The Hillary Headache is Beginning
The media and political pundits can't seem to get away from the Hillary Clinton presidency predictions. So, why not me as well?
"Hillary...Don't RUN!"
I have no interest in her being my president, in fact I wonder if I'd be as disappointed if she were to win as I was with George Bush. It seems if she were to win we'd just have part four of some type of kingdom successions, Bush, Clinton, Bush, Clinton, when would it end?
My full thought is that Hillary is just another opportunist politician. She wants to continue to "triangulate" the Democratic Party by moving it to the right. Why can't the party rid themselves of these half-assed loyalists. She comes from the Democratic Leadership Council (DLC) that was husband Bill's launching point. But the DLC has been inching right year by year and increasingly cozying up closer to corporate interests. But they are causing the internal division of the Democrats, a widening schism.
As low as Preseident Bush's ratings are these days (a new poll puts his approval at only 34%) and the corruption scandals lurking all around the Republican Congress, it should be easy to assume that the opposition party holds all the cards. But Americans don't perceive the Democrats as having any answers. Partially this is the result of Republicans saying that and the media mimicing that line, but as well blame can be placed on the DLC which really doesn't have any new ideas. The DLC doesn't come up with new ideas, but attempts to triangulate or a better term co-opt some Republican themes.
The Democrats are split into two groups, the DLC and then the true ideology of the left which can be named progressives these days. The big money goes to the DLC sect and thus the larger voice which drowns out the progressives. Yet the progressive side is the section of the party that can be truly called the opposition party to the Republican Party.
Progressives were the ones who opposed the Iraq War right from the beginning and it's getting very hard to argue they were wrong. Even noted conservatives like William Buckley have now acknowledged Iraq was and is wrong. There are a number of issues that progressives should be allowed to articulate in the main stream media, but get overshadowed by the Hillary types and ignored by the media.
I shudder at the thought of Hillary Clinton winning the Democratic nomination for 2008. I tend to think of American presidential races as obscenely important coin flips. A call it in the air choice between two opposition political parties. Hillary in 2008 will make that coin flip one sided. A conservative Republican on one side of the coin and not an opposition candidate on the other. Hillary is in the middle, nothing but the edge of the coin.
Sure there will be a few issues I might agree with Mrs. Clinton on, heath care issues for instance, but hell, I could agree with a conservative on a few issues. Just a few issues doesn't thrill me, I want a total ideology and strong opinions and beliefs. I want a candidate that can point to the opposition and state that they are wrong on most issues. And certainly after the Bush blunderful years I want a vast change in the direction in this country.
Hillary will not be that change. Oh, she may at times during her campaign act like she is the candidate for change, but the real person she is will be tied to corporate interests. I mean has she ever fully backed campaign finance change, or large reform of lobbying? She's all about business as usual in politics.
I'm sure I'll end up blogging more about Hillary as we approach 2008, advocating people to not support her, but I wanted to chime in early. At the minimum it's time for some new blood besides the Clinton/Bush blood or to paraphrase a French revolution, "off with their talking heads."
"Hillary...Don't RUN!"
I have no interest in her being my president, in fact I wonder if I'd be as disappointed if she were to win as I was with George Bush. It seems if she were to win we'd just have part four of some type of kingdom successions, Bush, Clinton, Bush, Clinton, when would it end?
My full thought is that Hillary is just another opportunist politician. She wants to continue to "triangulate" the Democratic Party by moving it to the right. Why can't the party rid themselves of these half-assed loyalists. She comes from the Democratic Leadership Council (DLC) that was husband Bill's launching point. But the DLC has been inching right year by year and increasingly cozying up closer to corporate interests. But they are causing the internal division of the Democrats, a widening schism.
As low as Preseident Bush's ratings are these days (a new poll puts his approval at only 34%) and the corruption scandals lurking all around the Republican Congress, it should be easy to assume that the opposition party holds all the cards. But Americans don't perceive the Democrats as having any answers. Partially this is the result of Republicans saying that and the media mimicing that line, but as well blame can be placed on the DLC which really doesn't have any new ideas. The DLC doesn't come up with new ideas, but attempts to triangulate or a better term co-opt some Republican themes.
The Democrats are split into two groups, the DLC and then the true ideology of the left which can be named progressives these days. The big money goes to the DLC sect and thus the larger voice which drowns out the progressives. Yet the progressive side is the section of the party that can be truly called the opposition party to the Republican Party.
Progressives were the ones who opposed the Iraq War right from the beginning and it's getting very hard to argue they were wrong. Even noted conservatives like William Buckley have now acknowledged Iraq was and is wrong. There are a number of issues that progressives should be allowed to articulate in the main stream media, but get overshadowed by the Hillary types and ignored by the media.
I shudder at the thought of Hillary Clinton winning the Democratic nomination for 2008. I tend to think of American presidential races as obscenely important coin flips. A call it in the air choice between two opposition political parties. Hillary in 2008 will make that coin flip one sided. A conservative Republican on one side of the coin and not an opposition candidate on the other. Hillary is in the middle, nothing but the edge of the coin.
Sure there will be a few issues I might agree with Mrs. Clinton on, heath care issues for instance, but hell, I could agree with a conservative on a few issues. Just a few issues doesn't thrill me, I want a total ideology and strong opinions and beliefs. I want a candidate that can point to the opposition and state that they are wrong on most issues. And certainly after the Bush blunderful years I want a vast change in the direction in this country.
Hillary will not be that change. Oh, she may at times during her campaign act like she is the candidate for change, but the real person she is will be tied to corporate interests. I mean has she ever fully backed campaign finance change, or large reform of lobbying? She's all about business as usual in politics.
I'm sure I'll end up blogging more about Hillary as we approach 2008, advocating people to not support her, but I wanted to chime in early. At the minimum it's time for some new blood besides the Clinton/Bush blood or to paraphrase a French revolution, "off with their talking heads."
posted by jon at 1:15 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home