, without her oversight, to put these ideals into effect.

  • At Thursday, February 01, 2007 8:44:00 AM, Blogger Zabrina said…

    Yes, yes, and yes to all of your points. But I will even leave out discussions and speculations about her lovelife and marriage in the name of taking her seriously as a candidate to evaluate: and still her policies and past track record in the public eye and as a lawyer involved in questionable deals make her stink like a rotting fish. Surely the Democrats must have better qualified candidates to offer as national leader of the U.S. people.


Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home