Like most Americans -- especially progressives -- after 8 years of Bush II following 8 years of Clinton-esque triangulation, preceded by 12 years of Reagan and Bush I, we are desperate for real change in Washington.
That is why we are supporting Obama for president.
We are really impressed with the way he has been conducting himself in this unfortunately divisive primary campaign.
As rumors abound -- on the Internet and in the media -- that:
- Obama is a Muslim;
- he does crack and gives blow jobs in the back of limos;
- he is a good friend of domestic terrorists and Louis Farrakhan;
- he is anti-Semetic;
- he's the antichrist;
- and -- even worse -- that he only got where he is because he is lucky enough to have been born a Black man!
Hillary's dirty campaigning style is enough to make Karl Rove proud.
And just as she is running a Rove-Bush style campaign, we see evidence that a Hillary Clinton presidency may very well be Bush-like as well.
How do we know what kind of president that Hillary Clinton would make? We don't. No one can read the future. The best we can do is try to analogize what might happen based on the information we have now.
For example:
1. Bush waged a war without a long-term plan because he believed it would be a cake-walk. Hillary ran a campaign without a long-term plan believing she would be the front runner throughout and that she would be the only Democrat standing after Super Tuesday -- in other words -- winning the Democratic nomination would be a cake-walk.
2. Bush declared "Mission Accomplished" and 5 years later we are still at war. Clinton declared herself the winner and offered the VP spot to Obama -- even though she is losing the race to him. Obama has won more states, has more pledged delegates and more popular votes. It is now mathematically impossible for Hillary to beat Barack yet she still claims to be the front runner.
3. Bush 's economic strategy has broken the American bank. The economy is in the toilet and we are awash in debt. Clinton's campaign ran out of money in mid-February forcing her to loan herself 5 million dollars. Barack on the other hand has spent his campaign money wisely. He has broken all fund raising records and has used the money to get out his uplifting message of change and hope.
4. Bush surround himself with incompetent and blindly loyal (for a little while) cronies who have little or no experience and who are loathe to tell their boss and the American people the truth. Clinton hired old and loyal friends who had little experience running a campaign and who spent her money as though the campaign would be over on Super Tuesday. Again, for the most part, Obama's staff has been respectful -- and when they are not -- he wastes no time to remove them from the campaign.
5. When members of his cabinet and staff -- or even one of his most ardent supporters (remember Ken Ley and Jack Abramoff?) have f'd up, Bush quickly distances himself -- claiming he barely knew them or that their errors were not his fault. Just as Clinton did when Geraldine Ferraro, Bill Clinton, PA Governor Ed Rendell and other supporters have played the race card -- overtly or subtly -- against Obama. So far, no one in Obama's camp has resorted to making mysogenistic attacks against Hillary. If you disagree with this point (and we are not referring to the media) please let us know and we will happily make a correction.
6. The best word to describe this Bush administration might be "secretive." Second only to Bush in surrounding themselves in secrecy are the Clinton's. How can we hope for change if we are kept in the dark about how policies are being made and for whom?
7. When it seemed as though he couldn't win the majority of popular and/or electoral votes in 2000, Bush simply stole the election to become President anyway. It seems Hillary is willing to do the same if she does not receive the majority of votes. She is pushing to have delegates seated in Michigan and Florida even though she previously agreed that those primaries would not count. She is also threatening to steal the nomination by getting the super delegates to nominate her even if she does not win the popular vote. We fear she will not give up her pursuit of the White House even if she eventually loses the Democratic nomination. Hillary and Bill want to win so much that it seems they prefer that McCain win so that Hill will have another shot at it in 4 years.
This begs the question -- if Hillary and Bill want to win so bad that they would stoop to destroying the Democratic Party and presumably maintain an illegal and unethical war that sends thousands more to needless deaths, why even have an election in the first place?
Whats all the campaigning about if Hillary is just going to screw it up anyway?
We should just let her have it if she wants it so bad that she feels the need to snuff out hope as though it were some annoying bug.
Obama has waged a brilliant campaign and against all odds -- against the Clinton machine and the un-level playing field -- he has shown himself to be a strong and competent leader.
We predict here and now that if Hillary loses the Democratic nomination, she and Bill will take all their marbles and -- rather than go home -- she'll run as an Independent thus ensuring a win for McCain in November.
Ugh. Hope we are wrong!
