Look I hate Bill as much as the next guy. After all, it was his inability to keep it in his pants that cost me the 2000 election. Why the fuck didn't the baseball owners let GWB be their commissioner. That would have spared us all the bullshit we're going thru now.
BTW, why are you attributing Bill's 'lack of governing skills' to Hillary. The bitch wasn't President at the time.
Here are the facts, as a superlative speaker, Senator and a sweet person; Hillary has none of those qualities and attributes.
I heard her speech on C-Span, the entire speech at a State fair talking to a group of Midwesterners. She talks in a monotone with a decibel below shrill that occurs when she mentions Bush and the right-wing conspiracy. She also has the tendency to talk down to people and is lacking in warmth and is rather standoffish. Now her husband Bill, he has got charisma and connects with people.
As a Senator, name one piece of legislation of note she was responsible for? Yet her campaign is advertising her as the most capable candidate to hit the task of governing this Nation. Hillary says she is ready to “hit the ground running”. I do not however consider her six years being a New York Senator as a resume qualifying her to be President.
Nonetheless she will win the Democratic Primary for here is what I have noticed:
1. In the debates, Dodd and Richardson look like they are interviewing for the part of VP by taking shots at Obama.
2. By front- loading the primaries i.e. New York, Florida, Michigan etc. the candidate with the most money and best organization has the advantage and that equals victory which means Hillary. Hillary can buy the airtime, and has the political operatives to get out the vote for her. Besides in a studio and with the right camera angles, Hillary won't look as old, she can read her canned speeches from a tele-prompter and she can pretend she is a warm and sincere person.
My question though, is why are the Democrats flocking to her side? Her husband Bill was to put it bluntly, a sell out to the rank and file i.e. NAFTA, The Telecommunications Act, Iraqi Liberation Act, Kosovo, Bosnia, etc. and the left wing despises her. At the World Affairs Council, hecklers from the summer of Love were screaming “blood is on your hands” to Hillary.
So here is the conundrum for the Democrats, beyond the war, foreign policy, and Bill and Hillary’s lack of governing skills they the Clintons do have one claim to fame. They can win. To the Democrats that is all that matters. They do not want Obama nice or John “I’m so pretty” Edwards.
In my opinion the Democrats have already anointed her the standard bearer because she supposedly can stand up to Bush, Rove, et al. That is why they want to skip the entire nomination process.
-- Modified on 9/4/2007 10:23:41 PM
Breaker, even if your assessment were the truth, and i'm not judging one way or the other, but with all due respect.... isn't winning all that matters to the Republicans as well? They have shown they are certainly NOT about government of, by, and for the people, unless those people are well-heeled contributors to the GOP coffers.
So what makes the crop of craven candidates pandering to the Republican base any different from the Democrats? The ideals they espouse? PUH-LEEEZ! The only way you will get someone outside the status quo is if Michael Bloomberg puts his considerable financial muscle into a self-financed run for the White House. Then and only then will you see ANY sort of real dialog on the issues. Bloomberg will never win, the Powers That Be would simply never allow a threat to their hierarchy to go uncontrolled. Until then, its business as usual on the Beltway, and we already know BAU on the Beltway is BS. But at least it would liven up the debates, which so far, have been pathetic. Disheartening. If these are the best our country has to choose from, we are all in deep shit.
its all over Doc. the secret is out. we are now in the middle innings of the cycle laid out by Tyler
"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship."
-- Professor Alexander Tyler over 200 years ago
Getting elected is the only thing that matters and dishing out the goodies in order to stay there is the way to do it. Or, to quote that great americam philosopher JackO the WackO, "when the Dummyrats are seen as the party of fiscal responsibility, we're screwed"
I agree, the pandering of our candidates to buy a vote is both a Republican and Democratic politician trait. I suppose what I am saying is that there is something wrong in our political system when someone lacking in the artistry of oratory and governing skills is touted as a Presidential candidate.
Incidously, I am seeing the last vestiges of a self-governing Republic eroding. These signs are:
1. The further concentration of our Telecommunication system that allows only for few points of view.
2. The primary delgate selection system is changing. In the past, a Robert Kennedy could enter the Presidential race in March and have a chance of winning.
As much I do not like New Hampshire being the first in the nation. I see the value of Presidential candidates actually having to talk and listen to real people about real life. This whole early primary system is in my opinion a device to allow for a weak candidate but with a powerful support system i.e. financial, organization etc. to win. Of course I do not know if this true or not. I am only a construction worker.
-- Modified on 9/5/2007 12:06:46 AM
But both parties have a dark horse or two that I would love to see gain momentum and knock off the homogenized, predictable, pre-packaged, pimped, elitist tools that surely will garner their respective party’s endorsement.
It would be truly great having something other than a big stinking pile of the SAME OLD SHIT to vote for.
because he's not running.
But ya can vote for me, his attorney-in-fact. Write me in.
Look I hate Bill as much as the next guy. After all, it was his inability to keep it in his pants that cost me the 2000 election. Why the fuck didn't the baseball owners let GWB be their commissioner. That would have spared us all the bullshit we're going thru now.
BTW, why are you attributing Bill's 'lack of governing skills' to Hillary. The bitch wasn't President at the time.
President and Hillary Clinton as United States Senator, respectively. While yes is true, that Hillary was a First Lady when her husband was President she is nonetheless posturing that she is ready to "hit the ground running" merely by her association with her husband.
This is not my observation, Hillary herself is saying this audcious claim that her time in the White House makes ready to be President.