Currently Hillary Clinton is the front-runner for the Democratic candidate for president. She leads Barack Obama and John Edwards in all polls and has a formidable political machine behind her. She is also the worst candidate the Democrats could field because she is a horrible public speaker, a disgusting example of a political opportunist and a corporate whore of the highest degree.
Hillary is in one word, unelectable. Currently her unfavorable rating is in the high 40s, while her no opinion numbers are nearly zero. Usually a candidate starts with a huge number of no opinion voters and tries to win them over. Not Hillary, shes going to try to convince people who hate her to flip over to the Clinton side. It is a near impossible task, especially for someone who totally lacks the charm of her husband.
Hillary Clinton will never win the race against a Republican in a nationwide race because she is a weak public speaker. Couple that with the vacant likeability factor and you have a loser. Every word out of her mouth appears scripted and her demeanor is often cold. But the Democrats have taken a liking to this type of candidate, having chosen Al Gore and John Kerry as their last two presidential hopefuls, so who knows what will happen.
Hillary, like John McCain, is an ugly example of a political opportunist. Just last year Rupert Murdoch hosted a fundraiser for her. Yes, the owner of Fox News, who did so much to attack her and Bill while she was the first lady. Now hes her buddy. Nothing like getting into bed with the enemy. She even showed up at the 10th anniversary party of Fox News. Why? Well, anyone seen the rash of Obama attacks on Fox lately? I wonder what part of her soul she is giving up to get that?
As far as the politics go, who is she? She has fought the battle against video games, been ambivalent about banning torture, supported a flag-burning amendment and voted once for the bankruptcy bill, one of the worst pieces of legislation ever to grace the halls of Congress. Had Hillary just voted for the bankruptcy bill, it would be bad, but the fact that she flip-flopped makes it even worse. When she was the first lady and she heard about the bill, her response was,
"Oh my God. We have to stop this law. It's not gonna happen."
Bill then vetoed it, twice. But guess what happened when she was a first term Senator? She voted for it. Why? Because she needed that corporate cash for her next campaign and selling out Americans was the best way to get it. Whatever it takes for Hillary to get ahead. The bill failed and when it came up again two years later, Hillary abstained from voting. It passed.
Hillarys stance on Iraq has been idiotic. First she tried the incredibly successful tactic of John Kerry, saying that if she had known in 2002 what she knows now about Iraqi weaponry, she would never have voted for the Senate resolution authorizing force. Smart choice, follow the loser. On the very same day she and the rest of Congress authorized the use of force, Barack Obama was questioned about the vote and he said it was a mistake to give the president that kind of power.
Thankfully, those who oppose the war pushed Hillary for more and two weeks ago she gave an answer that should doom her campaign.
If the most important thing to any of you is choosing someone who did not cast that vote or has said his vote was a mistake, then there are others to choose from.
First of all, thanks for the other choices, the people who do not have blood on their hands. And secondly, does this kind of talk sound familiar? Like something the current president of the USA might say? Im not interested in having another president who cant admit they were wrong. But she wasnt done acting like Bush just yet, how about using the 9/11 card when talking about her vote
"As a senator from New York, I lived through 9/11 and I am still dealing with the aftereffects," Clinton said. "I may have a slightly different take on this from some of the other people who will be coming through here."
Too bad Iraq has nothing to do with 9/11, but a really nice play right out of the Dick Cheney handbook. Plus, she was CLOSER to New York, so she knows how to handle terrorism better. The others just dont understand. Karl Rove would be proud. Are we done? No.
To underscore a point, some people may be running who tell you we dont face a real threat from terrorism, she said. Im not one of them. We have serious enemies who want to do us serious harm.
If you did not know Hillary said that, you would think it came out of Cheneys mouth. These are not merely slips of the tongue, as James Carville has been repeating these exact phrases on talk shows. This is her plan of attack against other Democratic candidates.
But the ugliest and scariest thing about Hillary Clinton is that she is a leading member of the Democratic Leadership Council. These are the people whose policies led to the massive success of the Republican Party over the last twelve years. And Hillary is their new boy, as it were.
The DLC is the corporate-funded right wing of the Democratic Party. It was founded in the mid 1980s by a small group of mostly white, male, largely southern Democratic politicians, corporate lobbyists and fundraisers. They loath the left wing of party, you know, the unionists, blacks, feminists, Greens, and pretty much any cause group, basically the people who are known as the Democratic base.
The DLC noticed all the corporate money flowing into the Republican Party and decided to hijack the Democratic Party and move it to the right. And with the help of their own think tank, the Progressive Policy Institute, they succeeded. The Democratic party has now only rebounded from their ill formed policies. The DLC is an organization conceived to service boardrooms and money above all else. About two hundred corporations comprise its Board of Advisors (fee: $5,000), and nearly 100 pay the cost to be on the DLC's Policy Roundtable ($10,000 each). For $25,000, around 30 corporate executives are members of the DLC Executive Council. Enron sat there, along with Philip Morris, Texaco, Chevron, and Dupont.
That is Hillary Clintons base. That is the reason Rupert Murdoch is in her corner. She is quite simply, a corporate whore. The Democratic base to her is the same as the Christian Right to Bush: A tool to be used to get into office, but once there cast them aside and only do the bidding of the corporate world. No other Democratic candidate comes close to being a corporate sellout like Hillary. I have not yet chosen a candidate and will not for some time, but I know I will never vote for her.
I'm ambivalent. I read more and more that makes me feel as if Obama is more-or-less manufactured, a man not particularly full of originality or individual leadership. And I read more and more that makes me feel as if Hillary is simply the spearhead of yet another corporate-political machine. Methinks the choices look awfully thin. If someone doesn't feel like wasting a vote on an independent party, what are the choices, really? ~f~
One of the main reasons I'm going for Obama on this one is that I think Americans are sick of Heredity or Cronyism... Bush Sr. to Bush Jr., Bill Clinton then his wife Hillary. Rumors in the past of Jeb Bush, Condi, Colin Powell, wouldn't be surprised if Chelsea makes her way to the House of Representatives one day. Politics have always been a psuedo hollywood, but it seems its blown up and become reality. Obama, at least has no connections to anything before, and couple with his age, could bring about a freshness to the office that hasn't been there for a decade or two.
She supported the idea to allow illegal immigrants to have access to social secuirty, and she would not vote for making english the national language of the US.
Democract, Republican. There acutally used to be a differenct, anymore I don't know what the fuck your so called "allegence" really matters.
Prometo allegence a los Estados Unidos de América. or something like that I suppose.
Forsta said:
I'm ambivalent. I read more and more that makes me feel as if Obama is more-or-less manufactured, a man not particularly full of originality or individual leadership. And I read more and more that makes me feel as if Hillary is simply the spearhead of yet another corporate-political machine. Methinks the choices look awfully thin. If someone doesn't feel like wasting a vote on an independent party, what are the choices, really? ~f~
This is why I'm slightly disappointed that Vilsack's running, but I'm sort of talking out my ass because I haven't read Obama's book yet (speaking of which, I think I'm going to go pick it up right now).
Does anyone not notice that the democratic and republican partys are one in the same? They have been doing the good cop, bad cop routine for so long it would seem like people would be starting to get hip to it. Ever wonder why we have been going thru the same shit for years and years and years? Like Malcolm X once said "the conservatives and the liberals are like wolves and fox's. The wolf isnt afraid to snarl and show you his teeth, while the fox will greet you with a smile, but no matter what, once you get into their cave they both intend to eat you."
deanmoriarty said:
If being a good public speaker has so much to do with becoming the President, how do you explain old Georgie boy?
Because he's personable, and "folksy". He makes a connection with people regardless of the retarded bullshit coming out of his mouth, and sometimes moreso because of it.
I've been saying this whole time that Hilary Clinton is unelectable. She's a horrible public speaker. And for anyone who thinks I'm just against women, I think Nancy Pelosi is a good public speaker. She has it going on. But Hilary just sounds screechy and irritating.
Barak, however, seems to be someone who may actually be able to have some new ideas or at least be a good leader of the country.
Its definately true that it will be republicans who crack down on abortion rights and dems who crack down on gun rights, like I said they each play a peticular role. But all roads lead to mammys kitchen. Clinton spent his time setting up the stage so that the patriot act was able to pass and the road to Iraq was already being paved but it is probably true that it wouldnt be till a conservative was incumbant that these things came to their full potential ... and keep in mind the dems voted "yes" in large numbers to approve our current actions
we are as a nation, being run by corporations this is no longer a democracy, as we have seen in the past
exhibit A the 2000 election of the antichrist
The popular vote didn't win....
politics consist of which CEO put out more money to whatever "party"
Hello dictatorship and tyranny
Corporations are people too. JK. But seriously they do have a right to petition our government. You can't be mad at them for that. The problem lies with the politicians who put too much weight into corporate needs which stems from their reliance on them to keep getting elected (also just your basic corruption). The way I see it, you reform campaign finance, increase Congressional pay, and do away with career politicians. Granted, for this to happen you'd have to find a group of politicians that were willing to cut their umbilical ties to the business sector and truly have the good of the country in mind.
But pointing to the 2000 election isn't really compelling evidence. It's happened four times I believe in US history. If anything, the Electoral College needs to be re-thought/reformed/whatever, but America is just as much, if not more, of a representative democracy as it's ever been.
I think you're drastically overestimating both the electoral appeal and the cohesiveness of the GOP.
Not at all. Before all the talk about Hilary running, I would have said that due to the lack of popularity of Dubya that the likelihood of our next president being a Republican was pretty slim. But I've got to agree with FearTheReaper on this, Hilary Clinton is unelectable. Seeing as how this country doesn't seem ready to elect an independent, if Hilary Clinton runs, the country will elect another Republican. I don't want it or like it, but that's what I see happening.
johnnybourbon said:
Its definately true that it will be republicans who crack down on abortion rights and dems who crack down on gun rights, like I said they each play a peticular role. But all roads lead to mammys kitchen. Clinton spent his time setting up the stage so that the patriot act was able to pass and the road to Iraq was already being paved but it is probably true that it wouldnt be till a conservative was incumbant that these things came to their full potential ... and keep in mind the dems voted "yes" in large numbers to approve our current actions
It's good to know that the only thing you see the GOP cracking down on is abortion rights. I had forgotten how both the GOP and the Democratic Party had the exact same policies on GLBT rights, the environment, foreign policy, minimum wage, workplace protection laws, and so on.
aleksa said:
Not at all. Before all the talk about Hilary running, I would have said that due to the lack of popularity of Dubya that the likelihood of our next president being a Republican was pretty slim. But I've got to agree with FearTheReaper on this, Hilary Clinton is unelectable. Seeing as how this country doesn't seem ready to elect an independent, if Hilary Clinton runs, the country will elect another Republican. I don't want it or like it, but that's what I see happening.
I'm wondering how a candidate can both be leading nationwide opinion polls and be "unelectable", but again, you're both dramatically overestimating how unpopular Clinton is, and assuming that the GOP base isn't having the exact same discussions about McCain, Giuliani, Romney, Brownback and Gingrich.
FearTheReaper
NEWSWIRE
I'm lost
FEB 25, 2007 09:59 PM