Are Hillary Clinton's comments about her spiritual beliefs campaign rhetoric or sincere faith?
Jennyjinx
Candidates on both sides of the aisle bandy about the word "faith" as
if it's a magic wand that will somehow hypnotize the average American
into supporting their campaign. They throw the word around as if it's
the Pied Piper's instrument leading rats to the river. The current
crop of Presidential candidates assumes that the American public is
somehow out of touch with reality, uninformed, and will eat any amount
of garbage fed to them.
The Democratic candidates see that the Christian Right has mobilized
the Republican right wing base and work feverishly to find that kind
of strength in numbers. Senator Clinton is no different in this
regard. She sees an opportunity to come ahead in the polls and
snatches it like a fish to a lure. She forgets her own history, or
tries to negate it, as it suits her. She has mastered rhetoric and her
use of faith during her campaign is part of that. She has time and
again shown that she holds no real stance on any of the political
issues important to Americans, and will use whatever language she
deems will gain her votes. For instance, in 2005 she voted NO in
cutting $40 billion in overall federal spending, and yet voted "Yes"
to fund the war in Iraq. She says now, in 2007, that she wants our
troops home. She has lambasted corporate elites for treating "working-
class America as invisible" in 2007*, but she served on the Wal-Mart
board of directors until 1992. Those are just two examples of how
Hillary Clinton twists with the wind.
While Senator Clinton may be sincerely faithful, her speaking on faith
during this campaign is obviously rhetoric used to garner her favor
with voters. Were the majority of Americans atheists I have no doubt
that she would disavow her religious upbringing and throw her own
church under the bus.
don't care much about the Republican candidates because no matter
what they say I don't hear them. I don't pay attention, I don't
support them, I'm not looking at their ranks for a suitable candidate
for me.
I'm looking toward the Democratic candidates for change. I want
something different than what we already have. I want courage and
compassion and a strong, firm back bone. Right now it looks like
Hillary might sew up that nomination and she is just more of what's
already in the White House.
How is she going to be different? We don't know because she can't tell
us straight. She couldn't answer straight forward questions in the
YouTube debate, because she was so afraid of losing votes. I don't
give a flying monkey's ass what any of them are going to do when they
get elected. I want to see some results now. Hillary can't give those
results even though she's a member of the Senate majority because
she's so damned focused on 2008. That pisses me off. Obama's the same
way. Show me now how you're going to heal this country. Or shut the
fuck up. You know? Too many damned sheeple are so busy being star
struck that they don't think to demand the same thing.
It's infuriating.
(originally posted at http://www.fabulouslyjinxed.com/2007/07/30/question-of-the-week-of-july-29/
and in the comments there.)
O' Tim
16 months from November 2008. I don't see how you're wrong on Hilly,
but B.O. stinks even worse with his multi-tier answers and the five
dollar words. And the Audacity of Hope? BARF! Kucinich is the
frontrunner in terms of who has got the courage of conviction not to
mention some good, concrete ideas. But the poor dude's barely a blip
(and true to form for the past several elections, he will be getting
my vote in the primary regardless of whether he gets on the ballot in
my redneck of the woods).
You say, "The current crop of Presidential candidates assumes that the
American public is somehow out of touch with reality, uninformed, and
will eat any amount of garbage fed to them," like it's not true.
Campaigns seem to have become in large part a race to see who can best
strike a chord with uneducated, unsophisticated voters. GWB's re-
appointment in 2004 proves that the majority of this country's
electorate has degenerated into an embarrassing crop of mass-think,
knee-jerk xenophobes who have been agitated by non-issues like stem
cell research, gay marriage and how often one goes to church.
So seeing the frontrunners, especially the Democrats, posing as all
tingly with god is surely depressing. That's more of the same indeed,
which is to say a leader that will polarize this country even more
than it is now, if you can believe that's even possible.
Jennyjinx
I only mentioned Hillary because that was actually the question (it
was posed by that writing thing that I was bitching about with the
plagiarizer). I don't like her and I don't like Barak. They are the
same, in my opinion, and will bring more of the same to this country.
Both of them see what kind of power Bush has taken for himself and
want to have that. They can taste it. They are two of the nastiest
candidates, with their attacks so early. When they started that crap
back in January I wrote them both off. And they just keep getting
worse.
For instance, during that YouTube debate (I saw a rerun the other
night) the candidates were asked to say one thing they liked and one
thing they disliked about the candidate to their left. Everyone did
that except for Clinton. She tried her little rallying cry about how
she's going to bring the best to this country and gag, gag, puke.
Anderson Cooper said "So, I guess you're not going to answer then".
That, to me, is the perfect example of her bullshit.
Ok, back to my point. The informed Americans, or at least the ones
that pay attention, are sick of the ads, the lies, the false promises.
So many people on both sides just say to hell with it. Plus there's
still that little bit of a conspiracy theorist in me that wants
answers to why there were so many voting issue in Ohio in November
2006. But you're right, the majority of voters (at least in Ohio)
turned out to vote against gay marriage and whomever was against that
got their vote. That didn't say much about the candidates, but the
mega churches that supported Republican candidates. As a matter of
fact, two or three of them were under investigation and may have lost
their tax exempt status because they were so vehement in their support
of certain candidates- one even threatening to ban members for voting
the other way. It was nasty.
At this point, I have no faith in the Democrats, and especially the
ones trying to pander to the RW Christians. Hopefully when 2008
finally rolls around someone decent will pop up.
blurbees
[...]
> At this point, I have no faith in the Democrats, and especially the
> ones trying to pander to the RW Christians. Hopefully when 2008
> finally rolls around someone decent will pop up.
don't hold your breath on that one.
if we haven't see theem by now, what hope could there be that they'll
pop up out of nowhere?
my opinion?
the only way to get some positive useful change for the better which
does not manifest as just more bullshit deception is to somehow put
huge pressure on those who are likely gonna "win".
...
bickerfest blurbees
http://bickerfest.blogspot.com
(where a good argument is worth its weight in B$)