Friday, September 08, 2006

Why I Won't Vote for Hillary

I once heard a minister at a public event say, “It’s illegal for me to tell you who to vote for, but I can tell you who not to vote for: don’t vote for anyone who doesn’t vote for you.”

Next week is New York’s Democratic Primary, and I intend to vote against Hillary Clinton.

Senator Clinton is certain to win the primary, and faces no serious Republican challenger in November. There are advantages to having her as our state senator: certainly she comes with clout, connections and a public profile that could never be summoned by any of her rivals for the seat. She has been an important advocate for the people of New York on a variety of different issues, ranging from anti-terror funding to post-9/11 environmental quality.

However, on two issues of great importance to me, Senator Clinton has been an enormous disappointment.

In early July, the New York State Court of Appeals handed down an utterly idiotic decision, claiming the state constitution, despite all its guarantees of equal protection, does not “require” same-sex marriage. They handed the issue off to our do-nothing assembly in Albany, along with a series of recommendations about how a “rational legislature” might find that it was “reasonable” to restrict marriage to heterosexuals because only straight people have children by accident.

The ruling, a classic case of judicial activism, where judges ignore evidence and abandon established constitutional analysis in favor of “assumptions,” “intuition” and “experience” [those words lifted from the decision itself] in order to reach a pre-determined conclusion, was met with utter silence from Senator Clinton.

Sure, she’ll show up for the annual pride parade in Manhattan, inserting herself into the march several blocks past the starting point and remaining just long enough to wave at the New York Times photographers before disappearing, but when it really counts, she’s not there. Can’t let the fundamental civil rights of her constituents interfere with her national ambitions. On her website, if you look up her positions on Civil and Constitutional Rights, you will see not one mention anywhere of LGBT people or issues. Nor will you find a mention under Children & Families.

On the war against Iraq, I do not accept her explanation that she – along with the rest of the Democratic party – voted to give President Bush the authority to use military force against Iraq as “diplomatic leverage.” First, the act itself was unconstitutional, as only Congress has the power to declare war, and that power does not include delegation of its responsibility to the executive branch.

Second, I am disgusted that the woman who coined the phrase “vast right-wing conspiracy” could trust those same nefarious conspirators to competently execute an experimental war of choice while assisting them in its promotion as a war of necessity. If anyone should have known not to trust these guys, it was Hillary Clinton. Instead, during the crucial months before our invasion, she failed to ask the important questions that needed to be asked about the post-invasion occupation or to challenge the White House’s assertions about the imminence of the threat and its significance to the larger war on terror.

Today, as a major leader of congressional Democrats, she continues to fail to put forward a valid, alternative plan for the repair and reconstruction of Iraq. Withdrawal, phased or immediate, is not a solution to the problems of our own making. It’s a political trick: declare “victory” and bring the troops home (minus 2,600 and counting).

I'm going to vote for Jonathan Tasini for Senator in the Democratic Primary. While I do not agree with his call for immediate withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq, what Congress needs are representatives who don’t and won’t trust the Bush Administration. Furthermore, Mr. Tasini expressly supports marriage equality for all people.

I do not expect Mr. Tasini to win, but it would be nice if Senator Clinton at least got the message that some of us aren’t happy.

16 comments:

Matthew said...

I admire your principled vote against Clinton, and have no qualms with it.

But I'm curious to know if this a recent decision you've come to about Clinton, or one which you've had for some time? I ask because it's been pretty obvious to me that the Clintons are not what one would call 'progressive Democrats.'

Bill Clinton signed DOMA when he was in office. He urged John Kerry to not along come out against gay marriage in 2004, but civil unions, as well (which Kerry refused to do). Hillary has been publicly moving further toward the right in recent years. The Clintons have never shown themselves to be good - or even adequate - on gay rights issues. In fact, quite the contrary.

It's a shame, too, as Bill Clinton was probably the best Democratic politician we've had in a long time.

*sigh*

Andy said...

No, I've pretty much always felt this way. I am not in favor of trading the White House back and forth between the Bush and Clinton clans every eight years. Hillary is just John Kerry in a Chanel suit with better hair: her position is whatever her pollsters tell her it is.

Aethlos said...

i can't stand hil... can't articulate why as clearly as you... it's a gut thing... i have NO idea who she is... that frightens me... yikes. EXCELLENT POST.

LeshDogg said...

As a former New Yorker (state, not city), I was horrified that she could weasel her way into the Senate in New York (with her not being an established resident and all).

Good for you. I hope the message is received.

Gino said...

billary will do what ever they need to do to get power. bill had no principles. hil has principles in order to jettison them when its convenient.

hillary is more on your side than you think. she actually would marry a same sex partner if it produced enough votes.

tully said...

Great post- especially the part about despising Hilary Clinton, but I can't let you go on this point:

"First, the act itself was unconstitutional, as only Congress has the power to declare war, and that power does not include delegation of its responsibility to the executive branch."

You can say all you want about the wisdom of the delegation of war-making powers to the president, but it is simply wrong to say that the constitution denies that delegation. When Congress feels that war- whether against an ideology or a state, is necessary, but the enemy is in several countries in ambiguous degrees, of course it is constitutional for them to give a general delegation of war-making powers to the president. Give me a constitutional basis for your statement.

Jess said...

I agree with your feelings about her. She doesn't stick to her principles (assuming she has any). She just blows in the political wind. She's no friend of ours--well, unless the polls tell her she should be.

The problem is that she represents the real Democratic Party of today. They're "Republican Light," and they're unwilling to take chances in the name of articulating fresh ideas.

Trickish Knave said...

It's a shame, too, as Bill Clinton was probably the best Democratic politician we've had in a long time.

That statement says volumes about the DNC.

It appears that extremist on both ends of the elected political spectrum have caused a broken window effect, voters are fed up and trying to repair the broken windows seems an impossible task.

Keeping another Clinton out of office seems like a step in the right direction. I grew up under Billary's governorship as an AR resident. They are dirty and damn lucky they have dodged prison sentences.

No matter how much they try to keep their dirty deeds under wrap they will eventually fail. ABC should tell the people responsible for pressuring them to censor the September 11 documentary to go shit in a hat.

Just another example of how low the Clinton's will stoop to preserve their image.

Gino said...

knave:
my wife had a close friend who married a boy and went home with him arkansas. he was from a connected GOP laywer family. she told the wife back in 92 that the whole family was going to vote for bill for president just to get his ass out of arkansas.

some of the dirt that came out later(about bill in AR), i already knew about through her.

it was because they were so dirty in deeds that they were able to dodge prison. others were takin falls for them, who they then forgot when it came time to reward the loyalty.
others ended up dead.

Anonymous said...

y'know, Sending the Democratic establishment A Message in 2000 and 2004 doesn't really seem to have done much good in getting them to listen to blacks, Catholics, Jews, Hispanics, women ... let's see, did they blame any other demographic for Gore burying his chances for a clear victory in 2000? That's the loss-mantra I remember ... . I also remember that it wasn't until after 2004 that they began to suspect they might be the source of their own problems ... .

(Oops, wait: does New Age self-realization apply to organizations?)


Which is not to say "vote for Hillary." More to say, "History suggests it won't do measurable good."

:(.

Andy said...

Well, if I might paraphrase the Hindu author Sri Chinmoy from his summation of the Vedas, the Bhagavad Gita and the Upanishads, "Right action is its own reward."

Trickish Knave said...

Gino, yep, a lot of people voted for Clinton jsut to get him the hell out of Arkansas. If you can get your hands on The Clinton Chronicles it will be worth your while to read it.

"Right action is its own reward."

True, very true, Andy. Something that immediately comes to mind are the people who voted Ray Nagin in for another term.

Gino said...

to be fair:
ray nagin was a perfect choice. he was funny, said stupid things, and what more could he do wrong?
really, what harm he gonna do? destroy the city or something....?

Matthew said...

"That statement says volumes about the DNC."

Doesn't it, Knave? Believe, I didn't write

Matthew said...

That should have read:

Believe me, I didn't write it with pride.

Anonymous said...

Andy: certainly I'd be the last to tell you there was anything to be gained by doing the Wrong thing ;).