ihcoyc: (Vote for Me!)
DL wrote:
Wait a minute! You couldn't vote for Gore because you didn't like his
wife? Really?

Absolutely. I knew Tipper Gore to be a common scold who deserved a dunk in the cucking-stool, and a thoroughly repulsive human being. She spoke on issues I care about. She spoke on them in a way not too distinguishable from Republicans of the time.

(Bear in mind that the Republican Party of fifteen years ago was not identical to the current outfit, either.)

You couldn't vote for Gore because you didn't like his running mate? Really?

Seriously, the thought of Joe Lieberman being a heartbeat away from the White House and being able to influence Middle East policy was genuinely scary.

And he still was the V-Chip guy as well. Maybe you don't remember the V-Chip. It remains utterly evil: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V-Chip

Did you look at Gore's positions on key issues? Did you contrast those positions with the Republican option? Do you still feel that we were better off with Bush? Do you really think that we were better off with Laura Bush as First Lady? Well, perhaps you do. You are entitled. If so, I can't imagine our having a fruitful political discussion in the ongoing campaign.

Actually, I voted for Harry Browne. Then again, Indiana seldom gets a say in who is elected President, and a protest vote is as good as any. It remains the case that it's up to the Democrat candidate to persuade me to vote for them rather than to cast a protest vote.

And with that in mind, let's consider what Hillary Clinton was telling the world during the leadup to the Bush/Gore election:

"As part of a "zero tolerance" policy for weapons, drugs, and other threats to the safety of teachers and students, the President signed an executive order decreeing that any student that comes to school with a gun will be expelled and punished as a condition for federal aid."

—Hillary Clinton, -It Takes a Village- (1996), p. 126

"The 1994 Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act... stopped the revolving door for career criminals with its "three strikes and you're out" provision."

—It Takes a Village, p. 126

"Twenty-five thousand new police officers are being trained, with the goal of adding seventy-five thousand more by the end of the decade."

—It Takes a Village, p. 126

"After many years of working with and listening to American adolescents, I don’t believe they are ready for sex or its potential consequences--parenthood, abortion, sexually transmitted diseases--and I think we need to do everything in our power to discourage sexual activity and encourage abstinence."

—It Takes a Village, p. 149

"Casual attitudes towards marijuana and minors’ access to cigarettes raise the likelihood that teenagers will make a sad progression to more serious drug use & earlier sexual activity."

—It Takes a Village, p. 152

"Some critics of public schools urge greater competition among schools as a way of returning control from bureaucrats to parents and teachers. I find their argument persuasive and I favor promoting choice among public schools, much as the President’s Charter Schools Initiative encourages."

—It Takes a Village, p. 244

So 1999-vintage Hillary Clinton endorsed:

- Zero tolerance policies
- Three strikes laws and other tools of mass incarceration
- Police buildup and surveillance
- Sexual abstinence
- Drug war on pot smokers
- "School choice"

And Hillary had not changed her bullshit ten years ago, either, when she sponsored a bill for video game censorship. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Family_Entertainment_Protection_Act

I'll give her a chance to prove she's changed her ways, by rejecting all of this crap she embraced in 1996 and 2005. But she will never generate trust, much less enthusiasm. And I am heartily glad that she was not on the ballot in 2008.

Al Gore's problem was that he came from the same wing of the Democratic Party as his shrew of a wife and V-Chip Lieberman. And at least in 1996 Hillary Clinton was down with the program as well.

So yes, exactly that: at least in 2000, I didn't see enough light between Gore and Bush on many issues I cared about to be persuaded even to hold my nose and vote for Gore.

And if the Democrats nominate Hillary, out here in Indiana where our votes don't count for much anyway, I'll probably vote for someone else in 2016 as well.
ihcoyc: (Default)
You have to admit that this 39 year old story about a much younger Hillary Clinton and her professional victory is a well crafted piece of political attack theater.

Apparently she represented a criminal defendant accused of raping a 14 year old girl, and got him pled down to a five year sentence, four suspended. At some time not too long after that, she was interviewed by somebody, and remembered the case as a victory for her. As well she might, and as she surely is entitled to.

In 2014, this gets trotted out "Believe the Victims" style. Somebody digs out this taped interview. We learn that in the 1980s, Hillary still had an accent that could curdle milk. Now, this professional success story is spun as an "attack" on the "victim" because she dared to question her credibility as a witness. Hint: it's part of doing the job.

What interests me, of course, is the lesson we get in the essential vacuousness and insincerity of cant. "Why aren't you guys giving this rape victim a voice?" Eyeroll. #YesAllWomen, eyeroll. @AmandaMarcotte, eyeroll. Yes, it's a relatively convincing put-on, recognizing that this is the kind of odd phrase that might occur to One of Them. All is interpreted through a subjectivizing framework in which social influence versus marginalization is the only dynamic that counts.

You'll notice how little sense it makes in context. Whatever the alleged victim's problem was forty years ago, it had nothing at all to do with being denied a "voice". No one is allowed to conscript your attention in any case. And it certainly doesn't have anything to do with the current situation, in which her stale charges that melted under scrutiny have been picked up by the right wing noise machine.

I don't know how it came to pass that Hillary Clinton became the great vessel of the hopes of American womanhood. I would prefer that the Democratic nominee be someone other than her. This has nothing to do with her sex, and much to do with the fact that her husband was a weak and ineffective president. I know she was the brains of the outfit; they still strike me as unprincipled opportunists. After Bill, the only Clinton I'd vote for is George.

So why do they have to make me like Hillary more than I want to with this stunt?


ihcoyc: (Default)

November 2018

25 2627282930 


RSS Atom

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Apr. 21st, 2019 03:09 pm
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios