Anticipating Hillary’s Campaign

 
 
Would anyone describe a man as cold and calculating? They
might call a man ruthless but women are not generally described in that way.
Cold and calculating sounds smaller, less powerful than ruthless. It sounds
petty. Would we rather have a President who can be cold and calculating which
suggests that all actions taken are weighed without emotion and with at least
one selfish eye focusing on what is in it for me, or one who is ruthless? We
would hope for a President who is somewhat selfless, who puts the needs of the
nation before his/her own needs. Ruthlessness can be read as simply giving no
quarter to one’s enemies, which the nation’s hawks would find laudable, or it
can be read as rapacious human greed as a filter for any and all decisions,
which no one really sees as laudable. Cold and calculating describes someone
who never behaves from altruistic motives. Calling Hillary cold and calculating
is sexist, but subtle enough that not everyone sees it. If the label sticks it
is deadly; who wants a President who is cold and/or calculating?

I have already written that the Republicans have been
extremely disruptive and have challenged the Obama Presidency at every turn.
They have been the root cause behind a historically contentious six years. They
have basically walked over the legal line on some very key and hard-won rights.
We have a law which says that abortion is legal but Republicans are working to
make abortions impossible to get in some states. What they are doing is against
the law, but they just keep appealing court decisions so that their illegal
activities are always in adjudication. Meanwhile they busily write more rules
that make it impossible for women to access that technically legal abortion.

They know all Americans have the right to vote and yet the GOP
has passed thousands of local laws that make it harder for people to vote and
the courts seem to be upholding these laws. Because of these seditious
activities (and more) I will not be voting for any of the Republicans who have
announced or will be announcing a run for the Presidency regardless of how
moderate they sound as they campaign.

If Hillary runs I do plan to vote for her. I am, however, like
everyone else. I want to know where Hillary Clinton stands on the issues. I
want to hear how she talks about the issues. Since I cannot in all conscience
vote for any Republican it really doesn’t matter to me where Hillary stands on
the issues. She has to come down to the left of folks like Ted Cruz, Rand Paul,
et al.

Still, I would like to know what she thinks about the Trans
Pacific Trade agreement, known as the TPP; will she continue to halt the
Keystone Pipeline because it threatens fresh water resources in Nebraska; where
will she stand on money in politics and Citizen’s United? Exactly how will she
help the middle class? How will she hold her own against the obstructers, the
greedy right wingers who think that they are paying for our benefits and that
they no longer want their tax dollars to go towards these programs. They don’t
want to pay for abortions; they don’t want to pay for Medicaid, or food stamps,
or welfare, or Medicare, or Social Security. I did not know Americans got to
pick and choose which laws their dollars would be used to support. I thought
our tax dollars went into a single fund to be spent on all programs the people
asked Congress to fund. Who knew?

What does Hillary believe is the right size for our
government? How much regulation of Capitalism does she believe is necessary to
protect citizens from unbridled greed?

Has she put together some kind of package to offer the
American people and what is in it?

Does she believe with Obama that diplomacy and negotiation are
the correct ways to approach aggressive nations, or is she more hawkish? It is
clear that her “yes” vote on the Iraq War will follow her, that her opponents
will try to frame it as a deal breaker. However, I remember what Saddam Hussein
was like, so belligerent and bellicose. When George Bush and his loyal henchmen
(or was he the henchman) hammered home  numbers of WMD stockpiles that were supposedly
carefully hidden within the boundaries of Iraq and told us that there were, in
fact, mobile arms factories that could evade our observers, I began to think
that we would have to go into Iraq or Saddam might take us out while we were
busy hunting terrorists. They lied and yet she is to blame. This is a typical
Republican strategy. Blame the opposition for your own sins, do it often, and
do it loudly and hope that it sticks. I don’t have a problem with how Hillary
voted on the Iraq War.

I love peace, though and feel that we must have peace now more
than ever so that we can turn our attention and our dollars to solving pressing
global problems. I also believe that all nations must understand that we will
go to war if we have to.

Food and fresh water will become scarcer and scarcer as the
population grows and grows. If we don’t keep the world on a peacetime footing
and work together to solve survival issues before they actually threaten our
survival we won’t have to imagine the apocalypse, it will arrive.

Hillary needs to address big picture problems that need
solutions more and more desperately every year as solutions to these problems
keep being put off by meaningless distractions and by contentious awakenings
around the world. She will, at the same time, have to address domestic
challenges that are threatening to make the American middle class disappear and
that are destroying hopes of upward mobility.

I wish Hillary did not even have to run against these
hooligans from the GOP. How does anyone take them seriously, but she will be
expected to. I think I may turn off my TV until the election. There is no way
this can be pretty.
 
By Nancy Brisson