The Question Now Is …

Will Hillary pull a Lieberman on us and run a third party ticket? At first blush, the answer is obviously no, but as I thought about it, about her rabid supporters who don’t know squat about her stands on issues, about her own quixotic refusal to bow to reality, about her flaming ambition, I thought maybe … just maybe.

She’s a Clinton. She’ll do anything.

This brings up the obvious question – I supported Ralph Nader in 2000 against conservative Democrats Al Gore and Joe Lieberman. Isn’t it the same? Wasn’t Ralph just an egotist?

Well, no, not quite. Ralph was doing something that Democrats just don’t seem to understand – he was trying to bargain with the right wing of his party, to take his small cadre of supporters and leverage them to force the hand of Gore – to make him take leadership on liberal causes. Nader had ten planks in his platform – had Gore chosen to take leadership on just one … Gore was stubborn to then end. I think it was his ego made him so …

Hillary is different. She’s not about principled stands on issues. She and Obama differ very little on anything – a fact overlooked my most Democrats. (They could be triangulatin’ on us again.) What is Hillary’s ’cause’? What does she believe in? She’s taken more money from the health care sector than any candidate of either party, so she ain’t about fixing health care. She voted for the war in Iraq, even as contrary facts were available to her … if only she could listen to dissent. She now claims it was a mistake … what else is she going to say when the public says it was a mistake? But does she mean it? She was very much behind NAFTA when she was First Lady, now says she opposed it. Convenience store politics, anyone? Her support of NAFTA has been marked down! A sale! A sale!

Oh, I know the Democratic mantra – I’ll chant along with you. Yeah, she’s not all that, but ‘marginally’, she’s better…’marginally’, hummmmmm …she’s better…hummmm … ‘marginally’, she’s better…’marginally’ …. Some have said to me that I just don’t understand politics – that you have to work in increments, take small victories. You can’t win big. Oh, I get all of that, and I would vote for Hillary for one reason only – she would likely appoint pro-abortion judges. That’s a marginal point.

Point is, I don’t trust her. I know I’m conflating two personalities, but I don’t trust her husband either. I’ll never forget that he wanted to privatize Social Security, that he was working behind the scenes to make that happen. I’ll never forget his starving of 500,000 Iraqi kids, of his eight years of bombardment and harassment of people in that country.

I was deeply involved in environmental causes back when he was president. There was a bill before the congress called “salvage logging” (since renamed “Healthy Forests”). It was an attempt by the logging barons to get into roadless lands they previously had not been able to access. It was bad policy run through a public relations firm, as most initiatives are. Clinton was against it. He unified us, he had us all in one place … “not gonna sign it….not gonna sign it … not gonna sign it …” – the bastard signed it. The environmental community was up in arms – I think it was this, and his sellout on northern spotted owl lands (done incrementally … step by step…) and the sellout to Charles Hurwitz in California (with critical support from Diane Feinstein) that convinced Clinton that he had better do something glitzy to pacify environmentalists, who were not trusting him anymore.

He came up with some form to hide his ugly substance – he decided to take some marginal issues and make them his cause celebre – we got monuments. Gutted forests, and monuments on marginal lands. Oh, and before he left office, he lowered the arsenic standard for drinking water, probably knowing full well that Bush would reverse him. (He did.) And he attempted to protect roadless lands, knowing full well that Bush would reverse him. (He did.) He had eight years to do these things, and decided to cram it all into his last few months. Symbolism, anyone? False leadership? Manipulation?

That’s how Democrats work. They need our support, but they can’t give us substance. But they are clever. They know how to manipulate. Clinton was at best, at best, a moderate Republican. I look at his Iraq record, his unprovoked attack on Serbia, and I say he was a rabid right winger on foreign policy. But give him the benefit. A moderate Republican.

Now comes Hillary. What’s different? Has she led on any progressive issues? Well, one thing – she wants to corporatize the health care system and expand private insurance which is at the heart of the problem, and this is passing for reform. When we needed her on Iraq, where was she? When we needed leadership to block bad judges, did she do more than vote? Did she rally her fellows, form a voting bloc, put up stiff resistance? Did she lead? She could have stopped Alito – dynamic leaders do ths – they make deals, inspire, form coalitions. They do more than cast symbolic votes.

Nah – she voted no, made a nice little speech – she totally Baucused on us.

And that’s my problem with Hillary. She’s not about coalitions, or organizing, or taking public opinion and making it into a political force. She’s about Hillary. Period. And if she’s anything like her husband, there will be that incremental progress that Democrats love to brag about. The only problem is that it will be for the other side. She’s not one of us. She’s a faux-liberal, a crypto-conservative.

Will she run a third party candidacy? Not likely, but I wouldn’t put it past her. I wouldn’t put anything past her.