6 Reasons I Can't Vote for Hillary Clinton

Posted by Seth Kramer on Wednesday, May 30th 2007 at 12:46am



Establishment Candidate. There's nothing wrong with being the establishment candidate, but I feel like her inevitability is being rammed down my throat. It is vaguely reminiscent of a candidate I thought was weak at the time, but reluctantly backed when Gov. Dean dropped out of the race thanks in large part to the incessant replay of his scream. That's right, she's the female John Kerry. Funny George W. Bush was the establishment candidate of his party in 2000 too.

Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton. History--particularly recent history--has shown us that a dynastic approach to the presidency doesn't yield great results. Sharing a last name with a President doesn't mean you'd be a good President. Don't believe me? Think about these three words: President Billy Carter.

War Mongering. Clinton supported this ill-conceived invasion of a country that was held together in the aftermath of British colonialism by nothing more than duct tape and a secular Sunni dictator. Still, I can forgive a mistake, no matter how foreseeable, but...

Failure to Admit Failure. Sound familiar? I can think of a certain President who is incapable of admitting he is wrong, and when he gets credit for doing so he weasels it like "To the extent that there is blame, I deserve it." President Truman would have been proud. This is a serious character flaw in a leader.

Loser. Hillary can't win. It's blunt, but let's be real for a minute. Name a single state that Hillary wins that John Kerry didn't. Do you really think she delivers Arkansas? I think not. Wake me when New York and Illinois are in play. She has the highest unfavorables of any candidate, and lets be honest. She's not winning over those voters no matter how many 30 second spots she runs, and most worrying: her numbers with women, are terrible. The Democratic Party, no matter how hard we try to shake the reputation as the "mommy party", has a historic dependence on female voters. This translates to a loss in my book.

No Foreign Policy Experience. Being First Lady is not experience, and Hillary's Senate experience is not significantly longer than that of Barack Obama's. For me the 2008 election is about a few very important issues, none more important than Foreign Policy. Our relationships are strained, sprained, or broken with several major world powers and a number of strategic smaller powers. And we have emboldened a variety of dangerous leaders through what I feel can fairly be called a series of bone-headed decisions including, but not limited to, the Catastrafuck in Iraq, our backing out of the Kyoto Protocol, our lack of finesse with North Korea, Iran, and Venezuela, and a deal that violates the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty with Pakistan. Hillary seems like a bright woman, but she knows jack-crap about Foreign Policy.

Here's the deal: I have no problem voting for a woman president, but Hillary looks more like George W. Bush to me every day.

I'm feeling sleepy
I'm spinning Countdown with Keith Olberman