The Rebuttal

This post attempts to provide a rebuttal what Disciple of Science wrote in the previous diary. To begin, I strongly support Hillary for Vice President. I did not support her during the Democratic primaries; favoring John Edwards at the commencement and Barack Obama for the long haul, she was my least favorite candidate during the process. In addition, I believe Disciple of Science is doing wonderful work in the forms of enhancing the agenda surrounding this particular branch of knowledge.

Your diary begins by saying "Dennis Kucinich for Vice President!" Dennis Kucinich? The somewhat loony man who claims he saw an UFO?

[CONTINUED: Click "Read More"] The man who also said, and I quote, "The energy of the stars becomes us. We become the energy of the stars. Stardust and spirit unite and we begin: one with the universe, whole and holy. From one source, endless creative energy, bursting forth, kinetic, elemental; we, the earth, air, water and fire-source of nearly fifteen billion years of cosmic spiraling." The man, called "Dennis the Menace" by the press, who led Cleveland into bankruptcy by organizing "the most messy administration" in the US; he is ranked the 7th worst mayor IN ALL OF AMERICAN HISTORY. He survived a recall vote after only ten months in office by 231 votes (out of 120,000) and was voted out after one term by Republican George Voinovich, even through Democrats outnumbered Republicans 8 to 1 in the area. I do not see how that qualifies him to be Vice President.

In conclusion, the man who described himself by saying, "I haven't been a leader..." If he's not a leader, why should anyone elect him as vice president?


I think you are pulling my leg, at least about Mr. Kucinich. But I will respond to each of your points about why you think Hillary is not the perfect choice. Again, I firmly support Hillary.


First line "Hillary Clinton contradicts everything about Barack Obama's candidacy." Um, not true. Let's look at the facts. According to the United States Library of Congress, they voted the same on all bills 97 percent of the time. The Washington Post wrote, "they agree on all the major issues".


One difference that you point out is Iraq; Hillary said she was misled by secret reports presented to members of Congress on Iraq. Here is where she stands now:


"Our message to the president is clear. It is time to begin ending this war -- not next year, not next month -- but today. "We have heard for years now that as the Iraqis stand up, our troops will stand down. Every year, we hear about how next year they may start coming home. Now we are hearing a new version of that yet again from the president as he has more troops in Iraq than ever and the Iraqi government is more fractured and ineffective than ever. "Well, the right strategy before the surge and post-escalation is the same: start bringing home America's troops now." If President Bush does not end the war, when Hillary Clinton is president, she will. Her three-step plan would bring our troops home, work to bring stability to the region, and replace military force with a new diplomatic initiative to engage countries around the world in securing Iraq's future. Hillary has been fighting every day in the Senate to force the president to change course..." Convincing and clear: she doesn't support the Iraq war now. Here's a video:

You say she "flip-flopped" on this issue. (Nice use of the Bush-Cheney 04 vocabulary...) The truth is, she changed her position. Great leaders, like George Washington and FDR, know that with new information policy should be altered.

Besides, Barack has changed his positions on important issues numerous times. Back in January, the Obama campaign described union contributions to the Clinton and Edwards campaign as "special interest" money. He changed his tune as he went after union endorsements himself. He now refers respectfully to unions as the representatives of "working people" and says he is "thrilled" by their support. Obama replied "yes" in September 2007 when asked if he would agree to public financing of the presidential election if his GOP opponent did the same. His spokesman now says that he never gave such a pledge, and Obama himself has attached several conditions, including regulating spending by outside groups. More recently, he supported the DC ban on handguns before he was against it. Here's a video I was forwarded from a loyal Republican who might vote for Barack:

Subsequently, you wrote this: "(she) stayed in the race long after it was a mathematical impossibility for her to win..." (Note that I added the italicised word "she" for the quote to be coherent.) For a lady who got the most votes of any primary candidate in history (if you include Florida and Michigan), won 4 of the 5 largest states, and trailed by small numbers of delegates throughout the majority of the process, ( in the words of Bill Clinton) , "Give me a break."

After this unfortunate comment, you said "(she) takes money from lobbyists..." (Note that I added the italicised word "she" for the quote to be coherent.) Well, most politicians do, including Barack Obama; the Senator from Illinois took a combined total of over a million dollars in the Illinois State Legislature and his first two years in the capitol. Mr. Obama, according to Maplight.org has taken $18,648,802 from attorneys & law firms, $1,819,789 from real estate, and $1,711,811 from commercial banks & bank holding companies in the form of contributions. Although that is slightly different from lobbying gifts, it makes an impact on votes, as Maplight's program shows.

Next sentence: "(she) used political gimmicks such as the gas tax holiday and the assertion that she won the popular vote and, in effect, that caucus states do not count." (Again, please note that I added the italicised word "she" for the quote to be coherent.) Hillary supported the gas tax holiday; even Dennis Kucinich (the man you hail for VP) said, "I would consider voting" for the proposed plan. If you count all the people who traveled to the polls and voted, from Michigan to Florida to Alaska, Hillary did win that measure of success, called the popular vote. Hillary never said caucuses do not count. Critical members of her staff implied that in conversations. Hillary spoke about favoring the primary system, because with caucuses not as many people can attend because of child care, long jobs, etc. I completely agree with her.

Following this paragraph came a new hit "Hillary stepped out of the race in a far from gracious manner, using a speech that stated that she could not break "that highest, hardest glass ceiling," thus implying that sexism was the cause of her defeat." Actually, Hillary stepped out of the race in an extremely gracious manner.

Barack Obama was the individual who coined the speech "gracious". Here is what Hillary really said: "Although we were not able to shatter that highest, hardest glass ceiling this time, thanks to you, it’s got about 18 million cracks in it. And the light is shining through like never before, filling us all with the hope and the sure knowledge that the path will be a little easier next time. That has always been the history of progress in America." Where in the world did you get the idea that Hillary implied sexism was the cause of her defeat? Because it wasn't in her speech. The basic concept I took from the speech was hope, overcoming challenge, and strength- all wonderful characteristics of a Vice President.

Ensuing the above line I read this: "This came after she had used every opportunity to sully Obama's image and even perpetuate racist rumors by saying on 60 Minutes that he is not a Muslim "as far as I know."" Come on, do you really think that Hillary was trying to "perpetuate racist rumours" with that comment? Right after the Ohio and Texas primaries, Hillary went on record debunking countless smears against Barack: that he is a Muslim, etc.

Subsequently, I saw this, "All of which could have easily been forgiven and forgotten with the label of "politics as usual" if she had conceded when it was mathematically impossible for her to win instead of trying to bring down her opposition so she could seize power in 2012." Last time I checked, Hillary did concede when it was mathematically impossible for her to win. This whole idea of Hillary running in 2012 are a combination of false rumours that have no truth; they do not belong on any site that claims to protect candor, clarity, and correctness. Hillary's campaign has definitely not been "politics as usual". As a leader strove to become the first female POTUS she has broken barriers around gender in America; definitely not "politics as usual".

The story continued. "Hillary would bring very few supporters to Obama because that one in four of her supporters who now supports McCain most likely had voted for President Bush in 2000 and 2004 and/or participated in Rush Limbaugh's "Operation: Chaos." Humm, yet again another statement that is fictitious, flawed, and fallacious. According to a new AP poll, 53% of Hillary supporters would vote for Barack if she wasn't on the ticket. Placed with Barack, the number skyrockets to 89% of supporters/ leaners. You say she would bring very few supporters; please explain why 89% of 18 million are "very few supporters". In 2004, John Kerry only got 89% of the Democratic vote. If Hillary was selected, Barack would run stronger/ barely stronger in Florida, Michigan, Connecticut and New Hampshire.

The next point really upsets me. "She would also bring little other than her name recognition to the ticket and the White House, because simply being in the White House while your spouse is the President does not qualify as "experience," unless of course you have influence over your spouse rivaling that that Vice President Cheney has over President Bush." For the past 35 years, Hillary has been working with commitment, loyalty and dedication to improve the lives of women and children; whether it be in Arkansas or the Senate, Hillary has fought for change and to make the lives of others better. She could have opted out for a lucrative job at a big corporate law firm- but she didn't. Her principles dictated her path. By claiming she would bring little to the ticket and to the White House is unfortunate, inauspicious, and spurious. In addition, I would also like to point out that it is a false analogy to connect VP Cheney to Bush and Hillary to Mr. Clinton.

The ultimate paragraph: "Politically, Barack Obama needs someone who is actually experienced in foreign policy, not a member of the Washington establishment, and not extremely liberal to be his V.P. These people would include Governor Bill Richardson, Senator Jim Webb, and any of the generals that endorsed him or Senator Clinton. Though, the V.P. that would be best for the country would be Congressman Dennis Kucinich." Hillary has more experience that Barack Obama, Jim Webb, and a handful of the generals you mentioned; she "is actually experienced in foreign policy" to use your own words. Part of your criteria for VP disqualifies Mr. Kucinich; Mr. Kucinich described himself as "the most liberal person in America" when talking to the AFL-CIO. Why does your benchmark for VP include "not extremely liberal"; if Mr. Kucinich thinks he is the most liberal person in America, then apparently it wouldn't be great choice to select him.

Obama/ Hillary 08!