The American Queen That Isn't
Hillary Clinton is her own worset enemy.
She calls for change but her very last name brings us more of the same. Or at least more of the last 20 years. She brings to mind going backward, not going forward ... and the country is showing a desperate need to go forward.
Today, in a wierd and uncharacteristic attempt to either seem soft and reachable (or other possibility: she's feeling the stress of this so much she actually is appearing human), she teared up (via ABC News) when a voter asked her "how do you do it?" She gave some speal about how she has to make change and did not want to see the country fall backwards. She choked up on the words and had tears in her eyes.
In the how many years this woman has been the public spot light ... how may times have you seen her cry / tear up? She's talked about numerous bombings and attacks, soldiers who've died, civilians who've died, children who've lost parents, those without insurance, the downtrodden, the weak, the suffering ... I don't remember her showing emotion at any of those topics.
George W. Bush, known to be extremely emotional, is critized almost every time he tears up when talking about things like Iraq and our soldiers. Hillary starts to cry talking about HERSELF and ABC thinks she's a sympathetic candidate.
I don't want to see us fall backwards either. One Clinton was enough for me. Heck, one Bush was enough for a lot of people and half the country and most of the media was so ready for the second to be gone that campaigning for 2008 started in 2006.
Clinton is upset, she should be. Drudge has a report up that her top aids are saying she's contemplating quitting if she gets a double digit loss again in New Hampshire. In national polls she's fallen quickly after her loss in Iowa, and Obama appears to be within heavy striking distance. She now shows 33% of the national vote and Obama has 29%. In New Hampshire, Obama now shows a double digit (38%) lead over Hillary (28%), with Edwards behind (18%).
And, even more interesting, Independent voters are siding with Obama, which means trouble for the Republicans (McCain) who were courting that vote. McCain, however, is still close with Romney and if he wins there ... well than I'll talk about that then.
I watched the Democrat debate on Saturday (missed the Reps). You had 3 Senators on stage talking about how this administration hasn't gotten anything done in it's 8 years and it's taken us down the wrong path.
Let me clarify some of this ... he had some help. Some help from a ridiculous Congress. The Republicans squandered the offices the public gave them and tripled the size of our debt and of our government. Bush helped with that by signing those bills into law. But how many times can you send a bill back and forth, knowing that actually humans are waiting for the results? That men and women in Iraq need the money from the army for new gear and supplies? Knowing that the States need the money for their own affairs? Congress has an entire year to do one thing.
ONE THING.
Pass the budget. And it always takes them longer than a year to do. Every year they go down to the wire. Every year they pass the September deadline. Every year they pile bill on top of bill on top of bill and send Omnibus spending budgets to the White House to sign. Every inch of it laden with pork and excess.
Who gave the President authority to go to war with Iraq? Congress. 2 of the candidates on the platform voted for that war. And in the recent votes about spending for the war, they've obstained. Obama was the only one that voted against the war, so in my mind, he's the only one that can honestly oppose it and keep his honor. The others are turncoats who want their cake and to eat it too.
So a Republican majority turns our budget on top of us. Democrats are voted in ... and they do no better. So how can they stand on a debate stage and argue when the very moderators say ... "you guys are all for change ... but why haven't you affected change since you've been in Congress?"
My favorite part of the debate, when Obama said he stopped lobbyists and interest groups from being able to buy Congressmen dinner. Charles Gibson (moderator) said, "I've read that they can still buy you dinner, that you have to stand while you eat." Obama did not correct him, stammered about a 100 times and rolled over it, apparently deciding it didn't help him to respond. It was hillarious.
They are the problem! I hate Senators that run for President. Really, I truly do. I'd much rather have a Governor or a businessman or a Mayor or Military person. Anyone but a Senator. I dispise Senators. I went to Washington with stars in my eyes about Senators and what they do and how they do it.
They are figureheads. When they talk about "I wrote that bill with Senator McCain and Senator Kennedy" (Edwards on the Patient Bill of Rights), it's all a lie. They didn't write anything. Their talented and trained lawyers wrote the bill, in closed sessions while the Congressman were out taking pictures with babies.
You can not call for change and be a member of the establishment. Edwards, on and on about how he never accepted money from special interest groups. Obama (and the Washington Post it seems) say that one of his advocacy groups, takes money from a labor unions. They recently retracted, saying they are not special interest groups ... but I wonder why? Could Obama need labor union voters?
I could go all day and it probably would start to make even less sense.
The fact is, I would put a bet that fewer people vote this year than last. One reason being, candidates like Bill Richardson get on stage and say that our energy crisis is going to need some sacrifices from the American people.
Forgive me, Governor, but I'd say the only people that are sacrificing due to the energy situation are the American people ... it'd be the American government and Congressman such as yourself that don't make sacrifices.
Everyday Americans turn off lights, and don't take trips to Grandma's and cancel plans to fly to the coast because the rising cost of gas / energy doesn't allow them to pay for it. Normal, every day American's don't have a choice ... they have to sacrifice because their budgets just simply don't allow for what once used to be easy.
The energy crisis will not be solved by taking the MPG to 50. It won't be solved by people driving Neon's and Civics instead of SUVs. The only thing that will solve the problem is innovation. We need an alternative. We need something other than Middle Eastern oil to put in our transportation. All you're doing by taking MPG's to 50 and adding more rail cars and bus lines, is prolonging an inevitablity and buying time. Sure, maybe another 50 years. But my grandchildren will face the same situation we are in today if we don't create another form of energy, if we don't find another form of energy.
I've ranted. My point was Hillary is in decline and I'm not even sure why really. Except, as someone wrote earlier that I can't find now ... maybe the Clinton name isn't what it used to be.
She calls for change but her very last name brings us more of the same. Or at least more of the last 20 years. She brings to mind going backward, not going forward ... and the country is showing a desperate need to go forward.
Today, in a wierd and uncharacteristic attempt to either seem soft and reachable (or other possibility: she's feeling the stress of this so much she actually is appearing human), she teared up (via ABC News) when a voter asked her "how do you do it?" She gave some speal about how she has to make change and did not want to see the country fall backwards. She choked up on the words and had tears in her eyes.
In the how many years this woman has been the public spot light ... how may times have you seen her cry / tear up? She's talked about numerous bombings and attacks, soldiers who've died, civilians who've died, children who've lost parents, those without insurance, the downtrodden, the weak, the suffering ... I don't remember her showing emotion at any of those topics.
George W. Bush, known to be extremely emotional, is critized almost every time he tears up when talking about things like Iraq and our soldiers. Hillary starts to cry talking about HERSELF and ABC thinks she's a sympathetic candidate.
I don't want to see us fall backwards either. One Clinton was enough for me. Heck, one Bush was enough for a lot of people and half the country and most of the media was so ready for the second to be gone that campaigning for 2008 started in 2006.
Clinton is upset, she should be. Drudge has a report up that her top aids are saying she's contemplating quitting if she gets a double digit loss again in New Hampshire. In national polls she's fallen quickly after her loss in Iowa, and Obama appears to be within heavy striking distance. She now shows 33% of the national vote and Obama has 29%. In New Hampshire, Obama now shows a double digit (38%) lead over Hillary (28%), with Edwards behind (18%).
And, even more interesting, Independent voters are siding with Obama, which means trouble for the Republicans (McCain) who were courting that vote. McCain, however, is still close with Romney and if he wins there ... well than I'll talk about that then.
I watched the Democrat debate on Saturday (missed the Reps). You had 3 Senators on stage talking about how this administration hasn't gotten anything done in it's 8 years and it's taken us down the wrong path.
Let me clarify some of this ... he had some help. Some help from a ridiculous Congress. The Republicans squandered the offices the public gave them and tripled the size of our debt and of our government. Bush helped with that by signing those bills into law. But how many times can you send a bill back and forth, knowing that actually humans are waiting for the results? That men and women in Iraq need the money from the army for new gear and supplies? Knowing that the States need the money for their own affairs? Congress has an entire year to do one thing.
ONE THING.
Pass the budget. And it always takes them longer than a year to do. Every year they go down to the wire. Every year they pass the September deadline. Every year they pile bill on top of bill on top of bill and send Omnibus spending budgets to the White House to sign. Every inch of it laden with pork and excess.
Who gave the President authority to go to war with Iraq? Congress. 2 of the candidates on the platform voted for that war. And in the recent votes about spending for the war, they've obstained. Obama was the only one that voted against the war, so in my mind, he's the only one that can honestly oppose it and keep his honor. The others are turncoats who want their cake and to eat it too.
So a Republican majority turns our budget on top of us. Democrats are voted in ... and they do no better. So how can they stand on a debate stage and argue when the very moderators say ... "you guys are all for change ... but why haven't you affected change since you've been in Congress?"
My favorite part of the debate, when Obama said he stopped lobbyists and interest groups from being able to buy Congressmen dinner. Charles Gibson (moderator) said, "I've read that they can still buy you dinner, that you have to stand while you eat." Obama did not correct him, stammered about a 100 times and rolled over it, apparently deciding it didn't help him to respond. It was hillarious.
They are the problem! I hate Senators that run for President. Really, I truly do. I'd much rather have a Governor or a businessman or a Mayor or Military person. Anyone but a Senator. I dispise Senators. I went to Washington with stars in my eyes about Senators and what they do and how they do it.
They are figureheads. When they talk about "I wrote that bill with Senator McCain and Senator Kennedy" (Edwards on the Patient Bill of Rights), it's all a lie. They didn't write anything. Their talented and trained lawyers wrote the bill, in closed sessions while the Congressman were out taking pictures with babies.
You can not call for change and be a member of the establishment. Edwards, on and on about how he never accepted money from special interest groups. Obama (and the Washington Post it seems) say that one of his advocacy groups, takes money from a labor unions. They recently retracted, saying they are not special interest groups ... but I wonder why? Could Obama need labor union voters?
I could go all day and it probably would start to make even less sense.
The fact is, I would put a bet that fewer people vote this year than last. One reason being, candidates like Bill Richardson get on stage and say that our energy crisis is going to need some sacrifices from the American people.
Forgive me, Governor, but I'd say the only people that are sacrificing due to the energy situation are the American people ... it'd be the American government and Congressman such as yourself that don't make sacrifices.
Everyday Americans turn off lights, and don't take trips to Grandma's and cancel plans to fly to the coast because the rising cost of gas / energy doesn't allow them to pay for it. Normal, every day American's don't have a choice ... they have to sacrifice because their budgets just simply don't allow for what once used to be easy.
The energy crisis will not be solved by taking the MPG to 50. It won't be solved by people driving Neon's and Civics instead of SUVs. The only thing that will solve the problem is innovation. We need an alternative. We need something other than Middle Eastern oil to put in our transportation. All you're doing by taking MPG's to 50 and adding more rail cars and bus lines, is prolonging an inevitablity and buying time. Sure, maybe another 50 years. But my grandchildren will face the same situation we are in today if we don't create another form of energy, if we don't find another form of energy.
I've ranted. My point was Hillary is in decline and I'm not even sure why really. Except, as someone wrote earlier that I can't find now ... maybe the Clinton name isn't what it used to be.
Comments