I'm Switching From Edwards To Hillary Clinton, The Reasons Why
by jgarcia, Thu Aug 30, 2007 at 07:16:04 AM EDT
There are several reasons I am flipping, as of now, to supporting Hillary Clinton from John Edwards:
1. The first, and most prevalent reason is the shots that John Edwards and Elizabeth Edwards have been taking at Hillary Rodham Clinton.
2. The second reason, and I've been thinking about this since the LOGO debate, is I believe that Hillary simply likes gay people. Period. And, thus, I have a lot of confidence that she would do the most of any of the top-tier candidates to help us.
3. The final reason - and, yes, this is kind of petty and relates, to a lesser extent to reason number one - is all the vitriol this woman receives here and on all the rest of the liberal blogs. I'm fucking tired of it. And, I am sorry, but a lot of it is tinged with misogyny.
the analysis below the fold
1. This is self-explanatory. The final straw was just now when I read the Time piece about the Edwardses and their attacks on Hillary. I'm sorry, but I don't like it when one of our own (Elizabeth, whom I actually adore and respect immensely) states and, thus reinforces, the GOP meme that Hillary will drive up GOp turnout. I find this funny, especially considering that John Edwards was on our ticket in 2004 in the single greatest turnout in the history of US wingnuts. Everyone knows, including Rove, that running in a time of Bush and the GOP at an above 50% approval, a war that still was not, on the whole, unpopular as it is now, and against an "effete, French-looking, Vienam protester from the People's Republic of Massachusetts (their words, not mine). There's not going to suddenly be some hillbilly racists wingnut who never bothered to vote in his entire life (including 2004), who is now suddenly going to learn how to read, get registered, and actually vote because Hillary is on the ballot. Not. gonna. happen. The numbers just aren't there.
But even aside from that, whether she wins or loses is immaterial for this point. I don't appreciate the damaging of the Democratic brand that what the Edwardses are saying accomplishes.
2. And this is perhaps my favorite because it is purely positive.
Go to youtube.com and find where Hillary explains the DOMA situation to the LOGO audience at their forum. In the talk she deftly explained that, WITHOUT DOMA, the anti-gay forces would have had enough votes to have had the Federal Marriage Amendment pass the Republican-controlled Congress by the necessary 2/3 back in 1996. And, by now, it surely would have been ratified by the 3/4 of the state legislatures and would now be part of the goddam US Constitution. Remember, we have come a long way since 1996. Also remember that the president has no say at all in the constitutional amendment process.
Think about it. Even Hawaii passed a definition of marriage law in 1998. 3/4 of state legislatures would have been a slamdunk. And the 2/3 congressional majority was a slamdunk as well. I remember counting the votes because I paid attention then and was actively involved then as I am now. Back then, the FMA would have been on fire. And Gingrich and Delay had even threatened it.
It is revisionist history set up by the purists and Clinton-haters to say that Bill sold us down the river with DOMA. But politics is very complicated. And, though no one on our side will never thank them for it, I say, thank god for the Clintons and DOMA because if it wasn't for that, we would right now, in 2007, be trying to get Pelosi and Reid to propose ANOTHER amendment that would try and REPEAL the prior anti-gay marriage one. Do you know how hard that'd be? Impossible. We still don't have the votes for a 2/3 pro-gay majority. We'd be fighting trying to get a constitutional amendment through. But now, thankfully, my marriage in Massachusetts is fucking protected. Stop thinking and deciding shit in soundbites, fellow gays!
Bill nearly squandered ALL his political capital in 1993 trying to lift the ban on gays in the military. He was badly burned by that, and had hoped that DADT would be a better compromise, leading to better things. It WAS a step forward, albeit a small one. It was the REPUBLICANS and military who turned it into the failure it now is.
Bill was the first president to even realize that gays existed. Things take time and look how far we've gotten just since then. We've gone from Bill Clinton being the first president to have anything about gays in his platform to having a presidential debate solely on gay issues on a gay network with his wife having the best showing.
Any Democrat who truly came out and said they supported gay marriage would give the election to the Repugs.
The insane Hillary venom being spewed never ever mentions how it is indeed the federal courts that usher in major civil rights changes...NOT the legislature, be it state or federal. And the Courts are the appropriate place for deciding civil rights, inherent in the 14th Am to the constitution, because civil rights should never be subject to the whim of an elected legislative body.
3. This one is, like I said before, self-explanatory. Let this be a lesson to the Hillary-haters: You do WAY WAY WAY more harm than good attacking one of our own and you turn people like me who are on the fence, TOWARDS that person.
Here's a word of warning for primary season:
If someone like me, who is a high-intensity rabid progressive and political junkie gets turned-off and supports the OPPOSITE of the smears directed against a candidate, don't you think that the independent voters, who HATE negative politics would do the same? Think about it.
Btw, this is to bruh21: In accordance with how I feel about your great diary the other day, I decided to add the horserace element to the bigtime need to somehow get back to at least a small modicum of actual - GASP - issue discussion. :)
Oh, and I still love John Edwards. Afterall, he's a plaintiff's attorney just like me.