Friday, January 25, 2008

Hillary's NYT Endorsement

You've probably heard about it, you can read it here if you don't have anything better to do with your time (like hit yourself with a hammer?). It is after all, the New York Times, home of gun control propaganda and corporatism (in moderation versus their gun loonyism). Maybe Hillary is a great NY senator, maybe not. Her vote for the Iraq War doesn't speak well for her grasp of the power hungry or resistance to media pressure, her refusal to take any responsibility for it beyond, I wouldn't do it again, speaks volumes to her character. She has grubbed efficiently at the pork trough for NY, maybe that's what the NYT is impressed by, though in the center of the financial quagmire, I'd bet it was the Yea vote on the Bankruptcy Bill. You see, the beneficiaries of that little move buy ads in the NYT, run The Street, and are generally the NYT's sort of folks.

After down playing her "experience" they turn right around and applaud it, she does have six more years as a Senator than Barak, but the wifey thing is wearing thin. Elected experience involves being elected, not married. Are you going to hire my wife to build your home on the basis of 19 years of being married to a 30 year construction guy? After all, she's been interested and visited a lot of jobsites and heard a lot about it. I love her, but I won't give her a recommendation, or Hillary either - not on that basis.

What does Hillary have, take away Bill, to recommend her? This is a valid question, she wasn't Mrs President, she was Bill's wife. She had lots of access to the media, so has Brittany, much to our illumination. No kidding, all that access and what we have is a candidate loathed by Republicans and right leaning Indies, some of these people would trample their grandmother to vote against her. I don't dislike her for their reasons, mostly trumped up nonsense, I dislike her because she'd make a perfectly good "moderate" Republican. (there used to be such an animal - really it's not mythology) If you dislike George II's authoritarianism regarding the Bill of Rights and torture and Habeas Corpus, you might stop to think about her's regarding the 2nd Amendment, a perfectly valid part of the Bill of Rights. You expect that mindset to see a difference? It is after all, a matter of security, you're scared so the BOR can go hang under Clinton II.

Hillary talks about the poor, it is odd to see that she doesn't care to do much of anything to sort out the labor glut in blue collar jobs driving wages into the toilet. There are more sources of grief than just illegal hiring, but it is the most egregious offense and most directly addressable without starting a trade war. None of the Democrats are worth spit on this question, but she is truly bad, the beneficiaries are big money, not wage earners.

The idea that she's been tested by criticism and triumphed isn't exactly demonstrated by her campaign regarding Obama, much less John Edwards with whom she's had considerable trouble moving beyond just plain shrillness. Now the way to beat Obama isn't to play nasty games and attacks, that just ratchets up the rhetoric, policy can do what name calling can't. Trying to drag Obama down into "just another politician," might look good in a strategy meeting, but it won't win voters over to her side. Showing that Barak's charisma has no beneficial outcome to voters is a better approach, it is also cool headed and deliberate, which she has not shown. C'mon, "I'm the veteran" only plays if you demonstrate coolness under fire and what she's shown has been desperation and fear. Any political opponent is fair game, but how you do it is a measure of yourself and winning a Primary isn't the whole game, it's not over. Winning ugly may be a win, but it's also not the war and the term Pyrrhic victory has meaning.

I understand that only the fact of the Republican candidates could get me to vote for Hillary in November. That's me, voters need to look at their candidate without rose colored lenses, as actual political candidates. Finding out who the candidate stands for, what they stand for, not pretty talk and husbands. I cannot imagine what philosophical gymnastics the NYT had to perform to get to the Hillary endorsement, but they've proved truly supple previously.

5 comments:

Zak J. said...

I saw this morning that Hillary is demanding that both Michigan and Florida delegates by reinstated so they will count at the convention. It's bad enough for her to ask this of Florida, where at least voting hasn't happened yet, but demanding that votes for Michigan count AFTER all other candidates except for her took their names off the ballots is outright dishonest and shows the "win at any cost" mentality of her approach to politics. George W. has shown us the limitations of that approach very clearly over the last 7.5 years and we don't need any more of it. I made my decision when I heard that today--I won't vote for Clinton under any circumstances because she's a cheat and liar. That's just how it is. Most voters I know in Oregon feel the same way--outright liberals tell me she's the only Democrat they'd ever consider voting against and the reason is her lack of character. If the Democratic party picks Clinton as it's nominee it's pretty clear we can look forward to 4 more years of Republican rule in the White House--especially if their nominee isn't someone with obvious ethical challenges. Ds and Rs both want honor and dignity restored to the White House and our nominee had better reflect that public desire.

KISS said...

Ford, with UAW approval, is firing 32000 employees they can be hired back at 1/2 wage..$14.00+ from $28.00+ per hour.
Spring textile, largest textile manufacturer in the world, is laying off 2000 South Carolina workers and moving machinery to Brazil. Not much from the Dimmos on this. Hillary should be happy, Wal-Mart can sell sheets cheaper and make more profit. Not one of these panderers have the slightest idea of what is going on or how to fix it.
This stimulus of Reid and Pelosi and Bush gives 70 Billion to corporate and doles the rest to wage earners..nothing for indigent or those living on the meager amount of social security.
In fact, social security was raised 2.3% for inflation...Sad that true inflation was 7%. Reality does not exist in our government.

Steve Culley said...

A national policy of exporting jobs and importing people ain't no way to run a country. Think maybe they'll have to start talking about these issues before the general elction?

Chuck Butcher said...

I'll vote D in the Gengeral, if it's a two headed hydra, versus what the Rs offer. I won't work for a Hillary. We do have a D senate race and there also are the House votes and OR.

Zak J. said...

...if it's a two headed hydra...

Well, it may come to that...