Two ideological confrere. I am certain Senator Clinton will vote for the Vietnam war criminal, John McCain, Republican of Arizona, who initially opposed the Martin Luther King Jr national holiday. Why not run with him?
Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton ran a campaign that disgraced the nation and hopefully will shame her reputation and drive her permanently off the national stage. Her vote for the Iraq War was a politically calculated move either to pacify the Israel lobby and Jewish voters in New York-although many Jews opposed the war-or to Thatcherise herself for a pending presidential run. I believe this action more than anything else destroyed her prospects for winning the Democratic party nomination. It allowed Senator Barack Obama to register quite poignantly the issue of change to a war-weary public.
Senator Clinton’s declaratory policy of destroying Iran’s civilian population if the nation were to attack Israel-a major nuclear power-with atomic weaponry was utterly gratuitous and shameful. Such a threat debased her claim to moral authority, revealed her lack of judgment in major national security matters and linked her lack of vision to the traditional themes of empire, war, American exceptionalism and indiscriminate use of force.
Her racist remarks and that of her husband, President Bill Clinton, were not what one would have anticipated from a Democratic candidate much less from the first “black president.” I have never heard a candidate directly appeal to white voters even though there have been candidates and presidents less inclined to promote racial harmony than the New York senator. Her comment that she deserved the nomination because only she could attract the “hard-working Americans, white Americans” was an appeal to our worst tendencies: that her race, as opposed to her opponent’s, could be leveraged for political purposes and used by the superdelegates to annoint her as their presidential candidate.
Her refusal to drop out of the race even as she lost the majority of the pledged delegates revealed the hypocrisy of her purported “populism.” Her beer and a chaser photo-ops and supposed champion of rural, Appalachian, “hard working” European Americans apparently did not extend to Demcratic Party voters who had sealed the nomination for Senator Obama after the Indiana and North Carolina primary evening. She then appealed to the elites–the elected officials and Democratic party hacks–who gave us this inchoate and unruly electoral process to choose her over Senator Obama despite his electoral victory in the primaries and caucuses. Her claim of having an electoral-vote majority was equally dishonest in that she counted Michigan where Senator Obama, in playing by the rules, decided not to have his name on the ballot. She left hers on although she did not campaign in the breakaway state that scheduled its primary before Super Tuesday (Feburary 5, 2008).
She does not need sympathy. She does not need to be coddled. What I saw in her New York speech the day Senator Obama secured the nomination on June 3 is proof of that. No concession, a continuous campaign, scant praise for the senator from Illinois who defeated her in an epic primary marathon. I believe the Democrats would lose with her on the ticket–both their moral authority and the election. An African-American and a woman cannot win in this country and on that point I do not err. Senator Obama must select a progressive white male or he will lose. If he must select a woman, there are several who do not have the stain of militarism, dishonour and racism on their political and moral reputation. Examples would be the fresh face of a Senator Claire McCaskill of Missouri or a governor such as Kathleen Sibelius of Kansas. If he needed a more experienced woman as his running mate, he could indeed consider one of Maine’s two Republcian senators–Olympia Snowe or Susan Collins. Their vote for war is egregious but perhaps a pragmatic choice to get Sen. Obama into the White House. In any case he need not select such an unworthy and polarising figure such as Senator Clinton.