I do not want Hillary Clinton to be the Democratic nominee. I know there is an "anyone but Bushie" sentiment out there, but we need to have higher standards. Why have a primary, after all? And, my stance against her is not skin deep. We have an opportunity here to truly turn the corner, the depths of an alcoholic who finally admits s/he really has a problem, and we need to seize the opportunity. Lower expectations might be a funny Mad TV skit, but it shouldn't be our watchword.
I said this for at least a couple years now, and it is felt on a quite emotional basis along with various pragmatic concerns. I did not vote for her husband in the 1992 primary ... my choice didn't survive his presidency, so perhaps it suggests my usual penchant for questionable choices. He had various things going for him, but also various things against him ... and HC doesn't have the same likability factor while having the same (if not more) distaste against flavor. She has the stink of establishment that makes "centrist" feel like a bad word. Her stance on Iraq has been dubious. I don't want another "well I obviously have to support x since you know s/he is basically on our side, even if we rather have some other candidate ... and look at the alternative."
[In a fashion, this sort of thing only underlines her presumptive front-runner status, and also helps her anti-administration bona fides. To the degree some think she can be beaten, is it really a bad thing to do this? IOW, can this sort of attack -- with the plausible deniability tossed in -- be wickedly productive for Republicans? Reasonable, I think.]
And, I simply don't want two families to control the presidency for 16-20 years. Oh, and I like the other two options in various ways, so there are good alternatives.* [As a protest vote, for instance, Nader was not a great choice in 2000.] Finally, she is doing fine enough -- though there probably is a better representative of N.Y. than her or the self-righteous one -- as senator. But, some have for awhile deemed her the presumptive nominee. This is poisonous since it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. Also, there is a feeling that her competition will be Rudy G. Many wonder how that would be possible, but I'm not so ready to dismiss such a race. Sounds so depressing ... I can see the tabloidish b.s. sort of coverage now. Not that I like any of the Republican nominees, though a Hagel might be credible (there is always the chance he'd be too credible).
[Talking about credible, some gave respect to people like Rep. Shays (R-CT) for his middle of the road approach. But, push comes to shove, they are WINOs.]
Still ... here past knowledge brings with it additional contempt. The kind -- as a book by former supporter Ed Koch suggests -- is basically a bit of an asshole. This is not a good first step, especially with his authoritarian side. You got a Bushie two-fer there, though -- up to a point -- Rudy is somewhat more credible on the side of running a government. The qualify needs to be emphasized as suggested by the opposition by a top fire department organization and the seminal book on the man by a Village Voice reporter, Wayne Barrett. I personally respected his face time on 9/11 ... there is something to be said for a strong presence at times like that, and the other guy failed big time in that department. But, that should not give him a pass ... including his less than stellar record in related situations, including placing a command center across the street from the towers.
But, the Republican Party is all about image, also shown in the Fred Thompson campaign ... even if he is a former lobbyist, actor and so forth. Ironically, a party who doesn't appear to believe in a right to privacy acts like the rest of us should honor it when it comes to their candidates (suffice to say both Rudy and Fred's personal life is not too "conservative" in nature ... though the whole "married to your cousin" stuff is tedious ... it wasn't his first cousin etc.). And, surely the internal goings on of the office, including acting President (for a few hours) Dick "one of my many hats as a separate branch" Cheney. This is best shown by the back to the future (1985 release) honoring of Ronald Reagan. Image over everything.
An AP piece examined Rudy's stance on judicial nominees. First, we see he takes a Stephen Douglas "don't care" stance on Roe ... it can stand up on precedent, or fall, he doesn't really care. He is "pro choice" in the respect that the "right" can be removed by local governments. There is a word for something that is supplied at the sufferance of the government ... it is called a "privilege," and not of the sort secured by the Fourteenth Amendment ("privileges and immunities"). Rudy supports "Second Amendment" rights,** honoring the D.C. ruling, which appears to suggest he doesn't think localities -- his past views respecting NYC aside -- can have such laws either. As to "making it up," the D.C. ruling's reasoning was not really totally free of that.
Finally, his model for nominees are Roberts and Alito. They don't make things up ... except things like implying those behind Brown, though they weren't crude enough to include Thurgood Marshall here, would have supported the school ruling last month. No litmus tests though. Except for the ones that will be there. Typical Republican Party flavor ... support of precedent, or rather, the image of it.
---
* I have voiced my support of Edwards, but am willing to be go on the Obama bandwagon ... especially if time lets him grow on me. The support of people like human rights advocate Samantha Powers surely helps. I really like Elizabeth Edwards and find some of the negative coverage of her husband aggravating. For instance, with all the talk of his haircuts and such, why don't we hear about his mill town origins? He surely talks about it a lot -- it isn't just b.s., he really is a self-made man. Or, the cute tradition of Edwards having an anniversary meal at a fast food restaurant? Or, EE's military family background. BTW, my mother isn't much for expenses, but she noted her haircut costs around $75.
** There is this idea that Democrats do not honor the "Second Amendment," though this obviously means that they do not support a certain individual rights view of the provision. But, this too is dubious, since the top presidential candidates in 2004 supported that latter view.
Since even free speech can be regulated any number of ways, support of regulations does not change this. After all, even the NRA doesn't think everyone has the right to have any firearm ... though they are loathe to specify the exceptions. I think it would be useful to clearly underline this point, perhaps by a constitutional ruling, since the alternative is a stereotypical view of the "gun rights" party.