With a twinge of regret, The Furious Offices of The Angry Czeck cannot endorse Hillary Clinton’s candidacy for the White House. Not with what I know.
And what I know is that Mrs. Clinton is no Mr. Clinton. And while some say that’s a good thing, I contend that those who find Hillary to be an acceptable President are either desperate for a return of the 1990s, or are simply overly enamored with the idea of a female president.
Thing is, I’m enamored with the idea of a female president. I’d like to see how this country is lead by a woman. I believe women have already earned their bones in the arena of leadership, considering nations like Britain, Israel, and even Chili have made made this gender transition with great success. A woman’s hands on the helm would lead us to a prosperous direction.
I’m just not enamored with the idea of Hillary.
If I simply counted the reasons, I’d approach numbers close to the Bush Administration’s proposed federal budget. Rather, I’ll relate a couple points of Angry Perspective and allow you to figure out for yourself if Hillary deserves a four-year lease in the Oval Office.
Several months ago, during the confirmation hearing of General David Petraeus, Senators on the panel were permitted a limited time to question the General on his qualifications for marshaling Iraq. There was the usual grandstanding from the usual Senators, including Hillary. Not only did she fail to pose a single question to the man advocating an escalation of forces in Iraq, she spent her allotted time pontificating, lecturing, and politicking – exactly what the citizens of New York elected her to do.
Hillary’s sinister relation to John Kerry does not end on the Senate floor. Recently, Hillary was on the campaign trail, drumming up support among her enthusiastic fan base. Twice, during separate question-answer periods, she was asked to explain why she and other Senators voted in 2002 to extend to President Bush the authority to invade Iraq, an action that has lead us to the extremist soup we find ourselves sinking into today. Hillary’s answer?
“If I knew what I know today, I probably would not have voted for the measure.”
She never admits it was a mistake (and haven’t we demanded that Bush admit his mistakes?). She never concedes she was in error. She routinely uses Iraq as ammunition for her campaign, though she fails to recognize that the weapons she wields are weapons she is partially responsible for forging. Why can’t she simply admit that she was swept by the fervor of revenge that colored everyone’s judgement in 2002? Better yet, why not confess that, despite her misgivings for granting Bush ultimate authority over a situation he barely understood, she hadn’t the courage or conviction to stand up in Senate chambers and say, “Wait a second. Let’s calm down here. What’s this evidence we have against Iraq again?”
When Hillary had the opportunity to display leadership, she crumbled. When public opinion shifted away from Bush, she suddenly found her balls again.
The truth about Hillary is that every move she makes is calculated to put her in the White House. There’s nothing wrong with that. Not really. What she lacks is the ability to make her ambitions less transparent. There’s nothing altruistic about Hillary Clinton. When her husband claimed to “feel our pain,” we believed it. Why? Because the dude was just a hillbilly governor from Arkansas. He ruled the common man with a common rhetoric. Hillary, the native of Illinois and the First Lady of Arkansas, puts on a Yankees cap and declares herself a New Yorker, where the power and influence is immeasurably more significant than in Arkansas. Her intentions could not be more glaringly clear.
Hillary has no loyalty. She stands by her philandering husband only because he’s an asset to her goals. I have yet to hear the word “Arkansas” from her lips. What does come from her lips are carefully scripted responses to questions her handlers have anticipated months in advance. When she speaks, you are painfully aware of the pauses as her mind busily crafts the words that will cause the least outrage.
Hillary has a lot going for her. She’s smart. She’s driven. She surrounds herself with smart and driven people. But like most Democrats running for President lately, she forgets that the majority of voting Americans don’t live in New England, where her weaknesses are overlooked for her novelty. Eventually, she’ll have to answer to the people of Iowa, Minnesota, Utah.
She will have to answer to the people of Arkansas.
And we’ll want to know why she sided with the President in 2002. We’ll demand to know why she abandoned the state that put her in the spotlight. We’ll ask her to frame a response that is genuine and unscripted. But most of all, we’ll hope to see a little Bill in Hillary.
Because Bill, for all his foibles, is the strongest part of Hillary Clinton.