why I'm not voting for Clinton

Firstly, it's the sleazy and incompetent way that Hillary Clinton has mismanaged her campaign. If she can't run a campaign, how can she run a country?? Remember when she was the "inevitable" candidate?? Even though she started off with the most money and being way ahead in all the polls, she somehow managed to blow it. Now that Obama has won more states and more pledged delegates, Clinton is trying to change the rules, by trying to get Michigan and Florida seated, and suing Texas because Obama got more delegates after their caucus. She refuses to release her income taxes and the records documenting her actions as First Lady. She keeps trying to play the refs by scolding the media.

Members of her camp, including her husband, have repeatedly tried to inject race into the campaign. Clinton staffers have been caught with emails saying that Obama is a muslim. Then there was that picture. She claims that she is the one with national security experience. The reality is that neither her nor Obama have that experience. The implication being that Obama cannot be trusted because he's black, and perhaps some kind of secret-muslim Manchurian candidate.

Now both her and her husband are inferring that Obama will be her choice for Vice President, in a deceitful attempt to get Obama supporters to stay home. Although, I admit it takes large nardicles for the second-place candidate to talk about offering the first-place candidate the second-place position.

So does this mean she thinks Obama has enough experience to be President, but only if she is dead?? I could live with that. Up until now, every President who has been assassinated has been a man...

Now, before anyone accuses me of being sexist -- which seems to be the knee-jerk reaction of her supporters whenever anyone criticizes her about anything -- I would like to make clear that Hillary's ability to engage in vicious political attacks and distort the issues is every bit equal to a man. More specifically, it's equal to one man. And that man is Bill Clinton.

Yet her campaign keeps making the argument that if you don't support Clinton, then it's because she is a woman. They accused Obama of being "disrespectful of women" for allegedly snubbing her at the SOTU. Unfortunately, he seemed to take the bait, and was too "respectful" in the next debate. She keeps whining that that media is treating her unfairly because she is a woman. She cried to win the woman vote in New Hampshire. The National Organization of Women, and other women's groups, equate not supporting Hillary with attacking all women. An article, "Senator Kennedy Betrays Women by Not Standing For Hillary Clinton for President" claimed "Women have just experienced the ultimate betrayal." Although my favorite is entitled "Psychological Gang Bang of Hillary is Proof We Need a Woman President"

Clinton supporters repeatedly made bogus attacks on Obama's voting record on abortion, even though he voted against requiring medical care for aborted fetuses who survive, and had a 100% rating from the Illinois Planned Parenthood Council for his support of abortion rights, family planning services, and health insurance coverage for female contraceptives. Not that I agree with all those things, but trying to insinuate that he isn't pro-choice is utterly ludicrous.

So how about a candidate who actually supports women?? Actions speak louder than words. Hillary viciously attacked all these women who came forward after her husband molested them. Where was "the personal is political" then?? As usual, her actions were purely political, and utterly devoid of principle. When did Obama or McCain ever defend someone who sexually abused women??

I have nothing against a woman becoming president, but I would want a woman who got there on her own merits -- not by marriage. Hillary road her husband's coat tails into the Senate after she allegedly made some sort of deal with him after he got caught cheating on her, and now she gets her husband to do her dirty work on the campaign trail. That doesn't sound very liberated. Further, rich white women are not now, nor ever were, an oppressed group in this country. As such, I would rather see any reasonably-qualified black person become president than Hillary Clinton.

Meanwhile, no one in the Obama camp, or afaik any major black organization, has made the same argument -- that if you don't support Obama, then it's because he is black. Overall, Obama has done an exceptional job at running a most respectable campaign.


Secondly, while I admit that McCain is sorely lacking as an old-school conservative, both he and Clinton are essentially neo-cons. They both have consistently taken the liberal-fascist pro-corporate position. In her support of the military-industrial complex, this is what she had to say about Iraq:

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members,"

Clinton only cares about power. She is purely political, and has never taken an unpopular principled position on anything. Here is a sample of her voting record:

1. US War Crimes Exemption from International Courts (HR 3338) -- Hillary: Yes
2. Help America Vote Act of 2002 to Increase Voting (HR 3295) -- Hillary: No
3. Healthy Forests Restoration Act of 2003 (HR 1904) -- Hillary: No
4. Bush's No Child Left Behind (Bill Number: HR 1) -- Hillary: Yes
5. Prescription Drug Benefit for Medicare (Bill Number: S 1) -- Hillary: No
6. Military Force in Iraq (Bill Number: H J Res 114) -- Hillary: Yes
7. Patriot Act (USA Patriot Act of 2001) -- Hillary: Yes
8. Kyl-Lieberman Declaring Iran Military Terrorists (S Amdt 3017) -- Hillary: Yes

So it's not like she is a pacifist or social liberal. She is Dick Cheney in a pants suit.

Based on their voting records, Obama is ranked higher than both Clinton and McCain on civil liberties, the environment , and technology.

So, why would I pick McCain over Clinton?? Well, as a "compassionate libertarian", none of the candidates agree with me on principle. Imho, a moderate is someone who stands for nothing and accomplishes less. So if I had to choose between the two, McCain seems like a more honest, fair-minded, level-headed person. Sure, McCain is grumpy and easily annoyed, but at least when he gets angry, his voice doesn't get all shrill and screechy. I do not want to have to listen to the annoying and grating machinations of Hillary Clinton's tortured larynx for the next four to eight years. If she gets elected, perhaps they should pass a law that she has to take up smoking or wrap her throat in a hot towel or something. McCain also has vastly more experience than Clinton. If the phone rings at 3 AM, I would rather have him answer it. Who knows what her voice sounds like when she first wakes up. The person on the other end might decide to just hang up.

(Btw, the little girl in the that ad is now 17 and an Obama supporter. Apparently, the Clinton campaign has to rely on old stock footage, after Hillary tried luring several actual children into a gingerbread house ;)


For as long as I've been able to vote, a Bush or a Clinton has been on the ticket. I've had enough with the nepotism. There should not only be a term limit on presidents, but on their immediate families. If Clinton wins, the other countries are going to think we have two royal families. (Otoh, I think Obama's background will actually improve our image in other countries -- most of the world isn't white.)

On the Democratic side, it's either Obama or the drama. And I've had enough with the drama. I've already had to put up with eight years of Clinton shenanigans,. I don't want her horny hillbilly husband running around loose in the White House, up to who knows what. The last time at least he had a job to keep him busy. For all we know, there will another scandal after she gets caught having lesbian sex on top of her desk in the Oval Office. Who needs it?? Remember, these are the same childish asshats who took all the "W"'s off the White House keyboards when they left office.

I find the whole idea of "co-presidency" quite disturbing. Having the first woman President, which is something I would support otherwise, would be new and complicated enough, without compounding it the peculiar circumstance of her husband being a former President. Try to imagine Hillary's inauguration, with Bill holding the Bible for her as she is being sworn into office. There is just something wrong with that picture.

While I don't think it's possible that McCain can be any worse than Bush -- especially in terms of competence, it's the Democrats who need a change more than the Republicans. Perhaps, if Obama is elected, he can bring regular working class people -- the majority of Americans that the Democrats have abandoned -- back into the process, and move his party away from the limousine liberals and special interest groups that dominate it now. If he can win back some of the South, and win states in the Midwest, it would break up this red state/blue state divide that the pundits have tried to fix in stone. Further, if Clinton wins, as the incumbent she is almost sure to get the nomination in 2012. If McCain wins, at least the Democrats will have the opportunity to run someone else.

If Obama wins the nomination, I'm voting for Obama.

If Clinton steals the nomination, I'm voting for McCain.