Hillary Clinton-a closet right winger? "what we are left with is a sleek, well-funded, power-seeking machine" by Barbara Ehrenreich
Marg...@gmail.com
Excerpt:
Who Is Hillary Clinton?
Barbara Ehrenreich
One theory, which functions as a kind of cargo cult among some
American liberals, is that behind the bland, smiling, exterior and the
thick gauze of platitudes, crouches a fiery liberal feminist, ready,
when she has finally amassed enough power--say in her second term as
President--to spring forth and save the world.
If Carl Bernstein's exhausting 600-page biography, A Woman in Charge:
The Life of Hillary Rodham Clinton, accomplishes anything, it should
be to euthanize this touching hope. Hillary Rodham Clinton was always
a moderate, given to centrist, technocratic. In her lifetime, she has
glided effortlessly from one side to another on key issues--the death
penalty, for example, or entitlements for poor women and children--all
the while maintaining the self-righteousness granted, supposedly, by
her Methodist God.
In Bernstein's account the mystery of Hillary is largely explained by
her fraught relationship with Bill. She was pretty enough, but an
awkward, wonky, young woman; he was a brilliant, ambitious, sexually
magnetic stud; and in following him to Arkansas she seemed to have
thrown her future as, say, a high-profile Washington public interest
lawyer. "My friends and family thought I had lost my mind," Bernstein
quotes her as saying. He insists that theirs is, or sometimes was, a
deep connection--sexual, intellectual and committed to their joint
political "journey."
....Hillary's attempt to create a national health insurance system--
which she will have to undertake a second time as a presidential
candidate--was a disaster in every way. Procedurally, she screwed up
by conducting the planning under conditions of extreme secrecy, not
even bothering to reach out to potentially supportive members of
Congress, never mind the usual populist trimming of few televised town
meetings. What Bernstein omits is her out-of-hand dismissal of the
kind of single-payer system the Canadians have, which led to a
tortured 1300-page piece of legislation that almost no one could
comprehend. The bottom line, unnoted by Bernstein, is that, despite
the right's charges of "socialized medicine," her plan would have
maintained the nation's largest private insurance companies' death
grip on American health care.
Now it was Hillary's to be the liability, rather than the super-ego,
in the Billary team. Revelations about her involvement in an obscure
land deal in Arkansas suggested a conflict of interest between her
prior role as both first lady of that state and an attorney at Little
Rock's Rose law firm. The real scandal is that she had worked for Rose
at all, which represented the notorious anti-labor firms Tyson Poultry
and Wal-Mart, but Bernstein makes nothing of that. .....
...Worse, she has dodged the question of whether she ever actually
read the full text of the 2002 National Intelligence Estimate, which
was offered as a causus belli despite its equivocations on the subject
of Saddam Hussein's purported WMD's. "If she did not bother to read
the complete intelligence reports," Gerth and Van Natta observe, "then
she did not do enough homework on the decision she has called the most
important of her life. If she did read them, she chose to make
statements to justify her vote for war that were not supported by the
available intelligence." Since the start of her candidacy, antiwar
Democrats have implored her to admit that she made a mistake on Iraq,
which she stubbornly, even childishly, refuses to do.
In the end, the question of who Hillary is seems almost a bit
anthropomorphic. Surely she has loved, laughed and suffered in the
usual human ways, but what we are left with is a sleek, well-funded,
power-seeking machine encased in a gleaming carapace of self-
righteousness. She's already enjoyed considerable power, both as a
Senator and a "co-president," and in the ways that counted, she blew
it. What Americans need most, after fifteen years of presidential
crimes high and low, is to wash their hands of all the sleaze, blood,
and other bodily fluids, and find themselves a President who is
neither a Clinton nor a Bush.
XTS
<Marg...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1182984439....@j4g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
She's the twice elected junior Senator from NY, and one time first lady,
and she will be the first Woman president in American history. She's loved
by millions, and hated by people who have nothing better than to write
insipid articles about who she is, over and over again. People have
published 3 books about her in the last months. All attempts to derail her
have failed, and they will continue to do so, and here's the reason why.
Her husband was impeached by a jealous bunch of republicans for no reason.
Her husbands favoribility polls never sank during the republican/starr witch
hunt. The slander the republicans put out against her will blow back in
their faces, because Americans love the Clintons and they will not go for
another Clinton witch hunt.
Yeah, that's right.
Reublicans would be wise (no chance of that) to put their Clinton hatred in
check, because if not, they will all be commiting suicide when she
landslides anyone of the dolts from the GOP old white guy club...and if
that dont kill 'em all, VP Obama will.
Keep slandering Senator Clinton and we will all thank you in November of
'08, just like we thanked you in Nov '06.
tgm
She is also about as far right as you can get and still be a Democrat.
Her and the Democratic Leadership Council have delibertly abondoned core
Democratic values for the sake of being elected. This wasn't too bad an idea
when Bill first ran for the Presidency and was sometimes necessary to get
anything past a Republican controled Congress. But times have changed.
We now control the House and might acheive a filibuster proof Senate in the next
election. It's time for a Democratic President with the vision to make America
a truly progressive Country. Unfortunately Hillary isn't that person.
Her first healthcare plan set back reform efforts, in that area, for more than a
decade. Her current plan isn't a whole lot better. She should be pushing for a
single payer Universal health coverage, that would eliminate both the excesses
of outrageous overhead costs and and the unnecessary and excessive profits.
Instead she wants to make Insurance available to the poor at enourmous costs to
the treasury. The overhead and the profits would remain in the system and the
only potential savings would be negotiating drug prices. Too little too late,
we need a leader with vision not just changes at the margins.
Her view of individual and Constitutional rights is also suspect. She not only
voted for the Patriot Act but sees very little wrong with it's provisions. I
doubt that she would even put a halt to the wiretapping of American citizens.
She would make some minor changes but continues to show a lack of vision.
Even on the labor front she is sadly lacking. She supported NAFTA and other
free trade agreements and continues to do so today. She is opposed to any real
efforts to include wage, environmental and union organizational provisions in
these agreements.
A true visionary might even consider forcing divstature on oversized
Conglomerates. Such a move would create high paying jobs, increase competition
that might help to lower prices, and tap into the entreupenorial spirit of the
American worker. Teddy Roosevelt, a Republican, passed the Taft Hartley act,
you would think a true Democrat might have similar visionary ideas. Hillary
doesn't.
Her history and plans for the Iraqi war are also suspect. Her failings in this
area are so well known I don't need to repeat them here. I'll just say, her
plans will allow many more American soldiers to die before she gets them out of
harms way.
We need a Democrat to become the President of the United States. One with
vision and a commitment to the people. Hillary isn't that person.
TomIn article <468364d4$0$30669$4c36...@roadrunner.com>, x...@woh.rr.com says...
She is also about as far right as you can get and still be a Democrat.
Her and the Democratic Leadership Council have deliberately abandoned core
Democratic values for the sake of being elected. This wasn't too bad an idea
when Bill first ran for the Presidency and was sometimes necessary to get
anything past a Republican controlled Congress. But times have changed.
We now control the House and might achieve a filibuster proof Senate in the next
election. It's time for a Democratic President with the vision to make America
a truly progressive Country. Unfortunately Hillary isn't that person.
Her first health care plan set back reform efforts, in that area, for more than
a decade. Her current plan isn't a whole lot better. She should be pushing for
a single payer Universal health coverage, that would eliminate both the excesses
of outrageous overhead costs and the unnecessary and excessive profits.
Instead she wants to make Insurance available to the poor at enormous costs to
the treasury. The overhead and the profits would remain in the system and the
only potential savings would be negotiating drug prices. Too little too late,
we need a leader with vision not just changes at the margins.
Her view of individual and Constitutional rights is also suspect. She not only
voted for the Patriot Act but sees very little wrong with it's provisions. I
doubt that she would even put a halt to the wiretapping of American citizens.
She would make some minor changes but continues to show a lack of vision.
Even on the labor front she is sadly lacking. She supported NAFTA and other
free trade agreements and continues to do so today. She is opposed to any real
efforts to include wage, environmental and union organizational provisions in
these agreements.
A true visionary might even consider forcing divestiture on oversized
Conglomerates. Such a move would create high paying jobs, increase competition
that might help to lower prices, and tap into the entrepreneurial spirit of the
American worker. Teddy Roosevelt, a Republican, passed the Taft Hartley act,
you would think a true Democrat might have similar visionary ideas. Hillary
doesn't.
Her history and plans for the Iraqi war are also suspect. Her failings in this
area are so well known I don't need to repeat them here. I'll just say, her
plans will allow many more American soldiers to die before she gets them out of
harms way.
We need a Democrat to become the President of the United States. One with
vision and a commitment to the people. Hillary isn't that person.
Tom
*us*
>She's
Still supporting the invasion of Iraq, is she?
Kucinich/Paul 08
Patriot Games
news:468364d4$0$30669$4c36...@roadrunner.com...
>> Who Is Hillary Clinton?
> She's the twice elected junior Senator from NY
Carpetbagging cunt.
> and one time first lady,
Means nothing.
> and she will be the first Woman president in American history.
Ain't gonna happen.
> Her husband was impeached by a jealous bunch of republicans for no reason.
For LYING.
Baldin Lee Pramer
wrote:
> "XTS" <x...@woh.rr.com> wrote in message
> > Her husband was impeached by a jealous bunch of republicans for no reason.
>
> For LYING.
They began the campaign against him because they were jealous of his
huge political talent and scared of what a successful Clinton
presidency meant to the future of the party. If he had been a
Republican, he would be hailed as one of the greatest presidents in
history, alongside Reagan.
Don't kid yourself -- he was pretty conservative for a Democrat, and
although he was impeached, the whole thing was about sex. Al Capone
was nailed for tax evasion, but the whole thing was about being a
gangster. You go with what you think you can prove.... and guess what?
They let Clinton go free.
Bleepy
Vid...@tcq.net
she sure is. we do not need any more stinkin republicons in the skin
of a democrat, free trade, privatization, deregulation debacles(drug
industry, telecommunications, banking and finance) are all the
hallmarks of a lapdog conservative.
on top of that the wars, no child left with a future, tax cuts for
the already obscenely rich, the dismantling of the constitution also
known as the so-called patriot act,.
so why vote for a nazi democrat, when you can vote for the real
thing, a republicon.
Patriot Games
news:1183041992.4...@o61g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
> On Jun 28, 8:07 am, "Patriot Games" <Crazy_Bastard@The_Beach.com>
> wrote:
>> "XTS" <x...@woh.rr.com> wrote in message
>> > Her husband was impeached by a jealous bunch of republicans for no
>> > reason.
>> For LYING.
> They began the campaign against him because they were jealous of his
> huge political talent and scared of what a successful Clinton
> presidency meant to the future of the party.
Of course not..... They began the campaign against him because he (Clinton)
walked right up to them, handed them a 2-foot dildo, then bent over and
begged for it.
Don't tell me there aren't a 100 Dems right now sniffing around for anything
that could be a Republican scandal..........
Clinton was just plain STUPID.
> If he had been a
> Republican, he would be hailed as one of the greatest presidents in
> history, alongside Reagan.
I think Clinton WOULD have historically been extremely popular IF no BJ AND
no 9/11.
> Don't kid yourself -- he was pretty conservative for a Democrat,
WHAT!?!?!?!?!?! And your reference point is who? McCarthy!?!?!
Kookcinich!?!?!
C'mon.......... The Brady Bill, the Assault Weapon Ban, Don't Ask Don't
Tell, etc.
He was a neo-classic Democrat. He hid his Socialism well, I'll grant you
that. But he wasn't Conservative.
> the whole thing was about sex.
It was about LYING. All he had to do was say, "I did it. So what? Fuck
off." And the WHOLE thing would have been over in a weekend! It really
wasn't anybody's business UNTIL he lied....
These fucking people make no sense sometimes.... Paris Hilton, Mel Gibson,
that basketball guy, etc. They're multi-multi-multimillionaires! They don't
have to drive drunk, they have armies of servants to drive them anywhere, to
buy them drugs, to rent them pussy...
Stupid.
If Bubba had ANY balls he'd have fessed up instantly and the whole thing
would be bullshit by now.
> Al Capone
> was nailed for tax evasion, but the whole thing was about being a
> gangster.
That's all they could get him on!
> You go with what you think you can prove.... and guess what?
> They let Clinton go free.
Well, they pressured him into something like a confession... They figured
that was massively damaging. Personally I don't see how it rubs off on any
other Dems.
lo yeeOn
analysis of Hillary Clinton.
I dread the dynastic tendency in our leadership succession process.
It's unhealthy for a republic.
But it now exists in the US of A because people have lost their
voices.
The MSM and some powerful lobbies have seized control. They now
determine who might be legit in that leadership succession process.
So, a person no longer needs to have the record and credibility in
order to compete to become our leader. He only needs the right nods.
George W Bush never showed that he was capable of doing anything. He
even needed an in-residence tutor in Condoleezza Rice to school him on
the basics of contemporary world history. He still needed her in his
first 4 years in the White House to write his sound bites and to coach
him everyday. And he needed the old guards in Cheney and Rumsfeld who
have served his daddy to set things up for him and tell him what to do.
He didn't have to know anything.
But he made it from the get go because he was incomparable in his
ability to amass fat cats behind him to smother out anyone else who
dare to challenge him.
That was the primary process where people were supposed to have the
widest possible selections to choose from. But in fact, MSM and
powerful lobbies made sure that any threat to Jr.'s candidacy would
be first snuffed out.
We can see this point most clearly from the current crop of candidates.
Ron Paul, Dennis Kucinich, and Mike Gravel, for example, have had good
things to say. They are good, measured advice for a country which has
been burden down and spent broke on hegemonic adventures. And these
people have integrity. They are credible, articulate, and consistent.
They have years of public records to back up their positions.
But they say things that the MSM and certain lobbies don't want to
hear and don't want people to hear, so they ignore them and even work
to remove them out of the picture.
These power-broker/king-makers always make sure that only if you have
their approval, would they promote you, finally through the omnipotent
television. If they don't like you. They would say, ``oh, he has no
money; he can't compete,'' or ``he's a long shot; with _virtually_ no
chance to win'', long before the primaries even begin. They want to
make sure that the non-compliant candidates never get to see the light
of day.
As a result, the American people are robbed of better choices.
If the better choices are always snuffed out in the primary process,
then the general election is just a formality for the king-makers.
(Notice that big corporation and fatcat individuals often donate to
both candidates in the general election. They are both reasonably
acceptable to them, in the sense that they will be compliant enough to
continue the existing foreign and domestic policies which would
protect the interests of the powerful, of which the MSM and certain
lobbies are a part.)
So, Bush had only Gore to beat. Given how close Gore was tied to Bill
Clinton and how the latter had messed up his presidency, it should'a
been a shoe in for a non-democrat to move into the White House.
The MSM was helping along but introducing frivalous parameters into
the race by saying Gore's demeanor was wooden when nothing serious
that ever came out of Bush was spontaneous.
The MSM was too eager to prod the masses along by artificially
emphasizing that Bush came across as approachable, making you and I
feel like he's one of us.
In fact, Bush has never been approachable. He's arrogant and the
secret service always keep people away from him. And of course, he's
never been one of us and he has no desire to be one of us.
He's not interested in knowing whether the common folk have health care
or protected from disaster.
From day one of his access to power, he was pre-occupied with invading
Iraq and making regime changes on countries that would spill a lot of
blood. That's certainly not like most of us common folk.
He was pre-occupied with being a war president and with how to spend
his ``political capital'' as a war president, something he thought his
father had squandered for not going all the way in Gulf War 1.
That's certainly not any of us common folk would pre-occupy ourselves
with.
George Bush has been so obsessed with foreign adventures and with
secrecy surrounding those plans that he and his inner circle
constantly resort to massive deception to keep their secret desire
going. That's not what common folk do.
George Bush is a big phony and a monster. That's not like us common
folk.
But there were all kinds of signs from his background that were
pointing toward his phoniness and monstrosity, if the MSM would allow
it ti surface.
Instead, they extolled his artificial one-of-us quality which neither
existed nor had anything to do with being a good president.
Now, we are told that Hillary Clinton is a front runner and has
massive warchest to wage a successful campaign, as if those two
parameters should decide who is the best to become our president.
Clinton, like Bush, is arrogant. And she is so into power that she
has struck a pack with the war lobby to assure it that our soldiers
will still be in Iraq at the end of her second term if she wins.
Meanwhile, she also threatens those who are sitting on the fence that
they will be ignored when she wins if they don't jump on her bandwagon
now.
Clinton has a paucity of record to show that she will rescue the US
from its hegemonic spiral into the abyss. She will instead do
everything to appease to the same lobbies which find Bush so palatable
to lead America.
I'll say no to dynasty because America has had too much of that already.
lo yeeOn
========
lo yeeOn
Ehrenreich's accurate analysis of Hillary Clinton.
I dread the dynastic tendency in our leadership succession process.
It's unhealthy for a republic.
But it now exists in the USA because people have lost their voice.
The MSM and some powerful lobbies have seized control. They now
determine who will be considered legit in that leadership succession
process.
So, a person no longer needs to have the record and credibility in
order to compete to become our leader. He only needs the right nods.
George W Bush never showed that he was capable of doing anything. He
even needed an in-residence tutor in Condoleezza Rice to school him on
the basics of contemporary world history. He still needed her in his
first 4 years in the White House to write his sound bites and to coach
him everyday. And he had his daddy's old guard, Dick Cheney and
Donald Rumsfeld, to set things up and run his show for him so that he
didn't have to know anything. And he still has Cheney around to call
the shots and give the finger to the Constitution. (Clearly, not only
the fool himself but also the whole country has had to pay a steep
price for this kind of nonsensical arrangement at the helm.)
But he made it from the get go because he was incomparable in his
ability to amass fat cats behind him to smother out anyone else who
dared to challenge him.
That was the primary process where people were supposed to have the
widest possible selection to choose from. But in fact, the MSM and
powerful lobbies made sure that any threat to Jr.'s candidacy would
be first snuffed out.
We can see this point most clearly from the current crop of candidates.
Ron Paul, Dennis Kucinich, and Mike Gravel, for example, have had good
things to say. The things they've said are good, measured advice for
a country which has been burden down and spent broke on hegemonic
adventures. And these people have integrity. They are credible,
articulate, and consistent. They have a public record of many years
to back up their positions.
But they say things that the MSM and certain lobbies don't want to
hear and don't want people to hear, so they ignore them and even work
to remove them out of the picture.
These power-broker/king-makers always make sure that only if you have
their approval, would they promote you, finally through the omnipotent
television. If they don't like you, they say, ``oh, he has no money;
he can't compete,'' or ``he's a long shot; with _virtually_ no chance
to win'', long before the primaries even begin. They want to make
sure that the non-compliant candidates never get to see the light of
day.
As a result, the American people are robbed of better, or even sane,
choices.
If the better choices are always snuffed out in the primary process,
then the general election is just a formality for the king-makers.
(Notice that big corporations and fatcat individuals often donate to
both candidates in the general election. They are both reasonably
acceptable to them, in the sense that they will be compliant enough to
continue the existing foreign and domestic policies which would
protect the interests of the powerful, of which the MSM and certain
lobbies are a part.)
So, Bush had only Gore to beat. Given how close Gore was tied to Bill
Clinton and how the latter had messed up his presidency, it should'a
been a shoe in for a non-democrat to move into the White House.
The MSM was helping along but introducing frivalous parameters into
the race by saying Gore's demeanor was wooden when nothing serious
that came out of Bush was ever spontaneous.
The MSM was too eager to prod the masses along by artificially
emphasizing that Bush came across as approachable, making you and I
feel like he's one of us.
In fact, Bush has never been approachable. He's arrogant and the
secret service has always kept people away from him. And of course,
he's never been one of us and he has no desire to be one of us.
He's not interested in knowing whether the common folk have health care
or are protected from disaster.
From day one of his access to power, he was pre-occupied with invading
Iraq and making regime changes on countries that would spill a lot of
blood. That's certainly not like most of us common folk.
He was pre-occupied with being a war president and with how to spend
his ``political capital'' as a war president, something he thought his
father had squandered for not going all the way in Gulf War 1.
That's certainly not something any of us common folk would pre-occupy
ourselves with.
George Bush has been so obsessed with foreign adventures and with
secrecy surrounding those plans that he and his inner circle
constantly resort to massive deception to keep their secret desire
going. That's not what common folk do.
George Bush is a big phony and a monster. That's not like us common
folk.
But there were all kinds of signs from his background that pointed to
his phoniness and monstrosity, if the MSM had allowed them to surface.
Instead, they extolled his artificial one-of-us quality which neither
existed nor had anything to do with being a good president.
Now, we are told that Hillary Clinton is a front runner and has
massive warchest to wage a successful campaign, as if those two
parameters should decide who is the best to become our president.
Clinton, like Bush, is arrogant. And she is so into power that she
has struck a pact with the war lobby to assure it that our soldiers
will still be in Iraq at the end of her second term if she wins. That
means that our soldiers will continue to kill and be killed in Iraq
for the next ten years. Neither is her hawkish position limited only
to Iraq. She holds similar view on first-strike as a US foreign
policy option as Bush and many so-called mainstream Washington
politicians, including Joe Lieberman, John Bolton, and Tom Lantos.
A big problem with first-strike is that it is making the whole world
nervous, particularly after Bush's unabashed invasion of Afghanistan
and Iraq. So, Iran is not yielding on its right to enrich uranium.
And I have even read on the net about China contemplating a drastic
revision of its current no-first-strike foreign policy for the obvious
reasons. So, in essence, Hillary Clinton is perfectly willing to make
the world a more dangerous place and risk American lives, in exchange
for a shot to become president.
Meanwhile, even as she's still a candidate, she has already threatened
fence-sitters that they will be ignored when she wins, if they don't
jump on her bandwagon now. How old-style-politics she is practising!
Hillary Clinton is unabashed about revealing her arrogance even now.
The arrogance trait which Hillary Clinton and George W Bush share can
easily be traced to the fact that they both came from a mountain of
power. She spent eight full years as Bill Clinton's activist wife in
the White House. He grew up as a son of Herbert Walker Bush who
himself was born to an oligarchy family and had himself spent 12 years
in the White House wielding real power while Ronald Reagan went AWOL.
(Reagan took his daily nap and answered fan letters after he woke from
his siesta while Bush worked in the White House war room to practice
his craft.)
And that's one big reason why dynasty is so bad: You have arrogant
people who rule the country thinking that they aren't accountable to
anybody.
On top of being arrogant, Clinton has no record to show that she will
rescue the US from its hegemonic spiral into the abyss. She will
instead do everything to appease the same old lobbies which find Bush
so palatable to lead America.
I'll say no to dynasty because America has had too much of that
already.
lo yeeOn
========
In article <PJMgi.3744$RZ1.3349@trnddc05>, tgm <tg...@verizon.net> wrote:
lo yeeOn
Ehrenreich's accurate analysis of Hillary Clinton.
I dread the dynastic tendency in our leadership succession process.
It's unhealthy for a republic.
But it now exists in the USA because people have lost their voice.
The MSM and some powerful lobbies have seized control. They now
determine who will be considered legit in that leadership succession
process.
So, a person no longer needs to have a record and credibility in order
to compete to become our leader. He only needs the right nods.
George W Bush never showed that he was capable of doing anything. He
even needed an in-residence tutor in Condoleezza Rice to school him on
the basics of contemporary world history. He still needed her in his
first 4 years in the White House to write his sound bites and to coach
him everyday. And he had his daddy's old guard, Dick Cheney and
Donald Rumsfeld, to set things up and run his show for him so that he
didn't have to know anything. And he still has Cheney around to call
the shots and give the finger to the Constitution. (Clearly, not only
the fool himself but also the whole country has had to pay a steep
price for this kind of nonsensical arrangement at the helm.)
But he made it from the get go because he was incomparable in his
ability to amass fat cats behind him to smother out anyone else who
dared to challenge him.
That was the primary process where people were supposed to have the
widest possible selection to choose from. But in fact, the MSM and
powerful lobbies made sure that any threat to Jr.'s candidacy would
be first snuffed out.
We can see this point most clearly from the current crop of candidates.
Ron Paul, Dennis Kucinich, and Mike Gravel, for example, have had good
things to say. The things they've said are good, measured advice for
a country which has been burdened down and spent broke on hegemonic
adventures. And these people have integrity. They are credible,
articulate, and consistent. They have a public record of many years
to back up their positions.
But they say things that the MSM and certain lobbies don't want to
hear and don't want people to hear, so they ignore them and even work
to remove them from the picture.
These power-broker/king-makers always make sure that only if you have
their approval, would they promote you, finally through the omnipotent
television. If they don't like you, they say, ``oh, he has no money;
he can't compete,'' or ``he's a long shot; with _virtually_ no chance
to win'', long before the primaries even begin. They want to make
sure that the non-compliant candidates never get to see the light of
day.
As a result, the American people are robbed of better, or even sane,
choices.
If the better choices are always snuffed out in the primary process,
then the general election is just a formality for the king-makers.
(Notice that big corporations and fatcat individuals often donate to
both candidates in the general election. They are both reasonably
acceptable to them, in the sense that they will be compliant enough to
continue the existing foreign and domestic policies which would
protect the interests of the powerful, of which the MSM and certain
lobbies are a part.)
So, Bush had only Gore to beat. Given how close Gore was tied to Bill
Clinton and how the latter had messed up his presidency, it should'a
been a shoe in for a non-democrat to move into the White House.
The MSM was helping along by introducing frivolous parameters into
Now, we are told that Hillary Clinton is a front runner and has a
massive warchest to wage a successful campaign, as if those two
parameters should best decide who should become our next president.
Clinton, like Bush, is arrogant. And she is so into power that she
has struck a pact with the war lobby to assure it that our soldiers
will still be in Iraq at the end of her second term if she wins. That
means that our soldiers will continue to kill and be killed in Iraq
for the next ten years. Neither is her hawkish position limited only
to Iraq. She holds similar view on first-strike as a US foreign
policy option as Bush and many so-called mainstream Washington
politicians, including Joe Lieberman, John Bolton, and Tom Lantos.
A big problem with first-strike is that it is making the whole world
nervous, particularly after Bush's unabashed invasion of Afghanistan
and Iraq. So, Iran is not yielding on its right to enrich uranium.
And I have even read on the net about China contemplating a drastic
revision of its current no-first-strike foreign policy for the obvious
reasons. So, in essence, Hillary Clinton is perfectly willing to make
the world a more dangerous place and risk American lives, in exchange
for a shot to become president.
Meanwhile, even as she's still a candidate, she has already threatened
fence-sitters that they will be ignored when she wins, if they don't
jump on her bandwagon now. What old-style politics she is practicing!
Hillary Clinton is unabashed about revealing her arrogance even now.
The arrogance trait which Hillary Clinton and George W Bush share can
easily be traced to the fact that they both came from a mountain of
power. She spent eight full years as Bill Clinton's activist wife in
the White House. He grew up as a son of Herbert Walker Bush who
himself was born to an oligarchy family and had himself spent 12 years
in the White House wielding real power while Ronald Reagan went AWOL.
(Reagan took his daily nap and answered fan letters after he woke from
his siesta while Bush worked in the White House war room to practice
his craft.)
And that's one big reason why dynasty is so bad: You have arrogant
people who rule the country thinking that they aren't accountable to
anybody.
On top of being arrogant, Clinton has no record to show that she will
rescue the US from its hegemonic spiral into the abyss. She will
instead do everything to appease the same old lobbies which find Bush
so palatable to lead America.
I'll say no to dynasty because America has had too much of that
already.
lo yeeOn
========
In article <PJMgi.3744$RZ1.3349@trnddc05>, tgm <tg...@verizon.net> wrote:
------------------------------------------------
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20070709/ehrenreich
Excerpt:
Who Is Hillary Clinton?