Just to get this out of the way, the only way I'd vote for Hillary Clinton is against a Republican. She represents most of what was wrong with the Democratic Party a dozen or so years ago, most of what is wrong with Congress today and about not one new idea. If the Democratic success of the 1990s is real attractive to you, she's your candidate. Polls are beginning to show that she isn't really very much use to the Democratic Party.
Some polls have her running behind the top tier Republicans and behind Democratic Congressional prospects, others have her running neck and neck with the Republicans. This is not true of Obama and Edwards, they reliably beat the Republicans. Part of the problem is the irrational hate the right has for her, generating votes, part of the problem is her old way of doing things. The polls are showing a general disgust with the status quo, a desire for new and different, and that is not Hillary. Another problem is that she alienates the left wing of the Party. There is a general view that having no other choice the left will vote for her versus a Republican, that may be the case, but it also strips her of the activism available there.
Independents who are the swing vote aren't offended by the same things that upset the base, they are tired of lies and double dealing and Hillary not only gives the appearance of duplicity, her record shows it. Just exactly how stupid was a vote for a flag burning ban? Who in that group that is upset by the Iraq war separates her vote to authorize force from the Iran terrorism vote? Which Independent is it that sees a continuation of the BushCo foreign policy program as desirable? Triangulation isn't seen as a useful tool, it is seen as pandering - which it is.
Hillary's experience amounts to participation in failure, duplicity, and the same old way of doing things. She isn't Bill Clinton, we don't get Bill Clinton by voting for her and the good old days of Bill Clinton set up much of what is wrong with this country's economics today. Now I certainly don't expect to get much of my left wing agenda from any candidate, but I do object strongly to nominating a weak candidate on the nonsense rationale that her husband was somebody.
1 comment:
Pro second amendment people aren't going to ever forget the Clinton's war on us but let's move on a little bit. I would really like to see some more NAFTA questions for Hillary and especially this one. Senator Clinton, "how do think the Supreme Court should rule on the Washington DC case?" Not much chance the media will ask that one but I did.
Here's another one. "Ron Paul seems to make a lot of sense about the empire being over extended, Do you agree that we can't sustain these foreign wars?"
Post a Comment