We all knew this would happen sooner or later. We did not need the advice of a tarot card reader nor some cryptic Nostradamus-like quatrain with her in mind to foresee this future. Hillary Rodham Clinton is running for president. "Oy vey" is all I have to say about her running, and "Och und vey" if she should manage to win the nomination or the White House.
My reluctance, dare I say, refusal to support Mrs. Clinton is not about her electability. She would handily beat any Republican candidate laid out as sacrificial lamb to oppose her. I object to Mrs. Clinton because she isn't a progressive or necessarily liberal Democrat, but part of the elite corporo-political establishment that also adored her former-President husband in canonizing him into a form of populist sainthood. Bill Clinton is still the sole 'rock star' in American politics and, unfortunately, his word and support carry a lot of weight in Democratic circles. Hillary's success comes as being enamored of and by the condescending 'feel-good' crowd that doesn't actually do anything, but feels really good about hoping they could help when, of course, it doesn't interfere with shopping on 5th Ave. or catching a Broadway show. We already have dozens of congress-persons exactly like her, and they are usually referred to as 'Republicans'.
Hillary Clinton is a person who, as they say in baseball terminology, started out on 3rd base and 'thought she hit a triple'. She rode into the Senate on the star-power of her ex-president husband and frankly, most New Yorkers know full well that she does not and will not truly represent their interests. Her faithful constituency are the corporate elite (limousine liberals), Hollywood, and Goldman-Sachs. The average New Yorker doesn't know Hillary at all. She never lived in New York, worked in New York, or paid New York much attention at all until her cult-following from Upper Manhattan lured her into a lucrative Senate race with good odds of winning. New Yorkers weren't really offered any other choices, as Mrs. Clinton's star power essentially eclipsed and silenced all progressive opposition. She refused to acknowledge those Democrats or progressives running against her. She declined debate in spite of being urged by many grass-roots Democratic organizations and the media to do so. This deliberate avoidance shows Hillary's glaring disdain for the common citizen. All we wanted is for her to listen and respond. She didn't have time. She doesn't care what we care about, rather she chooses what we care about for us.
Hillary is nothing more than a ruthless a power-hungry troll who cannot handle a difference of opinion and her campaigns are based on clever marketing ploys designed to shield her from criticism and tough questions on issues. She is about herself and herself only. She will do whatever it takes to win, no matter who gets hurt. Her 'cult' reminds me of the Oprah followers; half mind-numbed fat ladies and half-delirious star-struck hangers on. So far, other than her unwavering approval of the failed War in Iraq, we really don't know for sure what Hillary Clinton stands for. We know she loves fine dining and CEOs. I would have to sacrifice a great deal of dignity and self-worth to walk into the voting booth and cast a ballot for that bitch. I am not the only liberal who feels this strongly. There are many who hold much stronger opinions. Some of them have very popular left-wing radio shows. Some of them have children who died fighting in Iraq.
Now I was willing to give Hillary the benefit of the doubt when it was suspected early on that she would be running for the Presidency. After all, she was inexperienced in politics and perhaps she became a little flustered by the learning curve of being a freshman senator and a prominent female in Washington. It's not an easy job. Then, almost as if by divine fiat, I discovered that her campaign staff, anticipating a challenge from former Sen. John Edwards, actually co-opted a domain name that the Edwards campaign would have likely used and, get this, linked it to a site for Hillary Clinton! Did she know? I don't care. That episode shows me what kind of people she is hiring and they are starting to remind me of Karl Rove. It seems that Hillary is more aggressive in attacking candidates or avoiding challenges from within her own party than she ever has been in defending the rights of working Americans. This stunt pulled against the Edwards campaign is just plain low-class.
To be fair, these are the areas where Hillary seems to be taking a definitive and positive progressive stance:
1) Universal Health Care
2) ummmm.....can't think of anything else at the moment
I don't know yet which candidate I will support. I only know which one I won't. (Dennis Kucinich would be my first choice, but I will be peddling parkas in Purgatory before he ever gets within spitting distance of the Oval Office.)
My reluctance, dare I say, refusal to support Mrs. Clinton is not about her electability. She would handily beat any Republican candidate laid out as sacrificial lamb to oppose her. I object to Mrs. Clinton because she isn't a progressive or necessarily liberal Democrat, but part of the elite corporo-political establishment that also adored her former-President husband in canonizing him into a form of populist sainthood. Bill Clinton is still the sole 'rock star' in American politics and, unfortunately, his word and support carry a lot of weight in Democratic circles. Hillary's success comes as being enamored of and by the condescending 'feel-good' crowd that doesn't actually do anything, but feels really good about hoping they could help when, of course, it doesn't interfere with shopping on 5th Ave. or catching a Broadway show. We already have dozens of congress-persons exactly like her, and they are usually referred to as 'Republicans'.
Hillary Clinton is a person who, as they say in baseball terminology, started out on 3rd base and 'thought she hit a triple'. She rode into the Senate on the star-power of her ex-president husband and frankly, most New Yorkers know full well that she does not and will not truly represent their interests. Her faithful constituency are the corporate elite (limousine liberals), Hollywood, and Goldman-Sachs. The average New Yorker doesn't know Hillary at all. She never lived in New York, worked in New York, or paid New York much attention at all until her cult-following from Upper Manhattan lured her into a lucrative Senate race with good odds of winning. New Yorkers weren't really offered any other choices, as Mrs. Clinton's star power essentially eclipsed and silenced all progressive opposition. She refused to acknowledge those Democrats or progressives running against her. She declined debate in spite of being urged by many grass-roots Democratic organizations and the media to do so. This deliberate avoidance shows Hillary's glaring disdain for the common citizen. All we wanted is for her to listen and respond. She didn't have time. She doesn't care what we care about, rather she chooses what we care about for us.
Hillary is nothing more than a ruthless a power-hungry troll who cannot handle a difference of opinion and her campaigns are based on clever marketing ploys designed to shield her from criticism and tough questions on issues. She is about herself and herself only. She will do whatever it takes to win, no matter who gets hurt. Her 'cult' reminds me of the Oprah followers; half mind-numbed fat ladies and half-delirious star-struck hangers on. So far, other than her unwavering approval of the failed War in Iraq, we really don't know for sure what Hillary Clinton stands for. We know she loves fine dining and CEOs. I would have to sacrifice a great deal of dignity and self-worth to walk into the voting booth and cast a ballot for that bitch. I am not the only liberal who feels this strongly. There are many who hold much stronger opinions. Some of them have very popular left-wing radio shows. Some of them have children who died fighting in Iraq.
Now I was willing to give Hillary the benefit of the doubt when it was suspected early on that she would be running for the Presidency. After all, she was inexperienced in politics and perhaps she became a little flustered by the learning curve of being a freshman senator and a prominent female in Washington. It's not an easy job. Then, almost as if by divine fiat, I discovered that her campaign staff, anticipating a challenge from former Sen. John Edwards, actually co-opted a domain name that the Edwards campaign would have likely used and, get this, linked it to a site for Hillary Clinton! Did she know? I don't care. That episode shows me what kind of people she is hiring and they are starting to remind me of Karl Rove. It seems that Hillary is more aggressive in attacking candidates or avoiding challenges from within her own party than she ever has been in defending the rights of working Americans. This stunt pulled against the Edwards campaign is just plain low-class.
To be fair, these are the areas where Hillary seems to be taking a definitive and positive progressive stance:
1) Universal Health Care
2) ummmm.....can't think of anything else at the moment
I don't know yet which candidate I will support. I only know which one I won't. (Dennis Kucinich would be my first choice, but I will be peddling parkas in Purgatory before he ever gets within spitting distance of the Oval Office.)
2 comments:
Hillary Clinton has done more good for Israel and the jewish community in her 6 years in the senate than dopey mcBush and Condi Rice have in their entire lives. We would be lucky to haver her as our president
You must be related to one of those Bobovers in prison (was it tax fraud?) that Hillary promised to help get lighter sentences in exchange for money and votes. How did that work out for them?
If not, I have more serious answer for you. Here goes.
Hillary is, on her face pro Israel. After all, were she to deviate even slightly from the "I fully support and apologize for Israel position" her MYC power base would dry up like a cholent in a blast furnace.
She knows where her bread is buttered and that the butter has a hechsher on it. It is not that she supports any position on any subject; she simply refuses to critique the Israel lobby.
The other question is whether blind support of Bush-like policies, here and in the Middle East, are good for Israel. Many Israelis i.e. Shimon Peres don't believe so. I agree. Even Rav Kahane o'h saw the US-Israel bond as dangerous, because it too is centered more around corporate interests than strategic concerns. Such a relationship allows the US to dictate Israeli domestic affairs.
Lastly, did you know that her progressive opponent is JEWISH? And he both lived and was educated in Tel Aviv? You probably didn't know much about him because Hillary ignored him and thus the media ignored him as well.
So what you're saying is that a shikza from Arkansas is better for New York and Israel than would be someone who actually grew up in Israel and lived for most of his professional life in NYC.
Amazing logic there. No wonder the world is in trouble. People like you vote.
Post a Comment