24 Oct 07 Hillary Clinton: What a Bad Choice!!!

I think the most incredibly foolish thing that the Democratic Party could do for 2008 would be what it looks like it is intending on doing … nominating Hillary Clinton as their Presidential candidate.

The reasons why such a move are well-iterated in this Reason article. First, there’s the fact that she is an extremely hated figure. Republicans are fairly disspirited nowadays; political weblogs are documenting how one incumbent Republican Senator after another are indicating they won’t run again. Democrats and some of the better evangelicals (the ones focused on what Jesus Christ actually is said to have cared about: the sick and the poor) are forging connections. What would be the worst thing to do? Give Republicans nationwide something to rally about, as they would around a Clinton candidacy. She is one of the most hated figures of the right; her nomination would be a rallying cry, but Obama wouldn’t.

[... M]orale on the right is down right now. They’re disappointed in their political leadership — with the scandals, the spending, and the uninspired politicking. Campaign contributions are down. Motivation is lagging. Why give them the one general election opponent most likely to get them fired up and, more importantly, writing checks again?

Finally, I agree with the article’s suggestion that she is pretty much a Democratic equivalent of George W. Bush. Now, she isn’t as stupid as him, and I daresay she’s not as immoral, but she is as power-hungry as him, and she does strike me as likely to continue the push for a “unitary executive theory”-style Presidency.

Mrs. Clinton’s grandiose, big-government vision is really no different than that envisioned by the neoconservatives so loathed by the left. Clinton, remember, not only voted for the Iraq war, she still hasn’t conceded she was wrong to do so, and has made no promise to end it any time soon.

In fact, the L.A. Times reported last week that Clinton has refused to commit even to pulling U.S. troops from Iraq by 2013, which, if elected, would be the end of her first term. TV journalist Ted Koppel recently told NPR that Clinton has admitted the U.S. would still have troops in Iraq at the end of her second term.

[...]

Hillary Clinton voted for both the Patriot Act and its reauthorization. She voted for building a wall on the U.S.-Mexican border. She voted to loosen restrictions limiting the federal government’s ability to wiretap cell phones. In the past, she has supported a robust role for the federal government in enforcing “decency” standards in television and music. She teamed up with former Sen. Rick Santorum on a bill calling for the federal government to restrict the sale of violent video games.

Leftists concerned about the entertainment industry’s increasingly imperial stand on copyright might take a cue from copyright guru Lawrence Lessig, who wrote on his blog for Wired magazine: “Of all the Dems, I would have bet she was closest to the copyright extremists. So far, she’s done nothing to suggest to the contrary.”

I’ve not liked Hillary Clinton for a while. In fact, there is only about one circumstance in which I could envision myself voting for Hillary — if Illinois is actually in play (the state did go to Bush Sr., both terms of Reagan, and both terms of Nixon) and she’s up against Giuliani or someone equally dangerous. If that’s not the circumstance and she’s the Dem candidate, I’m voting either Republican or third-party.

If she’s up against Ron Paul (unlikely, but possible), I may even join Democrats for Ron Paul. I don’t want “President Clinton” in office. I don’t like many of Ron Paul’s positions, but I think I trust his character …