Friday, February 01, 2008

Anti-Hillary Over Iraq?

One of the arguments I've been hearing for Obama is that, even if he's playing dirty politics and engaging in right wing talking points, Hillary was for Iraq. Obviously that means she doesn't deserve our support. Don't get me wrong, Hillary made a lousy vote and it doesn't reflect well on her for not apologizing for it, but this argument just doesn't make sense. If Obama truly was anti-war, and I don't really give a damn about some speech he made before he ever had to deal with the pressures of being a US Senator who wanted to run for President, he should have actually been a strong, anti-war Senator. Where was this leadership from Senator Obama in the US Senate? If Obama came out strong against Iraq during his tiny tenure in the US Senate, he certainly did it very tentatively. And he certainly didn't come out strong when it mattered - funding the war. His war funding record is almost identical to Hillary's. Am I really supposed to believe that, had he been in the Senate before the war started, he would have been an anti-war champion? I don't think so.

So, in light of that, all I have to do is look at where he stands on progressive issues, as well as standing up to K Street and the Republican hacks who've been ruining our country for the past few decades. It doesn't look good. If it's not propping up right wing talking points, like how Social Security is in dire straights and needs to be fixed now, it's pushing liquid coal - which would be a disaster to our environment. If it's not praising Reagan as the right man for the right time, it's propping up anti-gay preachers in his campaign. He's sending calculated, mixed signals to the public that isn't of the sort a strong progressive would support. Hell, he's managed to get me - someone who never would have voted for a person like Hillary in a millions years - ready to vote for her in a mere 4 days. It took a lot for Obama to accomplish that, but he's worked hard to get me to dislike his candidacy.

2 comments:

Anonymous said...

Social Security is in dire straits and young'uns like you won't collect a thing if it doesn't get fixed soon.

mr1stfirstgentleman said...

First Lady of the United States is the unofficial title of the hostess of the White House. Because this position is traditionally filled by the wife of the President of the United States, the title is sometimes taken to apply only to the wife of a sitting President. However, several women who were not Presidents' wives have served as First Lady, as when the President was a bachelor or widower, or when the wife of the President was unable to fulfill the duties of the First Lady herself. In these cases, the position has been filled by a female relative or friend of the President.

To date, no woman has served as President. While a female President could theoretically serve as her own official hostess, it is not known what title would be applied to a President's husband, who might also serve as the host of the White House. There have been many female governors of U.S. states over the years; their spouses are typically referred to as the First Gentleman.[1]

The United States Senator from New York, Hillary Rodham Clinton, is the only First Lady and woman running for the Presidency in 2008. She is currently the front runner for the Democratic Nomination for the 2008 Presidential election as well as for the general election in November. If she wins, Bill Clinton would become the first person to serve in the capacity of 1stFirstGentleman of the United States

http://www.1stfirstgentleman.us/

About Ryan's Take