How is it that politicians can so easily drop their past to pursue their future? I am speaking specifically of Hillary Clinton. Before you start writing letters and cursing my name, I want to make it clear that I am perfectly aware that Sen. Clinton is not the only person to engage in the mystical erasing of history.
What I am of course referring to is her recent statements that she would not have started a war with Iraq. Hmm... am I wrong, or didn't she vote for military action against Iraq back in 2002?
It's convenient for politicians to casually alter their stance once campaign time roles around. When Congress authorized war with Iraq, they did so under faulty intelligence -- a fact I think we have all come to realize. Making a statement that she would not have started war with Iraq is ludicrous because she did vote for military action in Iraq.
All of this should be of utmost concern to the 2008 presidential front-runner as this same type of issue caused the demise of John Kerry in 2004. Remember the $86 billion? Of course you do. Congress urged the president to own up to his mistakes pertaining to the war in Iraq and admit the war began under faulty intelligence.
Now the tables have turned. Hillary must admit the fact that she was wrong. Instead, she is throwing around ridiculous comments about what she would have done. This begs the question: Why didn't Hillary run for president in 2004? I know this is all hindsight, but I truly believe she had a better chance of beating Bush than did Kerry. Could it be that Democrats do not want to see Hillary receive the nomination? If the Democrats are afraid to put Hillary in the power seat, the following could help to explain why.
In 2005, Senator Clinton co-sponsored a bill that would have made it punishable by fines and/or imprisonment to burn the flag of the United States. This brilliant piece of legislation, known as the Flag Protection Act of 2005, is an ACLU nightmare. Senator Clinton introduced this bill as an alternative to a constitutional amendment banning flag burning.
Although I am against the idea of burning the American flag, I know the liberal left, protected fully by the ACLU, would be outraged at the thought of this piece of legislation. I see this as a clear violation of our civil liberties, despite my personal feelings on the issue. The question this poses is this: Is Hillary liberal enough?
Despite her vague opinions on the war and her stance on flag burning, the question of Hillary's liberalism is quickly answered -- leading to another "Hillary hypocrisy." Hillary is a huge supporter of the public school system and believes in its ability to educate our children. Her support is so strong that, according to a February 2006 Newsday article, she opposed the school voucher program -- a program that would give parents the opportunity to choose where their children go to school instead of being forced to send their children to public schools dealing with financial difficulties. However adamant Hillary remains that public schools are good for students, a little school called Sidwell Friends will forever remain in her rolodex. That's because Sidwell Friends is the name of the $24,000 per year private school that Bill and Hillary enrolled their daughter Chelsea in shortly after invading the White House.
How about that for an adamant supporter of public schools?
Remaining on the left, Hillary is also an advocate of a universal healthcare system, also known as a huge blow to capitalism. Her universal healthcare system would legally require all citizens to "enroll."
In other words, you, the consumer, would lose another freedom under the progressive movement. Hospitals would be government-funded institutions under her plan. This would mean that hospitals will no longer compete to give us the best care possible. Competition in the market has been a cornerstone of American capitalism since this country began.
Competition creates quality.
Under Hillary's administration, we would be losing more rights than we should be able to stomach -- our right to burn flags in protest (however sick it may make me), our right to choose better schools for our children, our right to access and choose our own forms of healthcare, among others that this column does not permit the space to mention. Her stance on the war is also unclear, which speaks volumes to her political character.
I am fairly sure Hillary Clinton will receive the highly competitive Democratic nomination.
The Democrats know that Hillary is a polarizing figure.
When November of 2008 finally rolls around, consider some of this when you are about to pull that little lever or push the touch-screen button that says "Hillary Rodham Clinton."
How many freedoms can we afford to lose?
