Anybody But Hillary

The chattering class has been making much the past few days about polls showing a large number of Democratic voters will support McCain if their candidate of choice does not win the party's nomination.

I am one of those people. If Hillary Clinton is the nominee of the party, I will not be coming home. I will not return to the fold. I will not play party loyalist. I will not -- ever, under any circumstances -- vote for Hillary Clinton for U.S. President.

It took me a while to get to this point. I have been defending Hillary to friends and family ever since she made her controversial comments about Tammy Wynette on “60 Minutes” back in 1992. I applauded when her husband put in charge of health care. I cheered when she decried a “vast right-wing conspiracy.” I rooted for her when she ran for the U.S. Senate. When she decided to run for president, I felt warmth and admiration for her.

Granted, I had concerns. I worried that the right hated her so much. I fretted that independent, swing voters would never vote for her. And I still felt betrayed by her vote in favor of the war. But her early candidacy impressed me. She was tough. She was smart. And there was something about her that was inexplicably promising and exciting.

When I decided in early January, to support Obama, I genuinely agonized over my choice. I felt for a long time that either of them would make an excellent candidate and president. I felt that I was I was choosing not between the lesser of two evils, but between the better of two angels.

Even after announcing my support for Obama in an email to hundreds of friends, even after repeatedly donating money to Obama, even after voting early for Obama in the California primary, I felt positive toward Hillary. When she was been down and on the verge of out, I rooted for her. I almost gave her 50 bucks to help keep her going.

But again and again and yet again, she has made me regret those feelings. She, her husband, her pollster Penn, or her thuggish mouthpiece Wolfson have consistently done thing to disappoint or disgust me. They have gone low, played dirty, or been completely and shamelessly duplicitious. They seem willing -- even eager -- to destroy their party, dampen the enthusiasm of millions of new voters, and drag the country deep into political trench warfare. Given a choice to win dirty or win clean, I feel they would choose to win dirty -- not just for the sport of it, but because, on some level, they feel that is the tough, world-wise way of doing things.

The crocodile tears. The race-baiting. The plagiarism nonsense. The ridiculous denial that she ever voted for war. The virtual endorsement of McCain over Obama. The fear-mongering "3.a.m. phone call" ad. The "kitchen sink" strategy. The cult of victimhood. The incredulous, self-serving flip-flops on Michican and Florida. The surreal "Ministry of Truth"quality of the campaign conference calls. The smug sense of entitlement. I have nothing left for her but feelings of disappointment and contempt.

So, my fierce opposition to Clinton comes not from anything Obama, the press, or even the vast, right-wing anti-Hillary conspiracy says about her. It springs forcefully and directly from her and from her campaign. When I imagine voting for Obama in November, I am filled with a sense of pride, optimism, and, yes, hope. When I imagine voting for Clinton, I am heavy with resignation, cynicism, and a lack of self-respect. In short, Hillary makes me sick.

Many of my friends, fierce Democrats all, are aghast at my insistence that I will not vote for Clinton. "She is so much better than McCain," they insist.

I just don't buy it.

I have no doubt there will be a rhetorical difference between Clinton and McCain.They will fight over competing visions for how to handle the economy and conduct foreign policy. They will make the differences between their words and visions seem grand and stark -- and they may indeed be.

I am confident that Hillary will say enough of the right things during a general election campaign. My problem is I don't believe a damn thing she says. I don't believe she truly has a commitment to the working poor. I don't trust her to protect the environment. I can't imagine she will spend a penny of political capital for LGBT rights or immigration reform. And I don't believe for a second that she will bring our troops home for Iraq.

How can I? How can anyone? She signed a statement saying Michigan's primary should not count -- and then argues vehemently that the delegates must be seated. She claims she opposed NAFTA -- but her own records show she was a cheerleader for it. She claims to have ducked sniper fire in Tuzla -- but we all the saw the videotape. Even sleep-deprived, I would not trust anything she says.

McCain? Nader? Paul? Gravel? Bill the Cat?

Anybody but Hillary.

Mourning a Hero

This afternoon, one of the exceptionally brave members of the Los Angeles Fire Department died in the line of duty, responding to an explosion in the Westchester business district near LAX.

According to the LAFD blog, "Firefighter Brent A. Lovrien, age 35, a 10 year veteran of the LAFD assigned to the 'A' Platoon at Fire Station 95 since October 2005, died shortly after arrival at the Centinela Freeman Regional Medical Center, Marina Campus.

"Engineer Anthony J. Guzman, age 48, an 18 year veteran of the LAFD assigned to the 'A' Platoon at Fire Station 95 since February 2002, suffered multiple fractures and facial trauma. He was transported to the UCLA Medical Center in Westwood, where he remains in serious but stable condition following surgery."

In the past year, with reports of hazing and with allegations of racial and gender discrimination within the department, the reputation of the LAFD has been bruised. While such behavior cannot be excused, it so important to remember that these men and women are heroes, who literally risk their lives for us every day.

At moments like this, I always think of the Bruce Springsteen song, "Into the Fire," which was released shortly after 9-11:

" The sky was falling and streaked with blood
I heard you calling me then you disappeared into the dust
Up the stairs, into the fire
Up the stairs, into the fire
I need your kiss, but love and duty called you someplace higher
Somewhere up the stairs into the fire

May your strength give us strength
May your faith give us faith
May your hope give us hope
May your love give us love"

Brent Lovrien, Anthony Guzman, and all the members of the Los Angeles Fire Department, I salute you.

Oh Me of Little Faith

Mercifully, it looks like I may have been wrong to doubt the electorate -- at least so far.

The latest NBC-WSJ poll shows Obama has survived the Wright controversy, and that candidate whose negatives have skyrocketed in recent days have been Hillary's!

Clinton Leads Obama (in Cameron's Ass)

LA lawyer/blogger Cameron Fredman explains that Clinton really is beating Obama -- if you look at the stats he pulled out his ass. They're no less random or rancid than the turds dropped by Penn and Wolfson.

Bloodsports

After a day of non-stop coverage of Clinton=McCarthy and Richardson=Judas, I am officially sick and tired of the Democratic primary.

As bloodsports go, I'll take the UFC over the political slugfests. Professional mixed martial artists are classier, smarter, and have much better moves than any of the presidential candidates.

And they talk less shit.

It's About Time

I really wish I were not so relentlessly anti-Hillary. I used to like her. But in this campaign, she has consistently brought out in the worst in me. Just watching her makes me feel venal and nasty. (Obama has the opposite impact on me.)

Thus, I take sheer delight in moments like this, where she is exposed as the deceitful person she is:

Clinton's Math Says Puerto Rico is Meaningless

Figuring out which mathematical matrix the Clintons are using to justify stealing the Democratic Party's presidential nomination is probably similar to playing 3-d chess blind-folded.

At one point, it was all about pledged delegates. And then it was about the popular vote. And then it was about which states were "important" and which were not.

The latest from the Clinton camp feels that the super-delegates should consider which candidate to back based on the electoral votes of the states they carry in primaries in caucuses.

So, will someone please ask Howard Wolfson: does that mean Puerto Rico, has has no votes in the electoral college, doesn't count?

The Speech

Man, I want this guy to be my president.

Barack Obama's speech this morning was brilliant and daring. I am sadly afraid that it might not be successful.

I did not come to support Obama quickly, easily, or with the messianic fervor of many other whites in coastal America. I did so slowly, deliberately, with eyes wide open to his shortcomings and weaknesses. I felt he was not nearly as strong a general election candidate as many pundits did, and I was unsure of his readiness to be commander-in-chief in an uncertain and scary time. I considered seriously Bill Clinton's warning that voting for Obama was a risk.

With time, I decided I wanted to take that risk. I needed to take that risk. Over the course of fall and early winter, I slowly saw in Barack Obama the potential for something different in America, in her politics, and to a certain extent, in myself. I witnessed and grew enamored of a candidate who possessed a steely calm, who championed a cause without demonizing the opposition, and who challenged a broken, dysfunctional political system.

The past week, the endless cable TV loop of the worst of Jeremiah Wright filled me with dread. I have spent enough time in black churches and among the political hard left to be unfazed by Wright's politics or by his tone. But I am enough the member of a family of Reagan voters, enough the product of an ethnic mill town, and enough the political operative, to realize that Wright's comments had thrown Obama onto the third rail of American politics, and tied him there, firmly, tightly.

I was nervous about the speech this morning. I was skeptical that he could salvage his campaign from this crisis. Twelve hours later, I am not sure he did, but I feel genuine awe and gratitude for what I witnessed this morning.

What impressed me was not his eloquence, or his grasp of history, but his uncommon courage. Alone on stage, reading a speech written by his own hand and from his own heart, Barack Obama forcefully, calmly and eagerly broke every rule of modern American politics. He refused to simplify and pander. He opted for loyalty over political expediency. He thoughtfully explained instead of deliberately obfuscating.

Most remarkably, though, rather than try to short-circuit or bury an agonizing conversation about race in America, Barack Obama chose to start one. He understands this nation needs to embrace the complicated dialogue he has had within his own head for much of his life. He understands the discussion needs to be unflinching, unvarnished, and often painful. And while he understands the conversation will never be finished, that the union will never be perfected, it is necessary, productive, and ultimately transformative.

I am in awe of Barack Obama for what he did today. I have never felt as proud of supporting a candidate as I did today. I have never before felt that a candidate was really trying to change something big and deep and troubling in our country. And I have never before felt a leader was sincere when he said this was something "we" needed to do.

But I am skeptical that this speech will save his campaign. The significance of his message is either being lost or deliberately obscured by the rabid hyenas on CNN and Fox. And although I try, I cannot muster the faith he has in the American electorate to not only embrace the dialogue he calls us to, but to see and understand his candidacy as being about not that one conversation, but about so many more.

I don't quite believe we can, but he makes me want to. He makes me just audacious enough to hope that I am wrong.

Manners Can Be Rude

Tonight at the gym, I asked two 20something guys if they were done with a piece of equipment.

"We have just one more set, sir."

Sir? To a guy in his early 40s, desperately clinging to the last gasps of youth, that's rubbing it in.

She Makes Me Want to Vomit

Dear Lord. I just listened to NPR interview Steve Inskeep did with Lady MacBeth this week. Her capacity for bold and shameless lying is truly remarkable. After listening, I think have a concussion from banging my head against the wall.

She says that she never claimed that McCain is more qualified than Obama to be president. You can check it out here. It is just after the 3-minute mark, surrounded on both sides by other HRC whoppers.

She completely contradicts what she says in this clip, which marks the moment where I took the vow that I would never, under any circumstances, vote for her:



Her capacity for lying and doublespeak is chilling. This homemade ad from last year was so spot on:

Wright and Wrong

The media firestorm over the preachings of Jeremiah Wright, Barack Obama's pastor and long-time friend, is appalling, unbalanced, and stunningly unfair.

To be sure, many of the things Wright said are offensive, repugnant, and representative of a strain of thought outside mainstream American political thought.

Is it fair game for the media to question Obama about this? Yes. But only if the standard is applied equally. McCain has gotten some heat about Rev. Hagee and some of the other right-wing preachers he has courted -- but nothing like media mania over Wright's comments. His "God Damn America!" screech is getting as much play as Howard Dean's ill-fated scream did 4 years ago.

And what of Romney? He was asked about some tenets of the Mormon faith -- but not with this fervor. His questions came with the comparatively tame implication that he needed to distance himself from some teachings of his faith, but not actually denounce or quit the church.

A more telling example of the unbalanced media standard is the treatment of Roman Catholic politicians. Shouldn't Ted Kennedy be pressured to denounce the Pope for his mysoginist or anti-gay teachings? Shouldn't Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa be asked why he does not repudiate Cardinal Roger Mahoney for his enabling attitude toward pedophile priests? For that matter, shouldn't all Catholic politicians be asked how they can remain members of a church that tolerated and covered up generations of sexual abuse of minors?

Of course not. This isn't about faith or about speech. This is about the mainstream media narrative: build him up, and then tear him down with ferocious glee.

Huh?

I caught this gem online over the weekend:

Hillary Clinton expected to make surprise SNL appearance

Posted: 08:06 PM ET

(CNN) – Days before a crucial set of primaries, Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton is expected to make a surprise appearance on Saturday Night Live tonight, an entertainment industry source tells CNN.

How can someone be expected to make a surprise appearance?