Irregular Times Diaries: Unfit Discussion

I was listening to the speech that Hillary Clinton gave recently at the Wisconsin Founders Day Gala this afternoon, and I just couldn’t help getting a tear in my eye when I heard Senator Clinton talk about her strong leadership on the issue of the war in Iraq. She said,

“We also have to do everything we can to make it clear that restoring our leadership and our moral authority in the world starts with ending the war in Iraq and bringing our troops home responsibly and quickly. I have said that I will start bringing them home within the first 60 days. From my position on the Senate Armed Services Committee I’ve been working to make sure that we are prepared to do that.”

This is what Barack Obama supporters are so unfair about. They never give Hillary Clinton credit for making America ready to bring soldiers home from Iraq in 60 days. Hillary Clinton has been working hard on the Senate Armed Services Committee, getting everything in place, and standing strong against the Bush Administration, like she has from the start on the issue of Iraq.

Finally, American soldiers are ready to come home within 60 days. Everyone recognizes that. But, as usual, no one is willing to give Hillary Clinton credit. There’s that glass ceiling again.

Without Senator Clinton’s hard work on the Senate Armed Services Committee, getting a firm withdrawal date set and pushing President Bush to accept the Democratic position on the war, we would still be in the middle of a war without any direction, and without any end in sight.

I will give credit where credit is due. Thank you, Hillary Clinton, for making this possible from your position on the Senate Armed Services Committee.

If we had listened to you from the beginning, Hillary Clinton, we never would have invaded Iraq in the first place. I will never forget the strong speeches you made trying to get Americans to wake up to the gathering danger of an unwise rush to war. Thank you, Hillary Clinton, for your forward vision.

It’s that vision, seeing the best course in matters of war and peace before anyone else, that makes Hillary Clinton my choice for President of the United States.

Whatever happened to the days when people would patiently wait in line for their turn? The great unspoken issue of the 2008 Democratic presidential election is that it is not Barack Obama’s turn to be President. It is Hillary Clinton’s turn.

For all of her life, Hillary Clinton has selflessly worked to promote her husband Bill. She has put up with more Monica Lewinskies than we will ever know about. But has Hillary Clinton stepped out of line? No, she has waited, patiently, for her turn.

With all that Hillary Clinton has been through, she deserves to be President of the United States. People in the Democratic Party who have any sense of decency can understand that. Others, who are trying to push their way ahead in line, need to remember their place.

I just found the results of the Green Party caucuses in California on Super Tuesday, provided by the League of Women Voters. I have to say that I’m pretty disappointed in the results.

The candidates who have been out and hustling their way around the Green Party state meetings for months and months now got a minority of the vote.

Cynthia McKinney got 26.0%

Elaine Brown 1,330 got 4.6%

Kat Swift got 3.1%

Kent Mesplay got 2.0%

Jesse Johnson got 1.8%

Jared Ball 467 got 1.5%

Along comes Ralph Nader, waltzing in at the last minute, with his surrogate Howie Hawkins, suggesting that he just might, maybe, run for President, but he’s not sure. How much of the California Green vote did Nader get? 61 percent.

I’m groaning. Ralph Nader fails pathetically in his Green Party presidential run in 1996. So, what does the Green Party do? They nominate him again in the year 2000. Then, in the year 2004, Ralph Nader ran as an independent candidate, courted Republican support, and trashed the Green Party. So, now, in 2008, what are the Greens doing? Nominating Ralph Nader for President again.

Pardon me, is the Green Party really a political party, or is it just a stage upon which we all get to watch the Ralph Nader melodrama unfold in excruciating slow motion?

I saw this calendar in the shopping mall today, and it pretty much says everything that needs to be said about the presidential campaign of Rudolph Giuliani.

Giuliani was engaged in a giant sadistic bet. He was betting that Americans would still be so terrified of the weak terrorist threat that they would clamor to him, begging to be rescued. Save us, Rudy! Save us, Sir Rudolph! So, Giuliani sat, counting down the days, waiting for the terrorist attack that he was sure would come, to propel him to victory. Alas for Giuliani’s plans, but nicely for the rest of us, no terrorists have had the werewithal to attack. The spectre of a looming attack has proven to be just a spectre.

So it is that Giuliani’s new year has been stuck in the past, right next to Father Knows Best calendars, as at the shopping mall. Giuliani’s time is long over.

Bye bye, Rudolph.

John Edwards supporters ought to be ashamed of themselves for bragging about the endorsement from Ralph Nader. Have they forgotten how Ralph Nader threw the 2000 presidential election to George W. Bush? Now that Ralph Nader is endorsing John Edwards, a vote for Edwards is practically a vote for Bush.

Besides, John Edwards has really put all of his cards on the table. It’s Iowa or nothing for John Edwards, because he’s invested his campaign’s wealth there, organizing in the caucuses. If John Edwards doesn’t get first place in Iowa today, his campaign is dead in the water.

Hillary Clinton, on the other hand, doesn’t need to win Iowa at all in order to win the Democratic presidential nomination. Even if she comes in third place in the Iowa caucuses, it’s a sign of strength in her campaign, which invested little in Iowa.

Which kind of leader would you rather have for President - the kind who loses in second place, or the kind who wins even in third place? Hillary Clinton is the clear choice for voters today.

I’m not a Republican myself. I’m a Democrat’s Democrat. Yet, I can recognize that many Americans are dedicated Republicans, and they have their needs too… needs that can be served by a good Democratic leader like Hillary Clinton.

Over at New York Newsday yesterday, there was a great story about a woman named Shannon Mallozzi. Mallozzi has been a Republican all her life, but she’s campaigning for Hillary Clinton now.

Republican Rupert Murdoch is supporting Hillary Clinton for President too. Plenty of Republicans supported Bill Clinton. If they supported one Clinton, they can support another.

I know that it’s supposed to be a political taboo to cross party lines and support someone on the other side. Haven’t we all had enough of those kind of rules now?

At long last, America can finally breathe a sigh of relief and come together. I think it’s time. Time for Republicans to support Hillary Clinton for President.

I am shocked to see someone who calls himself Frank Liberal daring to criticize Hillary Clinton, who has done more to carry water for liberal causes than Frank Liberal could hope to in an entire lifetime.

We have the duty to elect a Democrat as President in 2008, or we are serving the dark mission of the Republican Party. Don’t fool yourself into thinking that there is any other choice.

Yet, this Frank Liberal character chooses to focus on Hillary Clinton’s supposed schemes to spread lies about Barack Obama. Frank Liberal should concern himself with the lies of Rudolph Giuliani, not the lies of Hillary Clinton.

Whether or not we agree with all the policies and positions of a particular Democratic candidate, it is time for us to unite behind one Democratic candidate for 2008. The time for debate is over. America needs unity, and the unity candidate is Hillary Clinton!