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.

Do Not Respect Authority

Back when I was a teen I was one of the "weird kids" that hung out with other "weird kids" in a small rural area. I was pulled over regularly and asked what I was up to. One time I got a speeding ticket even though I wasn't speeding. My friend that was in the car with me had his father - who worked for a law firm recreating accident scenes - prove in traffic court that it was actually physically impossibly for my car to have been going the speed the cop said he clocked me at (I was on a steep uphill road with lots of turns and a stop sign at the end, and driving a crappy car). We had video, charts, definitive proof the cop was lying. The judge stated that while I may not have been going the speed the cop said he clocked me at, I still could have technically been speeding and so found me guilty anyway.

While this "injustice" I suffered is minuscule in terms of what has been in the news lately, it was a clear message I was fortunate to learn at a young age: The justice system is not about justice, it's about authority. That's why these cops are protesting Mayor DiBlasio, protesting community criticism of police practices, protesting all question of their righteous authority. They're not getting the respect their authoritarian ideology deserves.

Police turning their backs on NYC mayor during a funeral.

Any deviation is a threat to the system from my black clothes and long hair (as a teen) to being black with nappy hair (the ultimate offense, and one that cannot be reformed by getting a new wardrobe and a haircut) they will make sure you know your kind isn't welcome in their world. You are a threat to the system.

After my traffic court trial, my mother, still believing in a just system, told me I should go to the police officer and tell him "thank you" for doing his dangerous job. I didn't want to, but still did, and did it with proper respect. He didn't even look at me and acted like I didn't exist when I spoke to him. My mother was shocked. I understood. I challenged his authority, I lost, now I needed to get lost.

ATF Flag raised above the Branch Davidian compound in Waco, TX.

Around that time I saw video of the LAPD beating Rodney Kind and the AFT raising their flag over the burning embers of the Branch Davidian compound in Waco Texas. The message sunk in. It's not about enforcing the law, it's about enforcing dominion. It's not the water cannons of the 1960's but it's the daily trials that lead Eric Garner to exclaim, "I told you the last time, please just leave me alone."

What DiBlasio said to his black son needs to be taught to all children regardless of race. The police are not here to protect us, they are here to protect the system from us. If you believe the system works for you, you feel safe. But things change. 

You may not always be on the right side of the system.
The recent NYPD "slow down" exposes the true purpose of policing as it is currently used in our country. Apparently most policing is unnecessary. They are just to keep the little people in check. Don't get out of line. I could go on with so many more stories of my own experiences (and I've never actually been arrested, just had the misfortune of being around police) but in short it all boils down to every interaction I've ever had with a cop was not a good one. The closest I can say to a "good one" was being pulled over for speeding two years ago and the cop just gave me a warning. But that time I was speeding… I did break the law. So, he just let a law breaker go because now days I'm a "respectable" looking person, not a threat. What does that say about our system? It's OK for one type of person to commit crimes. It's unacceptable for other types to even exist.

Racist Overcompensation

Why do so many Americans have a distain for truth? There are so many items I could mention here but the one I'll focus on here is the truth about race in our nation.

From the Texas School Board changing the name of slavery to "Atlantic Triangular Trade" in their school books, to Glenn Beck hosting a rally on the same date and place as MLK's famous speech to South Carolina celebrating their secession, (while claiming secession had nothing to do with slavery), it's really alarming how much a large portion of our nation is trying to erase the success of human rights and civil rights in this country.

From the smearing of Shirley Sherrod as a racist all the while ignoring her inspiring story which emerged from an era when institutionalized racism against black farmers was all too real, to the vilification of ACORN with a slanderous and fictional video, to hyped claims about a rising New Black Panthers movement there is an obvious attempt at elevating the idea of reverse racism as a national issue.

One word sums up all the attempts at revising our nation's history and understanding of racial issues is this:

Overcompensation n. An attempt to make up for a character trait by overexaggerating its opposite.

Also known as: Projection, appropriation, narcissism, ignorance.

The conservatives out there who are claiming reverse racism while revising the history of institutionalized and real racism are suffering from the most common traits of denial and lying: The guilty person may speak more than natural, adding unnecessary details to convince you. The guilty person gets defensive. The guilty person will deflect the issue and tell stories that are deliberately aimed at not answering the question you asked. And, the guilty person will reverse the accusation.

A perfect example was this "discussion" with Tea Party promoter Sal Russo on "Hardball" trying to change the subject when discussing Michele Bachmann's ridiculous claims on the Founding Fathers' supposed efforts at eradicating slavery.



Bachmann claims:

"The very founders that wrote those documents [The Constitution] worked tirelessly until slavery was no more in the United States."

As anyone with at least a few years of education will recall the Civil War was almost 100 years after "those documents" were written. And, as anyone with a bit more book learning will tell you, those founders owned slaves too. (Though, Bachmann also claims our nation was founded as a Christian nation so this isn't the only issue she gets totally wrong in early American history).

I can understand why people would want to make themselves think their distain for truth and other human beings is justified and that past atrocities committed in our name never happened but I find it really hard to believe that their efforts seem to actually work. How their listeners can go along with such obvious lies and live in such ignorance of our history is as fascinating as it is frightening. History has a way of repeating itself if it is not remembered and learned from. Just as Holocaust deniers are shunned from a civil conversation, deniers of slavery and institutionalized racism should be shunned as well.

All the political discussions of our economic policies, foreign affairs and social services have valid and important arguments from both conservative and liberal circles but the opinions of people so deluded about the world they live in cannot be taken as anything more than what they are: The opinions of an ignorant person. We wouldn't take medical advice from an anti-vaccine crusader or a pharmaceutical marketing team, infrastructure advice from an anarchist or nutritional advice from an anorexic so why do voters, TV news watchers and a large percentage of Americans listen to these people?

Just like so many issues in this nation, race and our handling of its effects on society need to be discussed by sincere people if we are to continue along our proud journey of elevating the human condition so lets stop supporting the voices of people who prefer a time when women, minorities and the poor were oppressed. And if anyone feels threatened by the reverse racism of hostile words or affirmative action I'd recommend picking up a book or traveling to one of many oppressive places on the planet to learn what real oppression is.