Why Should I Vote for Hillary?

I have a very simple question for Hillary Clinton Supporters:

Why is Hillary a better choice than Bernie? 

In the past five to six months I have been asking this and have not gotten one substantial answer. The typical replies are: She's better than Trump/Cruz/GOP or I get accused of voting for Nader. Both replies ignore the actual question. The question is: "Why is Hillary better than Bernie?" - not better than the GOP or some third party candidate. Why should she be the candidate of the Democratic Party? It's very simple. If you are still confused, here's a diagram:

Now, let's talk about Clinton's record:

She apologized for her Iraq vote, right? So what? She may have realized that war was a terrible decision but it's obvious she learned nothing from it considering she has actively supported the same (or similar) strategies in Libya, Afghanistan, Syria and even Yemen. Clinton was unanimously known as the war-hawk in Obama's administration and advocated for the most aggressive policies alongside Robert Gates. She continues to use antiquated Cold War thinking in regards to Russia and Iran, and advocated for every single one of our military "interventions" since her disastrous Iraq War vote.

Oh, did I mention she also defended torture during the Bush years and endorsed McCain over Obama on foreign policy in the 2008 election?

So, considering her vast foreign policy experience there is no secret how she will lead as Commander-in-Chief, which means, if you support Hillary Clinton, you implicitly support an escalation of our disastrous foreign policy and war profiteering which has exponentially made the situation in the Middle East the chaotic hellhole it is today. But heck, what's a few million lives lost and ruined in a far-off part of the world? At least she's got good domestic policies, right?

Is Clinton better than Sanders on domestic issues?  Her policy stances depend on which day you ask her.

Her ties to Wall Street and allegiance to the 1% with no real concern for economic disparity and environmental protection are well known so I'll skip those.

Some will bring up her gun advocacy but they conveniently forget her stance in the 2008 campaign against Obama when she had the same stance as Sanders. But, she went further claiming Obama was an "elitist" who didn't understand rural gun culture like she did. She even fondly recalled her duck hunting days to prove she was a supporter of gun rights.

When it comes to #BLM let's remember how as a candidate for the senate she stood alongside Al Sharpton denouncing NYPD violence against the black community than did nothing about it once elected. She can talk a good game but her actions speak louder than words. And her refusal to deal with our failed "War on Drugs" and stance against the legalization of Marijuana (even though her husband, our current president, and many other notable public figures have admitted to using the drug) is just plain hypocritical and a relic of the 1990's "tough on crime" garbage that lead to so many failed criminal justice policies in the first place. Add to that the financial support she's received from private prison companies and it's clear she still doesn't truly grasp the depth of the corruption behind so much of our prison-industrial complex and the damage it has done to poor communities (of all colors but especially black communities).

On education she voted for No Child Left Behind and supported charter schools and Common Core until just last month. In 2008 she campaigned for privatized "Retirement Savings Accounts" as a fix for Social Security saying "Through the discipline of good planning and the miracle of compound interest, you should be able to build wealth for yourself". She also campaigned alongside Bob Johnson — a public advocate of Bush’s plan to privatize Social Security and an active proponent of Bush’s plan to eliminate the estate tax.

Then there is her history of condemning Gay Marriage which she didn't evolve on until two years ago - well after any reasonably rational person had accepted gay marriage as a necessary Civil Right.  It's not just that she didn't support it, it was her actual words that were truly appalling (and historically wrong): "Marriage has got historic, religious and moral content that goes back to the beginning of time and I think a marriage is as a marriage has always been, between a man and a woman." Anyone who believed "one man/one woman" has historic precedence is ignorant of the many forms marriage has taken in human history.

On almost every important issue, other than Women's Rights, Clinton has either evolved just in time for the campaign or is still on the wrong side.  I could go on about domestic policy problems like her support for spying or flip-flops on the TPP, Keystone XL, Too Big To Fail banks, corporate welfare, poverty, and so much more, but let's move on.

Hillary Clinton has no party loyalty. Am I being melodramatic here? Nope.

As I said above, she endorsed John McCain over Obama on foreign policy in 2008 on television interviews and in a national debate calling Obama "irresponsible and naive" and implying he would need a "training manual". What if, instead of an economic meltdown, there had been another terrorist attack right before the election, and voters believed Clinton that Obama wasn't capable of protecting us? Clearly, she was willing to throw the election to McCain rather than lose to Obama.

She also started/amplified the racist condemnation of Obama with Reverend Wright and Louis Farrakhan by demanding - in a televised debate and on TV interviews - that Obama denounce both Wright and Farrakhan. Those attacks had nothing to do with substantial policy differences and everything to do with destroying her Democratic opponent with no regard for Party unity.

So, if you are a Clinton supporter do not complain about Sanders being an Independent with no party loyalty. He is running for the Democratic candidacy, he has already stated he will support Clinton if she is the nominee, and is doing everything he can to build a Democratic coalition. His only criticisms of Clinton have been on policy and he's even defended her against trivial attacks by the media and GOP. That is what party loyalty looks like.

Hillary Clinton is not more electable than Bernie Sanders. Stop saying that. She is not.

Almost every poll states Sanders would do better than Clinton against a GOP candidate in the general election. Also, Sanders has a better track record of getting legislation passed, working across the aisle, and winning over independent voters. So, when Clinton claimed she is a "Progressive who can get things done" there are no facts to back her up - unless by "getting things done" you're talking about starting more wars. Also, she proudly embraces her reputation as a "moderate".

Now, please tell me: Why is Hillary a better choice than Bernie?

If you support Clinton's positions over Sander's positions don't be ashamed, just say it. But, if you consider yourself a Progressive or Liberal then please tell me why you support Margaret Thatcher Hillary Clinton as the Democratic nominee for president over Bernie Sanders.

 

Personally, I prefer a candidate with the moral maturity to know right from wrong without polling data or decades of tragic mistakes to enlighten them.

Left is Right

Yes, I Photoshopped this. The sign originally said: "Free Tibet".

64% of Americans say Afghan war isn’t worth fighting.

Yet, back in 2001 things were different. Those of us who were against this war were told we hate America. We were only 6% of Americans who thought this war was not worth it.

This is not Photoshopped.
This is what Freedom™ looks like.

This is one among many important issues that we on the so-called liberal fringe have been vindicated on - even if this vindication comes in the form of great tragedy while we endure continued derision and/or invisibility in the media, political discourse and nation at large.

Protests have been spreading around the country as citizens fight back against union busting efforts, privatization of essential industries and the erasure of democracy by their elected leadership. More Americans are realizing that millions of jobs have been lost to developing and third world countries and economic disparity is at the highest it's been in nearly a century and only getting worse with the top 10% of Americans owning 70% of the wealth, 6 banks controlling 64% of our GDP (up from 17% in 15 years), and corporate profits setting new records while actual joblessness remains around 20%. Yet, a small percentage of us who protest WTO gatherings, NAFTA, deregulation of essential industries and financial markets have been called "commies" and other derogatory names. Even the guy who wrote the book "The Supply Side Revolution" and Reagan cabinet member Paul Craig Roberts admits what a failure these "trickle-down" policies have been.

The environment is another issue that us "tree-huggers" have been on the losing side of opinion for a long time. Our current crop of government leadership is doing all it can to defund and eradicate environmental regulations and investment in clean energy. They even mandated the use of Styro-Foarm and plastic in what can only be seen as a childish act of frivolity. In fact, concern about climate change is declining in America. Yet our impact on the environment has never been more obvious. We're causing earthquakes in Arkansas, we're ruining our fresh water supplies and destroying mountains, causing disease and illness from air pollution and so much more.

With more than 60% of bankruptcies due to medical bills in the US, essential industries becoming more and more privatized and profit driven (life and liberty should not be commodities), more subsidizing of the rich while taking from the poor and countless other issues us "radical liberals" yammer on about endlessly starting to affect larger percentages of Americans I wonder when and if we will ever be welcomed back into the public dialogue. Earlier generations of liberals struggled and fought to bring our fellow countrymen the civil rights movement, labor movement, child labor laws, clean air and water, Social Security and Medicaid, labor unions, desegregation, public education and a few other things that helped make our country strong, fair and looked up to. If we start wearing teabags on our head and carrying automatic weapons to protests can we be invited back to the discussion table?

An Apology on Iraq... Finally

"My fellow Americans: I'm a pundit, not a president, but since it's a moment for taking stock of America's role in Iraq, I want to remind you that I blew it." - Matt Miller, The Washington Post

I've been waiting for such an apology for years from the people who worked the PR campaign for the lead-up to war. It's good to hear one finally.

It takes courage to admit such an enormous error of judgement and while it may not fix any of the damage done to our nation and Iraq through the past long years of war, divisiveness and fear, it may help lead to some progress in preventing mistakes like this and possibly even some healing of our broken 4th estate.

I've been angered for years every time one of the "chattering class" speaks of faulty intelligence, being mislead or whatever else the excuse may be. How could a small journalistic enterprise like McClatchy get it right and everyone else get it wrong? How was I able to read about the lack of WMD and a nearly prophetic analysis of the debacle that awaited us from a book in my local bookstore called "Behind the Invasion of Iraq" by The Research Unit for Global Economy (a think tank in India) almost six months before the invasion and yet almost no one in the mainstream media in America was clued in to the peril that awaited us?

Was it laziness? Was it corruption? Whatever the reason is, to me it's unforgivable.

Thousands of American lives lost, tens of thousands injured and more psychologically traumatized. The true financial cost of the war is unknown but in these times of skyrocketing deficits it's a cost we didn't need. Our massively privatized military industry is a threat to peace for generations because any industry that's bottom line is based on continued instability is a curse for humanity.

And what about Iraq? After losing hundred of thousands in the Iran/Iraq War (which Reagan gamed by selling weapons and strategies to both Iraq and Iran), a brief yet destructive war under Bush Sr., a decade of draconian sanctions under Clinton which was responsible for hundreds of thousands more deaths (Madeline Albright claimed it was "worth it") and now the past 7 years of war. With hundreds of thousands more dead, millions displaced and fled to other countries, an infrastructure in ruins and a non-functioning government it will be generations before Iraq can heal from our intrusions there.

Again, I thank Mr. Miller for his apology. It is one I've been waiting to hear for years and has inspired this long diatribe I needed to get off my shoulders. I only hope his words will have an influence on all the other champions and architects of this war. What have they achieved that they are so proud of? Allowing Iraq to become a training ground for terrorists? Helping install a government with ties to Iran? Or the billions in taxpayer dollars redistributed to war-profiteers and warlords?

Please, take these lessons you've learned Mr. Miller and do everything in your power to correct the attempts at revisionist history and future calls for unnecessary wars.

Blackwater: "Compliance Challenges?"

(click to enlarge)

Blackwater CEO Erik Prince said: "our company has experienced remarkable growth in the last few years, this growth, our work for the U.S. Government around the world, and the nature of the services we offer have created compliance challenges."

By this he means:

Blackwater shipped 900 weapons to Iraq without the paperwork required by arms export control regulations, one department official said. Some of the weapons are believed to have ended up on the country's black market.

That's one hell of a "compliance challenge" Mr. Prince.

Blackwater employees are also the subjects of a Justice Department probe into the killing of 17 Iraqi civilians in Baghdad's Nisoor Square on Sept. 16, 2007.

Winning the hearts and minds one bullet at a time.

On a related note, there's been some outrage from the right-wing lately about a comment President-elect Obama made,

"We've got to have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded."

The response has been interesting:

"A Republican congressman from Georgia said Monday he fears that President-elect Obama will establish a Gestapo-like security force to impose a Marxist dictatorship. We can't be lulled into complacency," Broun said. "You have to remember that Adolf Hitler was elected in a democratic Germany. I'm not comparing him to Adolf Hitler. What I'm saying is there is the potential of going down that road."

Where have these people been while a massive private military force has been taking over the role policing abroad and at home? Their outrage at a vague proposal by Obama sounds a little hollow after the past six years of silence over the emergence of a massive army for hire.

Security for profit means insecurity becomes needed for increased profit.

Where is the right's outrage when it is needed?

Unthinkable Consequences

PBS's "Wide Angle" did a report about the Iraqi refugee crisis and I found the report truly eye-opening and incredibly important. The point I found most chilling beyond the moral element that these 2 million refugees have nowhere to go, no way to earn a living and are growing increasingly desperate for help despite all the UN has done, is that filling the void are organizations like the Mahdi Army. The same Mahdi Army responsible for the majority of insurgent attacks and sectarian destabilization in Iraq, and they are using the desperation and alienation to recruit more insurgents.

Jordan's Queen Noor says in the report: "Unthinkable consequences await a world that does nothing to solve this refugee crisis." in regard to the 2 million refugees in Syria and Jordan. The obvious consequence is further destabilization of a region already on edge.

If you have the time to watch the report it is full of emotional and eye-opening interviews, offers some uplifting elements and some real problems this crisis poses. It is also a superb example of what quality journalism can be.

Refugee International has information on ways to help. Whether it is a letter to congress, petitions to sign or donations to aid organizations. There is also a lot of information about the crisis on this website if you don't have time to watch the PBS report.

Even with all the issues affecting us like the economy, the elections and the environment I personally feel this is an incredibly important issue. Morally we as Americans have a stake in these peoples lives, and rationally we can't let 2 million people, (500,00 children) become alienated, let moderate countries to become unstable and let radical organizations grow from our lack of attention.

Thank you for taking the time to read this. I hope the issue will attract the attention it merits and we can all help remedy this crisis.

Also, if any of you know of other resources to help please let me know. Thanks.

UPDATE: Here's another great resource: Iraq Action Days