Hillary

I never liked Bill Clinton as a President. I considered him a “Republicrat,” that is, a Republican cleverly disguised as a Democrat. That disguise was stripped from him for all to see when he pardoned union-busting Marc Rich, a fugitive from justice, shortly before he left office. Hillary? I’ve always believed that she’s even more conservative than Bill; after all, she was president of the Young Republicans at Wellesley College and a “Goldwater Girl.” However, I understand that people can change, so, when it became apparent a couple of years ago that she would run for President, I began defending her against what I considered to be the irrational “Hillary haters.” Now, I simply can’t defend any longer a candidate whose insatiable thirst for power has led her to indefensible personal attacks on Sen. Obama, attacks that are damaging to the Democratic Party. It’s clear to me now that she prefers destruction of the Party’s chances for victory in November to the nomination of Sen. Obama.

Franklin Roosevelt told us that “[t]he only thing that we have to fear is fear itself.” On the other hand, the Republicans thrive on scaring the hell out of us and keeping us scared. The “Unholy Trinity” of Bush, Cheney and Rove have taken this strategy to an extreme by milking 9/11 for all that it’s worth. Fear-mongering is a Republican way of life: “They are coming to get us, so elect us to protect you.” (Then, of course, instead of protecting us by hunting down and bringing to justice those who really did “come to get us” on 9/11, the Republicans invade countries like Iraq that had nothing to do with 9/11; whom will Bush invade next? Liechtenstein?)

Hillary’s campaign ad in which she asks whom we want to answer the phone at 3 a.m. plays on those same fears, a Republican tactic worthy of Bush, Cheney and Rove, far removed from Democrat Franklin Roosevelt’s soothing our fears. Like Republicans Bush, Cheney and Rove, Hillary is trying to scare us into voting for her. She’ll “protect” us because, according to her, she’s ready to serve “from day one,” whereas Sen. Obama would be, as she said in a March 4th, Columbus, Ohio, speech, an “on-the-job trainee.” One Democrat referring to another as an on-the-job trainee? That’s a disgrace! Ready to serve “from day one”? She’s a U.S. Senator, as is Barack Obama, so what’s this “experience” that she keeps talking about? Presumably, she’s referring to her being married to, having lived in the White House with, and having traveled to foreign countries with her husband, the President. Using that logic, Laura Bush would also be ready to serve “from day one” should she run for and be elected President!

If Sen. Clinton wins the Democratic nomination, will I vote for her in November? Would I prefer that Sen. Obama be the nominee? An unenthusiastic “yes” to the former--I’m too patriotic to vote for a Republican after the mess they’ve made of our beloved America--and an enthusiastic “yes” to the latter.