She Just Lost Me: Time to Bid Fairwell to Hillary Clinton

The are a lot of issues at stake in this campaign. But to me, the most important tactical issue is - will we emerge with a strong, forceful Democratic Party that is capable of engaging mainstream Americans and helping move this country toward the change we so desperately need?

It is important because, without a strong party, we have no hope of bringing about that change.

It's more important to me, frankly, than the personality issues of WHO wins the Democratic Nomination. I'd like it to be Barack Obama, but up until now, I would have been willing to do my part- phone calls, emails, donations- for whoever won the nomination...including Hillary Clinton.

As of today, this is no longer true.

What triggered this switch? Nothing big, not even a headline...rather, just a little tiny blurb inside an AP News Story about Geraldine Ferraro's Obama gaff.

The quote, buried in the story:

Clinton described Sen. John McCain, the Republican presidential nominee-in-waiting, as a tough adversary on national security but stopped short of saying McCain is better qualified than Obama to be commander in chief.

"I don't want to use those words. I think that voters will have to make that decision," she said

What the hell is she doing: "I don't want to use those words"?

--- Is there ANY OTHER ANSWER TO MAKE ON BEHALF OF A FELLOW DEMOCRAT, EVEN ONE'S OPPONENT, THAN BY SAYING:

"HELL, YES HE'D BE A BETTER COMMANDER IN CHIEF THAN JOHN McCAIN."

(It would be fine if she added "BUT NOT BETTER THAN ME!" After all, if she doesn't truly believe she is the best person for the job, why is she running?)

John McCain, after all, despite his deserved reputation as a hero, has been recognized by George W. Bush as the heir to America's failed Iraq War. No matter how much valor a man may have, if he is not leading his troops to better ground on which to fight, but risks them by holding a weak position, then his is not a good commander.

I would also respect Hillary's opinion if she said, flat out: "I think Barack Obama is too inexperienced to lead this country at this time. I honestly believe that we'd be better off with an experienced Republican, than with this young, very young man." I would not agree with her, but I would respect her for stating, without equivocation, that she personally thought Obama so dangerous that she needed to put the needs of country ahead of party.

But she has done none of these things. Instead, she has slithered and slid, making sideways glancing allegations, and crafty underhanded remarks.

The remark I read today is not a new trend. Visit GMD or many other left of center blogs, do a search on Hillary, and you'll see her pilloried in myriads of ways. Like you, I've heard it before. But today's little quote was the straw that broke this donkey's back.

Many who are further to the left of me will think it down right quaint that, only now, am I crying "Foul!" But,despite my personal preference for Obama, I've tried to force myself to be objective, but from here on in, I cannot give continue to give Hillary Clinton the benefit of the doubt.

I am under no illusions that my lack of willingness to help Hillary win will cause her to lose a moment of sleep....but if many other Democrats start to feel the way then she might start realizing that, even if she does win the nomination, she will loose the race.

This county needs new leadership. This party needs to focus on providing that leadership.

This party needs to say good-bye to Hillary Clinton...alas for history, she is not the one.