Wednesday, September 05, 2007
Billary For President
Instapundit linked to America is gone? by Eric at Classical Values. Primarily, the post argues that Hillary as would be a step backwards for the country. (I agree.) Eric also discusses Hillary's plan to use Bill during her potential presidency.
Like Eric and Glenn, I've heard of codependency and even "mutually supportive symbiotic relationship," but never comegalomania. I like it.
The one thing I keep coming back to is, if Hillary is such an ambitious, liberated woman, why has she ridden her husband's coattails to get where she is and why does she continue to ride her husband's coattails in attempt to further her career? Hillary has never stood on her own. She is gradually working Bill into her campaign more and more, the YouTube ad, comments such as this, etc. As much as she wants to pretend to be an independent liberated woman, Hillary still needs a man to hold her hand.
This country needs a break for the Clinton/Bush regimes. If you're liberal show some brains and vote for someone else.
At least, that's the only logical interpretation I have to give this characterization of what the country will be if Hillary Clinton is elected president:Most of all, further on in the post, Eric coins a great term, "comegalomania," to describe the Clinton's relationship.Yesterday, before hundreds of union members and their families at a Labor Day picnic in Sioux City, Iowa, Mrs. Clinton suggested one role for her husband should she be elected: repairing the country's reputation in the world after what the Clintons and other critics charge is the damage done during the Bush years.
"The day I'm elected," she said, "I'm going to be asking distinguished Americans -- including my husband -- of both parties, to start traveling around the world, and not just talking to governments and leaders, but talking directly to people and telling them that America is back."
Like Eric and Glenn, I've heard of codependency and even "mutually supportive symbiotic relationship," but never comegalomania. I like it.
The one thing I keep coming back to is, if Hillary is such an ambitious, liberated woman, why has she ridden her husband's coattails to get where she is and why does she continue to ride her husband's coattails in attempt to further her career? Hillary has never stood on her own. She is gradually working Bill into her campaign more and more, the YouTube ad, comments such as this, etc. As much as she wants to pretend to be an independent liberated woman, Hillary still needs a man to hold her hand.
This country needs a break for the Clinton/Bush regimes. If you're liberal show some brains and vote for someone else.
Comments:
<< Home
Hillary, like many of her ilk, cannot put forth an intelligent logically oriented program, so she MUST resort to balony, trickery and faux-populism. There is absolutely no other way for her.
# posted by 
: 10:15 AM
: 10:15 AM
Thing is, historically speaking, I'd say we've been walking backwards since an assassin's bullet took JFK from us in Dallas. IMHO, the FDR-Truman-Eisenhower-Kennedy years were the golden age of American soicety. Every President since then has taken the proverbial one step forward and one and a half steps back.
So who in this Presidential field ISN'T a step back? I'd personally have liked Hillary to stay in the Senate indefinitely (and become the very powerful legislator that more fits her personality); Obama's got the chops and charisma, and his message may stop a backwards movement just by realigning the American state of mind; then there's Edwards, and as much as I want to vote for a Southerner...
But on the other side we have the same damn thing! Rudy, Romney and McCain. McCain lost me on immigration, Rudy lost me on his psychadelic view of the GWOT, and Romney...
Thompson is the only GOP candidate I would consider voting for in the general. I don't really know why, but that he has that charisma that could heal instead of divide. Even when he talks about things where I disagree with him, he phrases it where I can see his point. Never underestimate that.
Though I hate to say it, when the voting booth comes around, I'm voting for the least of the evils (and since I've been living in the NOLA, I've gained more appreiciation for that than I can describe). Right now, though, they all look like candidates who will do the one step forward and the one and a half steps back.
As much as I hate to admit it, I think we are living in one of those American history eras that citizens will look back and see us in the same light as we look at the folks during the Garfields and Clevelands and Van Burens.
Where are our Roosevelts, Lincolns, Washingtons and Jeffersons?
So who in this Presidential field ISN'T a step back? I'd personally have liked Hillary to stay in the Senate indefinitely (and become the very powerful legislator that more fits her personality); Obama's got the chops and charisma, and his message may stop a backwards movement just by realigning the American state of mind; then there's Edwards, and as much as I want to vote for a Southerner...
But on the other side we have the same damn thing! Rudy, Romney and McCain. McCain lost me on immigration, Rudy lost me on his psychadelic view of the GWOT, and Romney...
Thompson is the only GOP candidate I would consider voting for in the general. I don't really know why, but that he has that charisma that could heal instead of divide. Even when he talks about things where I disagree with him, he phrases it where I can see his point. Never underestimate that.
Though I hate to say it, when the voting booth comes around, I'm voting for the least of the evils (and since I've been living in the NOLA, I've gained more appreiciation for that than I can describe). Right now, though, they all look like candidates who will do the one step forward and the one and a half steps back.
As much as I hate to admit it, I think we are living in one of those American history eras that citizens will look back and see us in the same light as we look at the folks during the Garfields and Clevelands and Van Burens.
Where are our Roosevelts, Lincolns, Washingtons and Jeffersons?
Right now, though, they all look like candidates who will do the one step forward and the one and a half steps back.
As much as I hate to admit it, I think we are living in one of those American history eras that citizens will look back and see us in the same light as we look at the folks during the Garfields and Clevelands and Van Burens.
I agree. Indeed, knowing that we made it through the Garfield, Cleveland, and Var Buren years gives me hope for our future. Our politicians are too inbred, which is another reason Thompson is appealing. Obama makes the Democrats interesting but Oprah is going to ruin it for him. God, I hate celebrity endorsements on either side. We still have lots of time to sort things out. But I'm close to absolute certainty that Hillary has nothing to offer that will make a positive difference in our country.
Post a Comment
As much as I hate to admit it, I think we are living in one of those American history eras that citizens will look back and see us in the same light as we look at the folks during the Garfields and Clevelands and Van Burens.
I agree. Indeed, knowing that we made it through the Garfield, Cleveland, and Var Buren years gives me hope for our future. Our politicians are too inbred, which is another reason Thompson is appealing. Obama makes the Democrats interesting but Oprah is going to ruin it for him. God, I hate celebrity endorsements on either side. We still have lots of time to sort things out. But I'm close to absolute certainty that Hillary has nothing to offer that will make a positive difference in our country.
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home
Subscribe to Posts [Atom]
