Going Down in Flames with Hillary

Being an independent is a lot of fun, because it gives me the right to criticize both the democrats and the republicans, two parties that are utterly beholden to special interests, prone to nominating monstrously bad candidates (see bill clinton, george w. bush, john kerry, etc), and just plain bad at the whole "governance" thing. In presidential election years, I tend to root for candidates from whichever party is out of power, so in 2000, I was so sick of the Clintons, that I hoped a Republican would win- but then watched in horror as Dubya was nominated, and now, I'm so sick of Dubya, that I woudn't mind seeing a Democrat win, but I fear that the democrats are about to make another catastrophic mistake in nominating Hillary Clinton.

Hill supporters claim that brining back the Clintons would mean a return to the good economic times of the 1990's. What's this, you didn't get enough of the Clintons during the eight years they were already in power? So you want to have two families-the Bushes and the Clintons- control the White House from 1988 until 2012 or perhaps 2016? That's 24 to 28 years of two family rule, which wouldn't be unusual in Panama or Lesotho, but in America? Give me a break.

So perhaps nearly three decades of two family rule don't bother you- ok- but what about the woman's personality? The Clintons embody all of the worst stereotypes of both their generation and of politicians in general. They're hypocrites that write preachy books telling us how to raise children (It Takes A Village), how to live (Giving: How each of us can change the world), and even how treat dogs and cats (Dear Socks, Dear Buddy), yet they run scorched-earth campaigns where distorting their opponents records and assasinating their characters are par for the course.

They struggle hard to project we-feel-your-pain authenticity, yet their only real true calling is their unbridled pursuit of power. Many politicians change positions to suit the times, but the Clintons have redefined political expediency. Hillary's a Cubs fan. She's a Yankees fan. She'd root for the Devil himself if he were a swing state voter. Here is a couple that was willing to sell nights in the Lincoln bedroom and pardons to fugitive billionaires, is there any doubt that they would sell their very souls to gain power once again?

Ok, so you may not like her either, and maybe you wouldn't mind some fresh blood, but isn't it time for a woman to be elected president? In this case, no. That is, not unless some other woman runs for president. Our first female president should be someone all women can be proud of- not a charlatan that espouses girl power one moment and then at others tears up for the cameras or hides behind Bill, her new attack dog. In South Carolina, white males voted for Edwards, blacks voted for Obama, and white women voted for Hillary. We're becoming like the Balkans, where elections are often like a national census- everyone just turns out to vote for the person that represents their ethnic group. Its ridiculous people- you shouldn't vote for someone just because they're a woman, or because they're white or black or even because they claim they're a fan of your favorite sports team.

Lastly, Hillary isn't going to win. So if you want to see a democrat in the White House, look elsewhere, because the religious right, and others that hate Hillary are going to turn out in droves to bring her down, should she be the democratic nominee. You might think that Hillary is the best of a weak field of candidates, but, in reality ANYONE would be a better choice. So who should you vote for? Lets save that discussion for another day.

Note: After writing this, I noticed in today's New York Times, that the Clinton's are at it again- conducting shady business deals with foreigners..


http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/31/us/politics/31donor.html?scp=1&sq=bill+clinton+almaty&st=nyt

Lets Move Ahead with WW3 Anyways!

There was a spectacularly entertaining presidential press conference about a month ago that slipped under the radar. In early December, portions of a national intelligence estimate (NIE) on Iran's nuclear threat were released to the public, and the report concluded that it is "highly likely" that Iran halted its nuclear weapons program more than four years ago. Though parts of the report were only just made public, apparently it was produced some time ago. This is stunningly bad news for the more hawkish members of the administration and for Israel and its more zealous supporters here in the United States who have been clamoring for war, or failing that, air strikes on Iran for the last few years.

You have probably noticed that the Iran threat has been hyped in a similar fashion to the way the war in Iraq was sold, only this time, the public has been more skeptical. What was most interesting about this press conference was how Bush handled the questions on the NIE. Let me paraphrase parts of the press conference for you.

Question from reporter: Mr. President, after you warned of a mushroom cloud if Iraq was not dealt with and then there were no weapons of mass destruction, and now, as recently as October you were warning about a "World War 3" with Iran, even though you, by that time, would have already had this report stating that the Iranians ended their weapons program four years ago, don't you worry that you may begin to lack credibility around the world?

Bush: Well that's not true- because I was told that there was some new intelligence about Iran's nuclear program, but I don't remember….no one told me what the new intelligence was.

Shockingly, the reporter did not follow up by asking, "so, you as the President of the United States, did not ask what this new information was? How could you not ask- given the fact that you have been painting this country as a grave threat to our very survival as a country- what if the new information was that Iran had a nuclear weapon and was about to attack us?"

But the question did not get asked, though the press corps did continue to press him about Iran.

Question from reporter: So given what we know now from this intelligence report, will there be any change in our policy toward Iran?

Bush: I thought Iran was dangerous before I read the report, and I still think Iran is dangerous now. They could re-start their program at any time.

He rambled on for a bit, but his point was clear, there would be no change in our Iran policy.

What is clear is that the only thing that prevented war with Iran was the fiasco in Iraq. If things had gone smoother in Iraq, our troops would already be in Tehran. Why? Because the neo-cons, a loose coalition of hawks both in and out of the administration, have had dreams of remaking the Middle East, and removing threats to Israel in the region for a very long time and 9/11 finally gave them the chance to execute phase one of their dream plan.

The other missed opportunity of the press conference involved Russia and the recent parliamentary elections there, which were widely condemned as fraudulent. After raising the question of Bush's credibility there was some mild question lobbed about Bush's opinion on Russia's election. What the reporter should have asked was,

"Mr. President, in 2001, you said that you looked into Mr. Putin's eyes and were able to see into his soul. After his recent attempts to stay in power for life and yesterday's fraudulent election, if you gazed deeply into his eyes once more, what would you see inside his soul now?"


The bottom line is: forget all that crap we said before, and just listen to us now!