Reading David Broder's latest republished column in the Spokesman-Review, he gave Senator Hillary Clinton the most personal and even personable review of a candidate that I had seen to date. A sharp contrast to the shrill and dare I say "bitchy" type of woman who turns me off every time she opens her mouth. If you actually paid attention only to Broder's column, there would be cause to vote for the lady. But listen to her on the campaign trail, and in fact you don't hear a good reason to actually vote for her. So which Hillary should enter office if hypothetically, she were indeed the Dem nominee. The person that Mr. Broder, discussed in almost loving terms or the power hungry gal in pants who lashes out at her Dem opponent, Senator Obama on the most petty of issues.
Yes, during the Dem debate in Ohio, Senator Obama admitted to not attending certain subcommittee meetings, because as Senator Clinton shrilly declared, he was out campaigning for president. From my perspective, that sounds like a "how dare anyone challenge my right to become president by 2009." Not even Bill had ever suffered that kind of arrogance. Quite the putdown from a lady who also happens to be out campaigning for president. But did anyone bother to ask, what committee or subcommittee meetings did she not attend while out campaigning for president. What votes did she not make on important bills while out on the campaign trail. Seems the best political team on CNN's "Ballot Bowl" weren't quite ready to discuss anything like that. Even as they were a little too willing to hammer on Obama just because both Hillary and McCain had done so. Yeah, Obama is the front runner, he got there by good hard work. Unlike Senator Clinton, he made no presumptions about anything. Had Hillary engaged in the organizing work that Obama is already skillful at, then yes, not only would she be the front runner today but also the presumptive nominee. So now, her comments on the campaign trail are both flailing and nasty.
I am also going to discuss the ads that Ms. Clinton aired in Texas. They are remniscient of the "Daisy ads" of the 1960s. Your children are safely asleep, but in the White House a phone is ringing, somewhere in the world something is happening. Senator Clinton no doubt exploits her years in the Children's Defense Fund to politically make use of kids in an ad of that sort. But, anti-abortion Senator McCain can make use of the "fetus was never safe" ads when railing against what Bill didn't sign in laws to prohibit late term abortions that were continually being passed by the religious activist Congress in the 1990s. The children as wedge issue that can come back to haunt Senator Clinton as presidential nominee. And only because she aired these ads first.
At least CNN got one thing right, those who support, vote for or even endorse any specific presidential candidate can and should have doubts about what their favorite candidate is even capable of delivering. Without question, some of what Barack H. Obama has said is pie in the sky. Without question, President Obama would have a hard time pushing through a recalcitrant Congress any of his truly pie in the sky programs. What CNN discounts however, and perhaps to that 24/7 news media channel's peril, is that a movement inspired by pie in the sky rhetoric, may indeed start making solid changes to the American political landscape from the bottom up. After all, this country has long had a bottom up revolution in political changes. I believe that is why it is called a democracy. And the political candidate who can best capitalize on the latest in the long history of revolutions in this country, is the one who becomes president.
Abraham Lincoln capitalized on abolition. Franklin Delano Roosevelt capitalized on people being sick and tired of being poor. Ronald Reagan capitalized on people being sick and tired of what they determined were an absence of values.
Can Senator Clinton capitalize on people being sick and tired of Bush? Or is Obama the better man for the job?
Yes, during the Dem debate in Ohio, Senator Obama admitted to not attending certain subcommittee meetings, because as Senator Clinton shrilly declared, he was out campaigning for president. From my perspective, that sounds like a "how dare anyone challenge my right to become president by 2009." Not even Bill had ever suffered that kind of arrogance. Quite the putdown from a lady who also happens to be out campaigning for president. But did anyone bother to ask, what committee or subcommittee meetings did she not attend while out campaigning for president. What votes did she not make on important bills while out on the campaign trail. Seems the best political team on CNN's "Ballot Bowl" weren't quite ready to discuss anything like that. Even as they were a little too willing to hammer on Obama just because both Hillary and McCain had done so. Yeah, Obama is the front runner, he got there by good hard work. Unlike Senator Clinton, he made no presumptions about anything. Had Hillary engaged in the organizing work that Obama is already skillful at, then yes, not only would she be the front runner today but also the presumptive nominee. So now, her comments on the campaign trail are both flailing and nasty.
I am also going to discuss the ads that Ms. Clinton aired in Texas. They are remniscient of the "Daisy ads" of the 1960s. Your children are safely asleep, but in the White House a phone is ringing, somewhere in the world something is happening. Senator Clinton no doubt exploits her years in the Children's Defense Fund to politically make use of kids in an ad of that sort. But, anti-abortion Senator McCain can make use of the "fetus was never safe" ads when railing against what Bill didn't sign in laws to prohibit late term abortions that were continually being passed by the religious activist Congress in the 1990s. The children as wedge issue that can come back to haunt Senator Clinton as presidential nominee. And only because she aired these ads first.
At least CNN got one thing right, those who support, vote for or even endorse any specific presidential candidate can and should have doubts about what their favorite candidate is even capable of delivering. Without question, some of what Barack H. Obama has said is pie in the sky. Without question, President Obama would have a hard time pushing through a recalcitrant Congress any of his truly pie in the sky programs. What CNN discounts however, and perhaps to that 24/7 news media channel's peril, is that a movement inspired by pie in the sky rhetoric, may indeed start making solid changes to the American political landscape from the bottom up. After all, this country has long had a bottom up revolution in political changes. I believe that is why it is called a democracy. And the political candidate who can best capitalize on the latest in the long history of revolutions in this country, is the one who becomes president.
Abraham Lincoln capitalized on abolition. Franklin Delano Roosevelt capitalized on people being sick and tired of being poor. Ronald Reagan capitalized on people being sick and tired of what they determined were an absence of values.
Can Senator Clinton capitalize on people being sick and tired of Bush? Or is Obama the better man for the job?
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment