Molly Ivins isn’t for Clinton

h/t to CosmicWheel for this bit of interestingness. I’m even going to quote the same part he did:

AUSTIN, Texas — I’d like to make it clear to the people who run the Democratic Party that I will not support Hillary Clinton for president.

Enough. Enough triangulation, calculation and equivocation. Enough clever straddling, enough not offending anyone This is not a Dick Morris election. Sen. Clinton is apparently incapable of taking a clear stand on the war in Iraq, and that alone is enough to disqualify her. Her failure to speak out on Terri Schiavo, not to mention that gross pandering on flag-burning, are just contemptible little dodges.

That’s Molly Ivin’s intro to her 2006 piece titled I will not support Hillary Clinton for president. I think the title says it all, don’t you. Ms. Ivins has always been known for her straight talk on the issues and I’m trying to think back to an article of hers that where I disagreed. Not that I’ve read all of her articles, but those that I have, she’s always been on the money.

See, Ms. Ivins was up to here with the cowardly way the Democrats in Washington operated. Like so many other Democrats, she was frustrated with the so-called centrism of many Dems. Those spineless electeds who were too scared to stand up for their ideals and their constituents, lest a Republican say something mean.

This is why I look at so many politicians, especially those “centrist” with utter disgust. I have a feeling they think they were elected because that’s what the people want. The truth is they were elected because they paid their way in, because they said all the right things without any chance of them actually effecting change.

I was over at Mother Talkers not too long ago and someone mentioned she was going to vote for the Clinton’s 3rd term because Sen. Clinton said that she’d bring the troops home in 60 days. Ah…I see you got a smile on your face too. Is that sort of naivete refreshing? Wouldn’t it be nice to actually believe the words that come out of either of the Clinton’s mouths? The thing is, back in September or October, Clinton laughed at John Edwards for saying something similar. She said, that she’ll look to bring the troops home in her 2nd (4th) term. Up until about, what? a week or two ago, that has been her refrain: in her 2nd term, the troops will all come home.

She’s also changed up her healthcare plan. A lot. The things she’s offering up now seem to be vastly different than what she was offering up 3 weeks ago. In fact, what she’s saying now, mimics what John Edwards was saying, and she decided that we all needed a reality check.

On Letterman tonight:

Turning serious, Letterman asked whether all the money the presidential candidates are raising might be better spent feeding the poor and hungry. Clinton agreed that it wasn’t a good way to run campaigns.

“That’s why we should go to public financing,” she said.

This is a complete turnaround from all of her other statements on campaign finance. John Edwards repeatedly asked all the candidates to pledge to accept only federal funds for their campaigns. None of them were takers. At YearlyKos, Clinton told Edwards that he was being naive and that she wouldn’t turn down money from her corporate financiers. She didn’t think that publicly financed campaigns were realistic. This is something she’s repeated in debates from the summer up until a few weeks ago. We’re either facing someone who’s just had a complete turnaround on policies in just a few short weeks or we’re looking at someone who is willing to say anything to get elected.

I can’t vote for a person like that. I won’t vote for a person like that. I was on blogher earlier today and someone posted why should couln’t vote for Obama. It clearly wasn’t a post rooted in facts, as all of the points spoke of this woman’s emotions. Fair enough. I get emotions, but then there were all the Clinton’s smears in the post. You know those lies the Clintons have spread about Obama that have no basis in reality. Like the poster above, this person also regurgitated them like they were truths. Amazing. A simple Google search would show them as blatant lies, but these two women have so much faith in Sen. Clinton that they just believe them at face value. I’m positive that a person who’d willing spread lies about another Democrat is not someone I’m comfortable voting for, ever. Other people don’t have my values, I’m cool with that.

The MINUTE someone impugns your patriotism for opposing this war, turn on them like a snarling dog and explain what loving your country really means. That, or you could just piss on them elegantly, as Rep. John Murtha did. Or eviscerate them with wit (look up Mark Twain on the war in the Philippines). Or point out the latest in the endless “string of bad news.”

Do not sit there cowering and pretending the only way to win is as Republican-lite. If the Washington-based party can’t get up and fight, we’ll find someone who can.

I know that I’ve found that person. Have you?


2 thoughts on “Molly Ivins isn’t for Clinton

  1. Now that you found something on my blog to use, I am so going use a lot of your post! 🙂

    I wasn’t aware of most of the changes in Hillary’s positions you describe here. Those examples and your concluding paragraphs all reinforce some things I have said about Hillary, namely that 1) forget about policy issues–she is completely lacking in decent character; and 2) she is not in this to lead–she is in this to win. She will do and say anything to win, and her concern will always be power, not leadership.

    I could say more, but I would be preachin’ to the choir.


  2. Clinton and her finger tests…it annoys me to no end. Over the summer, there were a number of items where leadership was needed. Clinton waited until Obama did something before she stepped out.

    Take the Fox News Debates. The black blogosphere had been pushing for months to get the CBC to cancel the debates with Fox. Then the liberal blogosphere finally got into the act. Then some people in the black blogosphere decided to contact the candidates. John Edwards had already said that he wasn’t going to attend the debates. Sen. Clinton was waffling on the debates, she said that if the went on Fox they could reach more viewers. IIRC, that was Biden and Kucinich’s line too. Then Sen. Obama said that he wasn’t going to attend the debates. About 6 or 8 hours after Obama’s annoucement, Clinton announced that she wasn’t going to do the debates. Then the news cycle became “Clinton, Obama to withdraw from Fox Debates”. Very few of the news agencies mentioned that Clinton had waited for Obama to make a move.

    That was just one instance, but just about everything she did and said between May and Oct. was like that. She didn’t release anything until Obama did AND he got a good response. Is that leadership? To say one thing and then change your mind to what your opponent said just to say “me too”.?

    Gosh, I wish I could remember the vote. I’m thinking it was FISA. It was a big vote and Obama was on the campaign trail, but going back to DC to vote. Clinton was already in DC and you could see her on the floor. They ran the vote and she abstained and abstained. Time was getting short and Obama was still not on the floor. Aides rushed in to get his vote counted at the last minute. Her aides then ran up to get her vote counted after his. I watched all of that on CSPAN in utter disgust. It was a bill where Democrats should have shown solidarity and she waited until her opponent voted so she could say, “me too”.

    That’s not the sort of president I want or need. I already have an ineffective buffoon for a president. I don’t need one who can’t make a decision without seeing what others are going to do first.


Comments are closed.