Why I've Dropped My Support for Hillary Clinton

After really passionately supporting Hillary Clinton as my candidate for President almost since she began her candidacy, it is with great disappointment that I have to announce that I cannot support her to that extent anymore.

(Not that my thoughts make much of a difference, I suppose I'm just announcing this personally exceptional moment to myself on my blog, maybe facebook.)

One recent event in particular prompted this change: her recent appeal to President Bush to boycott the Olympics in Beijing. The issue of China's human rights record is a separate topic, but one that is important enough to require a brief mention concerning this post. I've read many reactions to the protests in London and Paris, most of which are supportive of the protesters. I'll write another post about this issue after the Olympic flame tours my favorite city tomorrow. Save to say, I support their right to protest, on the other hand I believe they have taken their protests too far. It is one thing to make a statement and practice civil disobedience, it is another to be disruptive to the extent that one will attack people in wheelchairs in order to make a statement. These issues need to be aired out, and I'll do my best to write about this important issue tomorrow.

But for now, I think Clinton's calls to boycott the Opening Ceremonies are indicative of exactly the opposite of what I hoped for in a Presidential candidate. Objectively speaking, her protests will do nothing to convince President Bush to boycott the Olympics. Her appeal to President Bush does nothing more than appeal for political points among certain groups. In fact, her appeal does her more harm than good. She has demonstrated, by this one act, how little she really understands China as a country, while at the same time arguing for her foreign policy credentials; and has demonstrated how much she's willing to turn a peaceful international event into a forum for politics in a way that really demeans what the ancient tradition of the Olympics stands for, in my mind.

I may be wrong about what I believe the Olympics stands for, but as I understood it, it was an event to help heal international rifts and act as a peaceful, friendly forum for athletic competition. To me, the Olympics overall indicates that there are things, such as celebrating such ideals, that are more meaningful to us as a human society than rivalries. I think people kid themselves when they think that people are solely motivated by China's dismal human rights record. Let's face it, China does have a dismal human rights record. But let's also face it: What good does poking the eye of a giant do to help it better sympathize with human rights?

People with other motives too are interested in increasing rifts between America and China.

Also, I think people (particularly those who have only paid attention to issues concerning China in depth for only a few days or weeks at most) need to wake up to the twin realities of: 1) China overall, not just the Chinese government, are really excited about hosting the Olympics. It is ingrained in our culture that being hosts are a great responsibility. To not be great hosts is to lose a lot of face. For an entire international community to put politics in play where politics never really was an intention of the Olympics, except the transcendence of politics, would be an insult to the entire Chinese nation. The Chinese people already have a reason to be biased against us in the West, the Western media sometimes really does seem to report Chinese issues from a one-sided vantage point. That's not a wrong in of itself, but the Western media as an important democratic institution should not be intentionally or inadvertently giving biased reports against an entire country. And 2), let's face it, China has a really thin skin in terms of criticism. What does Clinton's appeal to boycott the Olympics really do then, if it doesn't convince President Bush to boycott? It insults the Chinese government and the Chinese people, and it doesn't accomplish much else. In the event that Clinton becomes President now, she has only more distance to cover before being able to repair relations with the Chinese. What kind of foreign policy advice is she getting? That she's willing to risk so much, for no gain, except maybe political points, is cause for my disappointment and despair that I have lost the candidate that I have hoped for. There are much better ways, in terms of impact and less divisiveness, to work out international disagreements. Forcefully bringing them into the Olympics is not one of them.

Let's make it clear: Civil disobedience and protests are great. Attacking people in wheelchairs is not. If one is a politician running for an office where one should know better (for many reasons), turning an athletic competition into an official political bashing opportunity reflects poor judgment, bad advice, and maybe both.

For these reasons, and a few others, I am renouncing my support for any Democratic nominee for the duration of this year's primary. Good luck to both candidates.