Or, Why Do So Many Hillary Supporters Still Seem to Want to Elect McCain?

At one point it was reported that apparently as many as half of the 18 million who voted for Hillary Clinton were saying they won’t vote for Barack Obama. Since most who enthusiastically embraced the concept of a woman in the White House also still presumably embrace the bedrock concepts behind the Democratic Party, the Constitution, not to mention the Biblical Golden Rule, it is hard to understand what they have against Obama or in favor of McCain. Is it petulance, covert racism, or simple misinformation?

Let’s be generous and assume the latter. Misinformation is certainly a possible explanation. After all, a whole herd of gross distortions and deliberate lies thunder in daily to our tvs, radios and computers, loudly trumpeted in the what are known as “swift boat-style” ads and spam. Nevertheless, no matter how many times rumor mongers repeat it, Obama is NOT Muslim, NEVER was, and it shouldn’t matter anyway if freedom of religion actually means anything anymore in America.

There is abundant evidence to conclusively rebut the wild claims and thankfully Hillary herself never suggested otherwise. So, why then do many of her supporters keep mentioning Obama’s supposed Muslim roots or, even if they acknowledge he may “now” be a Christian, cite him for supposedly abandoning his “original” faith? Let us hope the die hard Clintonites recognize such baseless canards for what they are and note where such falsehoods are originating from before they endanger us all by continuing putting another disastrous Republican administration in power.

Other things being recited as reasons to disapprove Obama are not outright slander. They fall in the category of misleading half truths. It is true for instance that Obama, like almost everyone else who ever made it to the Senate, is significantly richer than you and I and has a somewhat more expensive house, which is apparently something that bothers the low and middle class voters who preferred Clinton over Obama. Fair enough, but why switch all the way over to favor McCain? After all, not only is Hillary and her hubby significantly richer than Obama, Obama was not born to privilege as an Admiral’s son like McCain. Anyone who has spent time in the military understands what that sort of privilege usually means in the way of special assistance and perks for family members of high ranking officers.

Moreover, Obama did not abandon an ill first wife like McCain did to trade up to a prettier one with such enormous inherited wealth that he can’t even seem to keep track of how many mansions they own these days outright. Is there any likelihood that you or I would not know instantly how many houses we owned? Better yet, any money Obama has seems to have been earned largely by his own efforts. In other words, Obama’s working class roots are far closer to Clinton’s than McCain’s is. Which is the better role model? Consequently, which candidate, Obama or McCain, would be more likely to better understand the legitimate concerns of the lower and middle class who are having aggressive war waged against them continuously by the uber rich like McCain? Is McCain going to champion the less fortunate? Hah. Surely you jest. McCain may occasionally look and dress like a high school football coach, but given that he proposes enacting a tax cut that would result in a permanent yearly benefit to his family approaching half a million dollars speaks for itself. Obama is proposing a tax cut too, but it is mainly for you and I, not the uber rich.

Look at the voting records. Except for the ineffective campaign finance law passed, McCain is against almost anything that would curtail the current voluminous transfer of wealth from the lower classes to the top 1%. While it is theoretically possible to be inheritance rich like Kennedy was and still act as an advocate for the poor, does any Clintonite seriously expect newly rich McCain to act like Kennedy? If not, then why do disgruntled Clintonites keeping naysaying Obama for being somewhat rich? By the way, have the Clintonites check out the bank balance of the Clintons lately?

Speaking of war, it is undeniably true that Obama did not serve in a war zone, although giving up cushy jobs in law firms to serve as a community organizer goes at least part of the distance. Besides, neither Hillary or her husband earned any combat infantry badges dodging bullets (except for that one supposed Bosnian incident). And of course, neither did any of today’s other leading Republicans except McCain.

Moreover, even as to war record, being a fighter jock who managed to get shot down instead of completing the mission is probably not what should recommend someone to run a huge bureaucracy like the federal government. While McCain does deserve some kudos for putting himself in harm’s way (unlike the current fearful leader in the White House who just likes to dress up in flight suits), the best military experienced Presidents tended to be administrators while serving their country in wartime, not those leading charges. Have the die hard Clintonites, who are now neo-McCainiacs, forgotten the greatest leaders of Democratic Party such as Franklin Roosevelt or, for that matter, Bill Clinton did not wear uniforms? Even if McCain has an arguable factual edge over Obama on this single issue of war record, why is that one issue outweighing everything else that once mattered to Clintonites?

The rest of the “complaints” cited by angry Clinton followers are even less viable as genuine reasons to harm Obama by favoring McCain. Take the “pointy headed intellectual” label being bandied about. Smart? Yeah okay. Unquestionably, Obama has more native brainpower than you or I, lots more apparently. Harvard is one of the two or three toughest law schools in the country to even get into. To be selected as editor of the Law Review while there is proof positive that he was one of the two or three brightest students in a class representing the best of the best of that generation. It is recognized that might seem intimidating to anyone who struggled in school. Still, wouldn’t it be nice though to finally have a President again who could speak English and would not embarrass us? To be fair, McCain seems brighter than the current occupant of that office. On the other hand, the comparable academic record between McCain and Obama is not even close. The undisputed fact is McCain was among the bottom of his class. He likely only got in and allowed to graduate because he was an Admiral’s son.

Rock star celebrity-ism? Arrogance for being filmed in front of phenomenally large crowds? Sort of an anti causecleb concept for which Obama should be knocked? Least we forget, nothing is more rock star centered than a carrier based jet pilot as evidenced by their Iceman, Ghost, Maverick monikers and jock demeanors. To be fair with five thousand men and a billion dollar ship there just to support a few dozen macho types like McCain during the Vietnam fighting could hardly produce anything else. So, why is that a reason to demean Obama when he shows some of the same signs. As for arrogance being a disqualification for the job, that would be nice in a perfect world, but it is almost a threshold criteria for running for the job. The job description is entitled these days: LEADER of the ENTIRE FREE WORLD. The latest claim seems to come down to Obama being more successful at it abroad and at home. Good grief. This particular excuse for choosing McCain is so silly, it does not bear further examination.

Similarly, should choice of leafy green veggies be the test for President? Should choice of booze? Should bowling ability? Haven’t we learned that selecting a President by who we would like to have a night out or party with is not a good idea? Besides, you have more chance of being eaten by a shark in Kansas than the possibility that McCain would want to spend anytime with you. And, what have you got against Arugula? They sell it at Safeway. It is a little tart and somewhat like eating weeds to my personal taste. On the other hand, I have never thought my personal taste in food should have any bearing on who deserves to be elected President. I can understand why the Clinton supporters might be disappointed, maybe even angrily and bitterly so. Yet, how can that possibly translate into Obama should not be President if the only other choice is McCain?

Of course, none of those issues just mentioned above, all ones so dear to frivolous Mainstream Media, are really what we should be using to select a President. Hillary fans would do themselves well to look instead at real issues, ones that matter or should matter to even white, beer drinking, bowling night, church going, workers, female or otherwise.

● Obama is the best and only chance we have to put some justices on the courts who believe Rowe v. Wade and female right of choice is the best choice. In light of the recent revelations the Republicans want to allow health workers to refuse even birth control assistance, four more years of any Republican whatsoever in the White House almost guarantees the death of any choice whatsoever, let alone abortion rights.

● Female rights and the distinction between Obama and McCain is not limited to just birth issues. McCain wants to give us glass slipper fairy tales or at least mukluk ones. Obama in contrast seems to worry about glass ceilings in the workplace. Have the Clintonites forgotten how McCain’s favorite Supreme Court Justice, the ones he wants to duplicate if President, just recently torpedoed a woman’s right to sue for equal pay for equal work? They said that if her unequal pay is successfully hidden from her for long enough, she loses the right to complain about it. Expect more of the same with McCain.

● As for saving those jobs in the first place (not to mention the accumulated pensions and bank deposits they earned) and keeping good paying jobs here in this county, Obama is the best and only chance we have to put some restraint on the rapaciousness of Republicans, lobbyists, CEOs and Wall Street by reimposing some regulations and rehiring honest regulators and by putting limits on sending it offshore. Will the Clitonites’ children be able to get any credit? Will they be able to get a home? The financial disasters of the Republican consistently uniform platforms have dumped the burden on Clintonites’ children and grandchildren, the ones who are not and never will be uber rich. Is that fairness? McCain thinks so.

● Doesn’t McCain think about the future generations at all? His campaign’s catchy slogan regarding our eternal oil addiction is a simplistic “Drill, Baby, Drill” which unfortunately translates simply into “Drain America’s Today” and save nothing. So what if consuming our pitiful 3% of the oil reserves we have puts us at the mercy of those with oil tomorrow? So what if burning hydrocarbons increases global warming and drowns some cities? Why bother to stop to think about consequences? Why bother to apply some long term common sense cost/benefit analysis?

● Obama is also the best and only chance we have to recapture some of the respect and trust the world once had in America and its ideals. That has already been shown in the reaction of the world populace, the world press and the world leaders to Obama’s travels. Surely that has value if a future presidency of Hillary is to be worth anything. Electing another old white guy is not going to do it. Why squander the chance and how does it help Hillary to not have a minority elected for the first time ever?

● War? Well, that is a disappointment about Obama, but at least he is not the one saying we must be there for 100 years at whatever cost to our troops, our treasury, our future, our credibility. Maybe Obama will move us out before we are told to leave with our tails between our legs. What an interesting irony that Bush cannot seem to get his force extension agreement signed by the “democratically elected” government he newly put in power.

● Supporting the troops? McCain says he likes the sound of that. It sounds “patriotic,” but despite all the sound and fury, when it comes to adequate equipment for those troops, adequate care for the wounded, living up to the education and other benefits promised as inducements, he is pretty quiet. And the record of his party is abysmal over the past several years on those things. Since Clintonites have sons, daughters, and spouses going into the “danger zone,” we need a loud fighter for those things.

● With the many other wars McCain wants to continue also comes a war on our Constitution. US sponsored torture, abandonment of the Geneva Conventions that protect our own troops as well, abandonment of bed rock principles such as spying without warrants, arrest without counsel or confrontation of supposed witnesses, jail forever without trial, human rights violations galore, both at home and abroad. Is that really what recalcitrant Clintonites really want to support?

● Moreover, death and destruction is not limited to that brought by bullets, bombs and waterboarding, there is death and disabilities from our environmental degradation for profit, our oil addiction, , housing, savings, and most certainly an almost broken health care system.

● Divisiveness has been the central theme of the McCain campaign. Wedge issues as usual. The list is long.

Between the minority voter intimidation, the deliberate voter misinformation being sent, the electronic vote machine hacking, and the Republican Supreme Court standing by to overturn the results again, the nation desperately needs the Hillary supporters to recognize their own future best interests and support the one candidate who believes what she does.

No comments: