So, the other day while I was online I came across a post in a Facebook group, and I found it amusing, and gave my typical flippant comment directed at the original poster. “Give me what I want and I'll go away.” But now that I think about it, and since it was deleted by the poster or an admin, I have become more angered by it. I would have loved to have given a picture of that post to illustrate my point, but its gone, and the memory remains.
I remember the eight years of Bush being in the White House, I remember arguing against what he was doing, being called Un-American, being called a traitor and many other things because I did not support Mr. Bush, his wars, or his policies. So, it is a charge I take seriously, because I have never renounced my citizenship, I have always wanted what is best for the majority, not a select few. Being told to “get out” of your own homeland is something that should anger you, because you have a stake in it while you are living there. Sorry expatriate Americans, you really have no say in the affairs of the United States anymore.
I think that is what burned me so bad about this guys post. His general impression was the #BernorBust movement, and the general dislike or mistrust of Clinton I have been observing, was going to destroy the only viable candidate. He also took exception to those who said that #Anybluewontdo, and those who have claimed they will refuse to vote for Clinton. As someone who has stated in the past that I might not vote for Clinton, I will find the candidate who best reflects my current political ideology, to be called unamerican, a traitor, and being told to get out of my homeland I was slightly offended, now I am enraged.
Sorry, I got eight years of that crap when Bush was in office, I got it from the political right. I was not alone, so many on the left got that treatment from those on the right. I developed a, give me money and I will leave mentality, but the truth was I never had any intention of going, despite their thoughts. I would be going, someplace where my ideas were welcome within the US, I would be going places where I could have fun without being online, or I might pick up playing World of Warcraft again (Locks for the win). Point is, that is a drastic step, one that is common place on the right.
So, given eight years of that, the people who started saying those things, when I hear it from someone who claims to be a liberal, someone who supports Clinton, I become ill. It makes me sick to think that the moderate branch of the Democratic Party has decided to lower itself to the right's standard of play. We were bigger than that, we were supposed to be better than this type of foul tactic. We are not supposed to be telling our own people to get out of the country, accusing them that they are unamerican for expressing their disappointment, that they are traitors because in their heart they cannot see themselves voting for a candidate.
What has happened to our country, to the liberal party, the Democratic Party when it has started playing by GOP rules? I am sorry, but each Clinton supporter who pulls this (just like the Sanders supporters who go too far), put a nail in the coffin known as Clinton's 2016 presidential run. I have a hard enough problem dealing with Clinton on her own (just her general personality), but when you throw in her policies, her willingness to compromise on everything under the sun, my distaste grows. Throw in the fact that I really do not trust her, and its more than just what the media has thrown out there for the last twenty plus years, and you have a perfect storm of someone who is liberal who is not willing to toe that party line.
Now, so we are perfectly clear, I am going to spell this out so future generations can understand why some of us feel as we do.
- I have had the pleasure, or displeasure if you will, of meeting Ms. Clinton once back when Al Gore was making his run for the White House. It was at a Farm Aide concert that Tipper Gore and Clinton were stumping for Gore. My general impression was lax at the time, I mean I had just been given free front row center tickets to watch the concert, and because a bunch of us farm kids might be a threat we were tossed out by the Secret Service at Clinton's behest (according to the agent I spoke to). Backstage, when we were introduced, Clinton did not want to shake hands, was generally unimpressed with the affair, and honestly, she seemed to want to far away from us peasants. Of course, being dead broke at the time, I can understand her stress.
- Speaking of which, being dead broke after leaving the White House. Now, far be it from me to judge another person's financial situation, but this just reinforced my view of her. Now, I don't know about those of you reading this, but when you say “We were dead broke...” that indicates to me that you have no income, and no means of generating income. Hell, I will go further than that, when you say “I am dead broke...” I will even give you that you might have a job, and have income but you are currently tapped financially. You do not run out a week later and put down a few million dollars on second or third house. Yes you might be “dead broke” by your standards, but not by the standards of a single mother scraping together pocket change for milk, or the guy sitting in a dark house because he lacked the money to keep the lights on. It was just one of those arrogant comments she made. Yeah, it was to make her appear like you and I, but it was crass.
- Clinton is a Third Way Democrat. That means while she is “socially liberal” she is financially conservative. Now, I cannot in good conscience cast a ballot or vote for a person who is willing to negotiate with the rights of others. Sure, you can call it compromise, but not when you start at the center and move right, while you give up some concessions that you really don't really care about. Look, when you are trying to negotiate, you start at your extreme and work your way towards the middle, seriously, watch something like Pawn Stars (or American Pickers). Sure those guys typically get things at what they want, but sometimes they really negotiate, but even when they get stuff for their price, you see how it works in the real world. I want this much, you want to put out that much, and we meet in the middle.
- A sublet to this is that Third War Democrats will often throw bones out to get what they want. Clinton has already established that abortion is something she will negotiate on. I support the right to an abortion, even if I do not personally agree with it in all cases. That is not something that should be negotiated on, that is a line in the sand my friends. While I might not like abortions in general, I would rather people who elect to have an abortion, be able to do so in clean environments, where there is a doctor to perform the procedure, not in a back ally where there is more risk to a woman's health than there should be. Clinton would negotiate with it, so long as it includes a clause where carrying to term is a risk to the mother's health. Lets just drop the act, there is no clause, if a woman wants an abortion, she should be able to have one. But lets look at this from another perspective, if she is willing to negotiate with abortion rights, what else will she be willing to negotiate with? Your parent's Social Security benefits? Maybe something else?
- She is a Hawk. I have called her a Chicken Hawk, but all hawks are chicken hawks. She will have us in some country before a gnat can lick its backside. We will be in yet another war, it might be a just war, it might not be, but we will be there, we will have American Blood spilled on some foreign country. We will have more civilians killed in drone attacks, and we might get a bonus of bombing an orphanage or hospital. That always does great things for our public relations in other countries. Might as well vote for Trump at that rate, at least we already know who and what he wants to raze.
- Change, ah, change is hard, trying breaking a bad habit and you will know that this fact. What Clinton is dictating is that change is hard, a given, but it is impossible to make sweeping changes. I cannot vote for a candidate who is willing to make only minor tweeks, while also willing to give up on some fundamental ground we have already established. Sure, she will keep Obama's legacy alive, she says. But Obama, while doing a great many good things, has not been the voice for change we wanted. Sure, he has been stymied at every turn during his tenure as president, and we should not hold that against him, but he has failed to live up to what we expected. I will say that he should be damned in part for it, but with the expressed comment that he tried. Clinton will do nothing more than continue what is happening. Where Obama tried to change some things, she will try and change nothing, and she will loose ground. Obama continued to try and push forward, she will not. Small change is good, but not at the cost of giving up ground, she might get x accomplished but what if she has to give up on abortion rights?
- Speaking of change... The GOP really dislikes Obama, we have seven years of proof. I actually think they dislike Clinton more than Obama, and that is hard to believe. If you think they had a temper tantrum over an African American man (who they say is Muslim), what do you think they are going to do to Clinton should she manage to get elected. What do you think they are going to do if she gets nominated? We are going to have a constant scandals, and investigations over any little thing. You think Obama got little to nothing done while he was in the White House, I am going to say she will get less done. I won't claim Sanders will get a ton done either, I mean he is a Socialist Jew, and yeah, I doubt anyone center right or left will get much done.
- She does not want to reenact or enact any type of Wall Street Regulations. You see, this is a big deal to me. Remember that status quo thing I just spoke of, yeah, I want people held accountable for nuking our economy because they were gambling. There is also her views on Free Trade, which is not free. More jobs getting shipped overseas, while people like us get forced into lower and lower paying jobs.
- Of course, she says she is for a $10.15 minimum wage. Well, that would be a nice start, it would help some people out for a bit. Of course, the raise in wage will get eaten by us, since we know companies don't want that short term loss.
- She is against a Single Payer System, going as far as to say it would never ever happen. Yeah, right now it is a pipe dream in the United States, but why can't we try to get it anyway? Because it is hard, because the right will never go for it. Maybe its time we the people started voting with our fingers, rather than our asses.
- I already covered abortion rights, next up Social Security?
- Oh, I forgot about the whole “super predator” crack she made. Sorry, but that was a bit much to swallow when she said it, and its less palatable today. Sure, she might have fought for equal rights for African Americans and Latinos, but there is a disconnect. The policies she came out in support of in the past, those Bill Clinton signed into law have done a great deal of harm to minorities. Welfare reform, three strikes laws, and a host of other things she has signed onto in the past are doing more harm than good. Of course, she might have evolved on the issues, but I am going to say, I will believe it when I see it.
That is a good deal to start with why I dislike Clinton; why I have reservations about voting for her as anything more than the local dog catcher. Yeah, I know, I am raging sexist, cause I just don't like her. It wouldn't matter if she come on stage, and told people point blank that she was going to burn America to the ground, and throw us all in ovens, for some of her supporters, we would be sexist if we said “WTF is that BS, oh hell no!”. Of course according to one, there is a special place in hell for women who don't help other women, and I suppose that applies to those who don't want to vote for Clinton.
Also, some of her supporters want to throw it in the mud that people want a political revolution, we want meaningful change. They claim it is dying down, that it won't last, but there is something they are neglecting. Sanders run was the eventual outcome of Obama's run. You see, the revolution did not start when Sanders said “I'm running for the position of President of the United States.” It started when Obama said he was running. Even should Sanders falter and fade, come 2020, 2024, and beyond there will be someone to pick up the mantle. The revolution is building, and even if Clinton wins, we will bide our time. We will form coalitions, we will start a new party, we will do whatever needs to be done to get our point across. This is how a political revolution is fought, not with a brilliant flash, it builds slowly over time. Obama laid the seeds we are about to reap. Sanders might well be the culmination of our political revolution, then again, he might not be. Only time will tell.