Yesterday, a blogger named Jami left a comment on my blog as follows:
it's interesting to me that hillary's getting more crap from democrats than republicans are.
republicans voted for the war and all the money for it AND massive tax cuts for the rich.
they've also voted repeatedly against measures to prevent abortions through better birth control, and their desire for immigration reform is not guided by what's in the interest of immigrants, as hillary's is.
i think democrats need to stop doing rush limbaugh's dirty work for him on their own candidates. i agree with you that hillary's position on the war doesn't make sense, and her immigration position is not all that clear, but show me a better democratic candidate.
What's odd is that it was removed by the author and the return email address is email@example.com
I wasn't aware, until now, that someone could do this. It feels as though I have had a potshot taken at me by an anonymous sniper in camouflage gear.
Nevertheless, whoever wrote this comment deserves a response.
First, I never have claimed to be a Democrat. And if I were, I would hope that Democrats can take self-criticism far better than Republicans who prefer no criticism at all, but rather a toe-the-line kind of thinking, a disciplined stand-up-and-salute response to every position.
Yes, Hillary voted against the tax cuts for the rich. But should we regard this as exceptional, as something to give her credit for? It was a no brainer. And I bet that her campaign contributors from Citigroup, Metropolitan Life, Corning, Inc., Goldman Sachs, Aetna, Inc., Time Warner, Lehman Brothers, Consolidated Edison, and Cablevision Systems wish she had supported the tax cuts. Had Hillary voted for the tax cuts for the rich she would have been a Republican. So touting her vote against those tax cuts is not saying much when you get right down to it.
Yes, the Republicans are basically against birth control as a way to stop abortions, while Democrats tend to be for "better birth control" measures. Of course, Hillary would be laughed out of the Democratic Party by NOW, Planned Parenthood, Emily's List, NARAL, and a host of other women-centered organizations if she was not on board with this issue. So hurray, Hillary, here's a round of applause.
The writer's contention that Hillary's desire for immigration reform is guided by what's in the interest of immigrants is precisely what I questioned about her seemingly inconsistent position. I just want her to have a clearly defined, consistent position.
If, every time someone on the left criticizes a liberal Democrat, they get accused of doing Rush Limbaugh's work, then we might as well just all do Bill O'Reilly's bidding and shut up.
The writer agrees with me that Hillary's position on the war "does not make sense" and that her position on immigration is not "clear." Well then, don't we have an obligation to her to point this out?
Hillary Clinton has a shot at becoming the first woman President of the United States. But I am not going to stop holding her accountable on issues where I believe she is wrong.
POSTSCRIPT: By the way, ask Hillary why she is not vocally opposing Bush's nominee to the SEC chairmanship, Christopher Cox, who is an extremist opponent of regulatory reforms? He is probably the most egregious regulatory appointment yet made by Bush, and Hillary is silent. Could it have something to do with all her Wall Street contributors who support Cox?