Monday, November 12, 2007

Hillary Clinton: Fundie, Jingo, or Pinko?

Many conservatives despise Hillary Clinton. Just as liberals cried out "not another Bush" in 2000 (and louder in 2004), and just as I would have preferred a Gore-McCain showdown that year, those of the Republican ilk would prefer not to have another Clinton in the Oval Office. Indeed, if this will be the case in January 2009, then it would seem that Americans like patterns.

I wonder if the Anti-Federalists/Democrats (oh, how ideologies have flip-flopped in two hundred years!) of the 1800s cried "not another Adams" when National Republican John Quincy Adams ran for office in 1824. Did they call him "Qubya"? What we do know is that the first Democratic candidate, Andrew Jackson, defeated Adams in an extremely personal race in 1828, culminating in the First Lady-Elect Rachel Jackson in December of that year.

But I digress. We're here to analyze Hillary Clinton, right?

Fundie? No, she is not a theocrat. However, she seems to take the middle ground on issues such as gay marriage ("civil unions" instead) and abortion (personally opposed to but upholding a woman's right to choose).

Jingo? Yes. Clinton supports the criminalization of flag burning. Much like Chuck Norris' support, flag-lovin' also constitutes an instant yes for this category. But seriously, Clinton has voted like a jingo (in favor of the Patriot Act in 2001, Iraq resolution in 2002, etc.) but has done an about-face years later (initially against renewing the Patriot Act in 2005, against the Iraq War troop surge in 2007, etc.). Naysayers would call this flip-flopping, and supporters would call this learning from one's mistakes. I personally would call it the latter - aren't we supposed to learn from past mistakes? - but at the same time facetiously calling it the former. It's mostly in the name of a good laugh.

Pinko? Yes. In the same way that Chuck's support and flag-lovin' automatically make one a jingo, supporting universal health care instantly makes one a pinko. Quasi-socialism can only go so far, you know. Police for everyone, funded by tax dollars? Virtually everyone agrees. Not enough security? Well, the wealthy can hire additional security on top of socialized law enforcement. Firefighters for everyone, funded by tax dollars? Virtually no protests here! If this isn't enough, those who can afford it can pay for additional property protection from fire.

Basic health care for everyone, on the other hand, needs not only debate, but ad Hominem mudslinging from both sides. Universal health care would obviously set America on a crash course headed for totalitarian bread lines. (I'm not being exactly serious here, if you haven't noticed.) Then again, if basic health coverage isn't enough, you can add a superior health plan to your security entourage and fire wall; that is, if you're rich enough.

Unfortunately, a lot of the haves wouldn't want to use their tax dollars for this aspect of society. Keep in mind that many of the upper class pay lesser-rate corporate taxes and not greater-rate income taxes that working Americans pay. Ah, yes, the ironic welfare for the rich...

That being said, we should probably analyze progressive rich man Warren Buffett like the presidential candidates. Now that would be interesting.

Hillary Rodham Clinton's official First Lady Portrait, by Simmie Knox, is in the public domain.

AddThis Social Bookmark Button

1 comment:

  1. Hillary is the ONLY candidate with these 4 attributes: honor, patriotism, loyalty, and kindness. I got $35 in the bank that says no other candidate has those attributes. Jerk.

    http://www.voteforhillaryonline.com

    ReplyDelete

Please note: Comments are open only for seven days after publication of each blog entry.