Wednesday, November 28, 2007

Hillary Got In The Ring

If you're a pacifist you're not going to like my analogy, but here you are: Hillary Clinton put on the gloves and climbed the ropes into the ring, did somebody expect that this was patty-cake? I've been seeing push-back against John Edwards for his going after the Hillary, words like "attacked" get used. Hmmm. It almost sounds as though there was one-sided gunfire, or maybe lies (Swift-boating) going on. Hogwash.

John Edwards has been pussy footing around and Obama rides his coat tails with little pokes of his own. What is this exactly? Yeah, she's a woman, and so...? Yeah, she's a Democrat - well that's what the (D) means, if nothing else does. She's the media's darling inevitable nominee, blah, blah, Bill, blah, blah. She's one real careful pol is what she is; and the other candidates let her get away with it at their own risk - and frankly the Democratic Party's risk. If you think the voters are going to forget that in this election the same old same old is what they're stuck with, you sure better think again.

When some 55 year old woman tells me that Hillary is a woman and that is a great reason to vote for her; I think my brains have fallen out. Would it be anything like reasonable to state that as a woman she isn't qualified? No, and that woman would agree...so why is it a qualification? I don't care one way or the other that Obama is black, or that Edwards is - what? - pretty? I care about policy and associations.

This is Republican ground we're walking around on, some entirely meaningless qualification driving the selection process. We're Democrats, remember? You know policy and associates count, ideas drive the selection process...Not the confounded corporate media horse race aficionados. There is exactly one way to sort out who is best and that is for them to prove it. Show me.

You climb into that political ring and you better be ready to come out swinging, oh yes, the blows stay above the belt, but these other candidates are trying to sink you. If you've got the stuff - put it out there, and be ready for the counter punches. But head faking around and calling for patty-cake time is nonsense. You say you've got a health plan and the insurance companies are tossing great gobs of money your way, you tell me how you pay for it and who wins. I'm real tired of this idea that stuff trickles down to me, the hell it does, it gets yanked out of my pocket every day I work for the benefit of people who not only don't know I exist, they also don't give a damn. (that's the universal "I") Whether my workers and I go from getting by to falling off the edge makes not one iota difference to a whole lot of people who claim to represent us. I want some answers, not a bunch of feel good empty slogan nothings, I want to know and if nobody is going to force the answers they take a hike when it comes to campaign contributions and campaign work.

If you think these people shouldn't have to answer tough questions and back up their 'feel good' nothings, if you think the question of leaving Iraq is open to whole bunch of evasion, if you think that because they're Democrats somebody should have a free pass, then you go right ahead and vote for an empty suit. That's all you get, a finely finished off the rack suit with nobody home.

I'm not going to hold Hillary's last name against her, but since she wants to run on Bill Clinton, I'm going to hold ever bad piece of work out of that administration against her, and then toss on top of it her NY Senator garbage. My losses as a blue collar guy accelerated under her husband, nothing like the BushCo hits, but Bill Clinton is no economic friend of mine. That's right, all that stock market booming economy went right on by the blue collar world, what we got was disappearing jobs, stagnating or dropping wages, and health care costs going through the roof. You say, well I did good under Bill; really, maybe you should check your share of the economic gains against the upper crust gains. No, it wasn't the George II plutocracy, but it sure wasn't shared around, either.

Is John Edwards playing the populist card? Some. In a real careful way he is, if he doesn't get one heck of a lot more reckless with it, I'll just take it for mouth noises. If he's going to push at Hillary over doing the same thing the same way, he'd better buck up and start backing up the jabs with some round houses. She's going to stand right there in their way, she'll cry about it, but she can't get away from them because she's old recycled news and a great big target. I'd offer the same advice to Obama, but he's got his "nice-guy" trunks on. Bill Richardson has already shown he doesn't want to mix it up, and Joe Biden knows he's going back to the Senate, so it's left to Dennis Kucinich?

Dennis would be in there throwing haymakers every time, except UFOs and a good looking wife are all that gets attention. If John Edwards wants to be the Democratic nominee, then he'd better take a page from Dennis and quit caring about whether some people think it's nice to call BS. I left out Chris Dodd, which isn't fair; the problem is Chris only wakes up and remembers it's a fight every now and then. I'm not going to be dishonest with you, the only candidate I actively dislike is Hillary (oh, you guessed) but what would make me happy would be if I could squish Edwards and Kucinich into one candidate and toss a big helping of "ALL OUR CIVIL LIBERTIES" on top, I'd have a real candidate. I won't hold my breath.

10 comments:

Steve Culley said...

I wrote an awful lot of letters to the editor defending my gun rights under the Clintons, they drove me away from the democrats. Illegal immigration is a brand new position for Hillary and the rest of the democratic machine, exception, maybe Biden. If you want civil liberties and an end to the empire, go with Ron Paul.
We have to stop the democrats, most of whom have a gut reaction to firearms, from putting more restrictions in because after the republicans get done creating a police state we need the means to set it right.

keeneye said...

I don't care one way or the other that Obama is black, or that Edwards is - what? - pretty? I care about policy and associations.

Here Here!!! Excellent points - very well-said.

Chuck Butcher said...

Steve,
there is a lot more going on with Paul than just that stuff and your economic well being would get seriously whacked by a successful Paul Admin.

Steve Culley said...

I like Paul's stance on the constitution, and his views on the empire, bring troops home from damn near everywhere, as commander in cheif he is what I want, no more military adventures. But if you think Paul could dismantel social security and all that well we do have another branch of government with 436 congressmen and 100 senators. What I would look for in a Paul administration is, hopefully a roll back in executive powers that GWB and Cheney just assumed for themselves. We need a course correction and I think Paul would do it.

Chuck Butcher said...

The fact that a budget is passed does not force the Executive to spend the money, it can simply sit in the account. Congressional mandated spending is a different deal. I've made it clear that Paul is right on foreign adventures and the BOR, but that is a different stance than Libertarianism taken as a whole. And since I do know you, I also know that you are not a Libertarian, whether you like bits and pieces of it or not.

Chuck Butcher said...

Besides, you know perfectly good and well that the Rs are not going to nominate him. The only thing they find "right" about him is abortion - as far as their voting base goes.

Steve Culley said...

Just got done watching the Republican debates, Paul was asked if he would run as an independent, he said no, he had to, but I have hope. Wasn't real impressed by the Republicans, for the record, just as I see no democrat that turns me on. Like a lot of involved Americans for a lot of years, I'm ready for something new.

Chuck Butcher said...

You're only going to get just so much of "something new" in a Prez Primary, stop and think that although a lot want it, most want to go about their lives unmolested and with a chance of getting ahead, without upheaval. Those votes get you elected.

C-Mart said...

Indeed Kucinich and Edwards are currently the top two at leading where the Democratic party needs to go. Progressives right now need to be thinking about uniting behind a candidate who can stop Hillary (and the big business/ military-industrial complex that is pushing her and hoping to preserve as much as possible of the status quo). I'd say go with Edwards instead of making a symbolic protest vote.

Chuck Butcher said...

considering what little my POV will get from the candidates, not Hillary is what I care about. She is just too far away from me.