Exposing the lack of compassion by conservatives and
debunking right wing hypocrisy at every opportunity.
You can blame the media for taking down Hillary, or other candidates who insist on actually campaigning against her as if she were, you know, their opponent.
Hell, blame Joe Lieberman if you want. Or us fucking malcontents on the Intertoobz. By all means, never forgive John Edwards for criticizing her majesty before her coronation.
Bottom line, you should blame Hillary Clinton herself if she gets nominated and yet, after the amazing criminality of the Republicans under Bush she still doesn't win. She's well aware that half of America won't vote for her no matter what, even if it's a vast right-wing conspiracy that made us that way. She doesn't care. She's had her eye on returning to Pennsylvania Avenue since the day her hubby got reelected in '96 -- don't kid yourself.
The Senate was a stepping stone, we all know that. She never lived a day in New York before the Clintons left the White House. And she's used her seat as a platform to triangulate the path of pissing the least number of people off throughout her tenure as a Senator,
One need only look at her bifurcated stance on flag burning to see her duplicity -- against a Constitutional Amendment to prohibit it, but for a statute that prevents burning the flag -- knowing it's unconstitutional without that Amendment she voted against. And that was two years ago.
She is Queen of the, "They think we're stupid" Courtiers who live in the Village I like to call Versailles on the Potomac. And by far the most ambitious of the lot. She thinks she knows what we want to hear, but she never tells us what we need to know.
And you know what, Gore did it too.
Yes, Saint Al of Oslo wasn't the eco-warrior of today, he didn't do battle and fight for our rights and speak truth to power or rail against the utter wrongness of the political right. That guy didn't appear until well after the war in Iraq had already started to go to hell, about three years too late.
Where was that guy when we needed him? Where is he now?
Next year it should be easy to get a Democrat elected President. It will be a really hard fight to get someone who is GOP Lite, like Mrs. Clinton. I don't think that's who she is, but that's who she's trying to look like.
And in politics, perception IS reality -- just ask the guys making their own reality behind the curtain obscuring what really goes on in the Oval Office.
Oh, and if you think I'm just playing into the Republicans' hands, giving them ammunition, think again. They've made an industry out of Clinton bashing, gotten downright rich on hating everything about Slick Willy and Slippery Hill.
They don't need my help. The fact that the Clintons are still in the pubic eye is all the ammunition they need.
11/11/07
Why The Democrats Lost The White House in '08
By: Mark W Adams
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Subscribe via Email
10 Comments:
If you want a consensus building "honest" candidate, other than Gravel / Kucinich who can't be thrown under the Democratic party's bus, go for Ron Paul. The Republicans bus throwing seems to be backfiring more often than not.
From this libertarians perspective, Hilary is an equivalent candidate to Giuliani. That's pretty impressive for Democrats generally, I didn't think it's party leadership would go that evil that quick.
Good article.
And - yeah! Go for Dr. Paul!
At least he is a really honest man.
...an honestly insane man, maybe. I admire his forthright willingness to speak plainly for what he believes. But it doesn't take an extreme libretarian to object to the GOP's mismanagement of the government or the war, or to point out the utter failure of conservative ideology.
Ending the war is one thing and protecting civil liberties should not be a "brave" stance -- but it is in today's GOP. However, throwing out social security, medicare, the Federal Reserve system, the IRS, CIA, FEMA, Dept's. of Education, Energy, Commerce and wanting to disengage with every international organization, including the World Trade organization when he's an avowed free-trader is ludicrous.
The guy would continue the "Star Wars" anti-ballistic missile program that is plain folly and his immigration policy ... isn't. He's absolutist in it's anti-immigrant position.
No. Ron Paul is not the answer. No way. You might think he's bring about a libretarian utopia. He's an anarchist, period. We've had enough of people who hate government being in charge of government.
Give the public a choice between a Republican and a Republican, and they'll elect the Republican every time.
Still true now.
Hello,
You're invited to the award winning independent film "The Insurgents", written and directed by Scott Dacko, starring Mary Stuart Masterson, John Shea, Henry Simmons, Juliette Marquis and Michael Mosley, which opened Friday, Nov. 9, 2007 and runs through Thursday Nov. 15th, at Cobble Hill Theatre. www.cobblehilltheatre.com
"The Insurgents" speaks directly to those who are frustrated with the system, and imagines a scenario of taking action, using the events surrounding September 11th for motivation.
Put the word out to your members and subscribers. This movie should not be missed!
Watch the sneak previews of the 9-11 conspiracy theory scene:
part one: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NIPIr8DfEWk
part two: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UDNXMxzQMYs
Watch the trailer: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y3lI-nwRPgc
Press Release: The Insurgents uses the events of 9/11 as a springboard to talk about politics and society, security and freedom, patriotism and dissent. Led by a disillusioned former government operative turned radical left-wing academic, a group plans to detonate a bomb in the United States as an act of protest against what they feel are its imperialistic actions. A fractured narrative structure adds to the suspense as love triangles and double crosses are gradually revealed. The film stars John Shea, Henry Simmons, Juliet Marquis, Michael Mosley and Mary Stuart Masterson and has won multiple awards at film festivals across the U.S
http://www.insurgentsmovie.com/
http://www.myspace.com/insurgentsmovie
by http://www.revelfilms.com/
mark w adams:
Insane is a bit much, you have to admit. And what avowed anarchist would actually bother running for government office?
You overstate and mischaracterise his position on the alphabet soup of agencies our current (akin to leviathan) federal bureaucracy comprises. Yes, he as a candidate believes (rightly, in a constitutional sense) that these various agencies are unconstitutional wasteful and unnecessary. The goal is to eliminate them. The interim action is always a more complex problem to solve, since you have people and states that function with the assumption of direction and assistance from these agencies you can't just eliminate them. These are his own positions, so judging from your misstatement on them you haven't been actually reading/listening, or you've been in some echo-chamber somewhere for too long.
What person would pretent to suggest that the WTO for instance represents any interest other than the interests of those who are ambivalent to or in many cases hostile towards actual Free Trade.
Immigration wise, stemming the flow, and opening to an honest debate on issues as to what our actual policy is/should be would be the best bet all around. As law is written currently, it should be enforced or changed rather than swept under the rug and enforced selectively. If congress votes through a veto proof amnesty in this theoretical Ron Paul executive world, and it is constitutionally sound, he would be a present that would faithfully execute it.
Really the ultimate rebuttal I'll offer is, he's not running for "King" he's running for "President" and judging from his idea of where the executive branch power should end, I think anywone on the other side of him on the position of immigration can be assured that massive legislative change will be built on a consensus (as has been his response to similar questions) rather than an executive order.
“Yes, Saint Al of Oslo wasn't the eco-warrior of today, he didn't do battle and fight for our rights and speak truth to power or rail against the utter wrongness of the political right. That guy didn't appear until well after the war in Iraq had already started to go to hell, about three years too late.
Where was that guy when we needed him? Where is he now?”
That’s just plain wrong, Mark:
“An Inconvenient Truth is worthy in content, admirable in intent, and motivated by the sense of civic responsibility Hollywood on the whole has abandoned. About two-thirds is a quasi-documentary of Gore presenting to an audience the greenhouse slide show he's been giving for nearly 20 years. (I attended an early effort, in the late 1980s.)”
--Greg Easterbrook
“I'm speaking today in an effort to recommend a specific course of action for our country, which I sincerely believe would be better for our country than the policy that is now being pursued by President Bush. Specifically, I am deeply concerned that the course of action that we are presently embarking upon with respect to Iraq has the potential to seriously damage our ability to win the war against terrorism and to weaken our ability to lead the world in this new century.”
--Al Gore 9/23/02
Al Gore ain’t no saint (just maybe one of the wisest and least dishonest politicians around – so he’s obviously not well suited to politics) but you should still be accurate with your claims. And what mainstream politician has ever, “rail[ed] against the utter wrongness of the political right,” and didn’t get ignored or panned as a nutjob by The Village, especially before the middle third of the country finally figured out how corrupt and two-faced the right is and what a miserable failure that is the Bush administration?
Clinton is, at best, my fourth pic among the candidates but I’ll line up behind any Democrat because, considering the alternative, that’s what we have to do (politics, you know, the lesser of evils – like the law). Clinton = Gulliani is simple-minded, Independent drivel and the fact that half the country says it won't vote for Hillary would only be really problematic if more than half the country showed up to vote.
Anyway I won’t put up with any false accusations about any Democrat; that’s exactly how we got to where we are. You wouldn’t either, at least where Edwards is concerned.
And to answer your question, he’s out trying to save the f*cking planet and compared to any president we’ve ever had beside Jimmy Carter, he’s actually done something.
First Avedon Carol, now Shep has called me out on this one. I'm standing by it, folks.
A slide show? Really? Did he put some lawn-signs out too? He had the pulpit of the Vice Presidency of the United Sucking States, and the best he could do was a slide show?
And speaking of a day late and dollar short, the quote you had is from 2002 on the war. If the firebrand we saw then had been around in 1999 and 2000, when such speeches might have made his election a no-contest against Shrub, it might have made a difference. No?
Whatever. Save the Planet, Save the Cheerleader....
"If the firebrand we saw then had been around in 1999 and 2000, when such speeches might have made his election a no-contest against Shrub, it might have made a difference. No?"
So...it's the Democrats' falt. Jesus, Mark, I think Edwards fever is warping your mind.
BTW, those lawn signs won an Emmy and a Nobel Peace Prize because they woke the world up to a looming disaster it refused to face.
Really, Mark.
POST A COMMENT