Why I Won't Vote for Hillary in '08

The 2008 presidential race has started already, with a huge number of candidates on each side vying for their party's nomination. That's disturbing. All the people who have declared their intentions to run are currently serving as elected officials. Call me crazy, but I'd rather they actually did the job they were elected to do rather than spend all their time campaigning for a better one. However, I'm rather pleased to see that John Kerry opted out this year. If he couldn't muster enough votes to beat Bush last time around, I doubt he'd be able to pull it off this time. It's already clear that the race for Democratic nomination is going to come down to Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. It says a lot about how far we've come culturally that the leading contenders for the Democratic nomination are both minorities, but it brings up some very real questions about their chances to succeed. It's true that as long as Bush is leaving the White House there will be cause for celebration no matter who wins, but the damage that he is leaving the country with will need to be repaired. So the big question becomes, who is up to the job of damage control after eight years of maniacal scheming and colossal blunders? It isn't Hillary Clinton. Now don't get me wrong, I *want* to support her. I would love to see a woman win the presidency for the first time in history. But, she's not the right woman to be the first female president.

I've always considered myself a liberal politically. I grew up listening to my older liberal siblings argue with my conservative parents and was convinced by their arguments for liberalism. I was confused when my mother walked out at my sister's graduation from college because my sister wore a black armband in support of the Pro-Choice movement. Since we were financially at the lower end of Middle Class the financial aid initiatives that the Democrats fought for had a direct impact on my life, especially on my ability to go to college. I've worked more than my share of low-wage jobs and know all too well the perilousness of living without health insurance and living paycheck to paycheck. I've always identified with the socioeconomic class that the Democrats claimed to be trying to help. I protested whatever came down the pipe, I lived in Madison, WI - a supposed bastion of liberalism. I've voted in every election that I was eligible to vote in. I have studied and continue to study our political process. I support rights for immigrant workers. I believe everyone should have access to health care and make a living wage at their jobs. I'm Pro-Choice. I am un-apologetically, vehemently against the Iraq War.

But, as many others have , I've become distrustful of the Democrat's motives because of their catering to special interest groups relentlessly kissing the asses of their White, Upper Middle Class, educated base. People have said for years that there's really no difference between Republicans and Democrats but that no third party candidates would ever have a realistic chance of winning because they don't have the money and influence of powerful PACs and special interest groups behind them. And they're right about that.

The current issue of Mother Jones magazine features an article on Hillary Clinton. I've noticed that a lot of the mainstream news media are favoring her as the person who will win the Democratic nomination, I hope they're wrong. The article hints at some salient questions, such as Do we hold a different standard of acceptability for minority political candidates? Do we hold them to a different standard? The news media focuses frequently on Hillary's clothes, hairstyle, and personal life. The NY Times even put its venerable investigative journalists to work trying to figure out how many times Hillary and Bill have sex each month. ( Try to get *that* image out of your head and sleep tonight ) Frankly, I don't give a rat's ass how many times they have sex. I didn't see a similar article trying to extrapolate the intimacy schedule of any of the other (male) presidential hopefuls....The article's author, Jack Hitt, has coined a phrase for "Hillary Hating" worthy of Stephen Colbert himself: "Hillarating". Hillary's popularity ratings as a candidate right now are pretty much split between positive and negative. As many journalists have pointed out, she's been an active political player for the last 15 years. That's a lot of name recognition, and a lot of baggage. People either love her, or hate her. Personally, if she wins the Democratic nomination there would be a real possibility I'd vote Republican for the first time in my life. Jack also theorizes in his article that Hillary would probably draw some more Moderate Conservative women voters who would approve of her staying with Bill after the Monica scandal and approve of her Moderate Liberal policies. He could be right, who knows?

But he's way off base when it comes to this woman, and I slightly resent his implications that women will vote for Hillary out of "sisterhood" and the desire to see a woman president. I also think he's wrong. American culture has changed, and the way we view politics has changed. Technology and legislation have squeezed the Middle Class almost out of existence and that means a changing of attitudes when it comes to politics. While the people on the lowest rungs of the socio-economic ladder will usually not have the leisure to dally in politics as they struggle to feed themselves and their families and live indoors there is a whole new group of downwardly mobile but educated and entitled refugees from Middle Class occupying a new niche in the social strata of this country. And we don't care about Hillary's new haircut or sex life, we are not confused by political double speak, we understand the intricacies of the American political system and the influence of the special interest groups and we want are not going to be convinced to support a candidate based on click political advertising and catch phrases. It was very hip of you to declare your intentions to run on the Internet Hillary, but what I'd like to "chat" about is why you refuse to admit any responsibility in voting for the Iraq war? John Edwards has stepped up and said he was wrong to vote for the war, Senator Obama has always been vocal in his opposition to the war. Why can't you just admit you made a mistake? Don't tell me you were lied to, we were all lied to You were elected to serve the people. You should know better. You are there to protect us from being lied to, and drawn into immoral wars that are fought for personal agendas. If you can't do that, why we should trust you with the presidency?

Hillary has a long history of political ambition, and she's succeeded far more than many thought she would. But with the changing of the cultural structure it will take more than a good publicist, her billion dollar war chest, and sound bytes to win the election. Hillary is an Old School politician and the recent mid-term elections proved that the American people are fed up with the Old School and have decided it's time for a change. I hope that during my lifetime we will elect a female president, but she is the wrong person to be president. We need a president who can be trusted, who has no personal agendas and is not running solely because of personal ambition. We need a president who can mend broken foreign policy bridges and repair our battered reputation in the world. We need a president who can enact real social reform and see long term to prevent our economy from further collapse.