Blah, blah, blah

Do not vote for Clinton if you care about women’s rights. She doesn’t give a fuck if Arab women die.

Do you remember when gravel called Clinton out on Iran?

Clinton responded like an arrogant jerk. She was the only democratic candidate to vote for the Sept. 2007 bill, which designated the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps, part of Iran’s army, as a terrorist organization.

Sen. James Webb (D-VA) said of the bill:

If we are saying that the Iranian Revolutionary Guards are conducting terrorist activities, what we are saying in effect is that the Revolutionary Guards are conducting military activities against us.
This has the danger of becoming a de facto authorization for military force against Iran.

Despite the December findings that Iran halted its nuclear program in 2003, Clinton stands by her vote.

Obama didn’t even show up for the vote, but at least he didn’t vote against it? He said he would have voted against if he had been there. [I've heard that before, something about Iraq...]

Hillary Clinton is with the President on Iraq. She is no change candidate, as she showed us again last night during the President’s State of the Union address.

Pretending as if the surge in the Iraq were successful, Bush said, “Some may deny the surge is working, but among terrorists there is no doubt.” [that it is not working?] At the President’s self-congratulating remarks, Clinton jumped up to applaud (Obama did not move).

If the president of the US is a “quasi-Margaret Thatcher” (albeit, she cannot be that horrible; she’s just a US moderate–conservative), it will invariably harm the women’s rights movement. Most women are working class, whereas Clinton was a corporate lawyer. She worked hard to protect intellectual property at Rose Law Firm before being the first woman on the corporate board of directors of Wal-Mart, a client of Rose Law Firm. Who would she represent? The millions of women being exploited to produce and then sell goods to feed Wal-Mart’s fat wallets? Or the few elites who crush unions for just that little extra profit?

I am offended that some people insist such a candidate represents women.

For example of such bull shit, the president of NY chapter of the National Organization of Women, NOW, Marcia Pappas, responded with contrite outcry at Senator Ted Kennedy’s endorsement of Obama:

“Women have just experienced the ultimate betrayal. Senator Kennedy’s endorsement of Hillary Clinton’s opponent in the Democratic presidential primary campaign has really hit women hard.”

The ultimate betrayal, really? Isn’t that a little melodramatic? Fucking hell. And it’s way more than a little ironic. Since when did whom a man endorse matter to women’s empowerment? Women are the majority in the US; the majority of registered voters. AND fuck no, I wont go to Clinton’s camp.

People like Steinem and Pappas don’t seem to understand how things work. Do you think Condi Rice represents black women (90% democrat)? Alberto Gonzales represents Latinos? Clinton does not represent white women! Sure, they may represent a small portion–the wealthy–but they do not give voice to working people. Moreover, no fucking politician is really going to represent us, but they should at least bend to the will of popular opinion. Most of the US opposes the Iraq war. Most of the US does not want to go to war with Iran.

Don’t let Clinton become “a quasi-Margaret Thatcher”!