Yes that’s right the Hatfield’s and McCoy’s. For those of you who have no idea who they are, the Hatfield’s and McCoy’s were the subjects of the infamous battle between two rural families over everything from property rights to the color of the sky.
Why do I make this sort of comparison? Well it’s simple really. Hilllary has pulled in Bill and Obama touts Michelle at every chance he gets. Hillary has been quiet since the infamous “emotion” stunt and Bill has taken her place with the finger pointing and name calling.
Unfortunately Mr.Clinton is used to being wrong on key facts. Indisputably Mr.Clinton was caught lying on several occasions throughout his presidency under oath, most famously for the Monica Lewinsky incident where he was forced to back peddle and admit the truth, which led to an eventual impeachment by the U.S. Congress.
First Hillary spouts a message of a united Democratic front, after which she immediately goes on an attack binge against Obama, thus putting Obama in the defensive stance to create a website chronicling her attacks as they happen. I thought it was pretty brilliant. However, somehow the vast majority of the Democratic party seem to completely ignore it, defying any logic or reason.
So the question becomes, is it truly a race issue? Are people content to accept a female over a black male as a “lesser of two evils” type of reasoning? Are they actually voting for the candidates base don where they stand in key issues? I don’t really think so. I presume it not to be arguable that there will be people who refuse to vote for Hillary because she is a female just as there are people who will refuse to vote for Obama due to his skin color. No matter how you slice it, or how small the concept may be, it exists.
If this is their thinking I would have to largely disagree. Hillary Clinton has a history of deceit, lies and questionable financial background. She still refuses many of her past records to be exposed. Too many people surrounding the Clinton circle either wound up dead, pardoned by Bill, or in some way involved in some sort of scandal such as with the Hillary’s Whitewater scandal. (Bill’s and Hill’s partner in crime James McDougal died of a questionable heart attack in federal prison incidentally.)
As even key as I try to stay it is hard for me to refrain myself in thinking there are those who are blindly following political leaders into the voting booths simply based on either “likability”, “name recognition”, “political party affiliation” and little more. The average voter typically isn’t fully aware of where their candidate of choice stands on key issues.
For example: Those who support madam Clinton, aren’t aware that her Universal Healthcare would cause states to raise taxes to the point of keeping people poor just in order to finance it. It isn’t financially feasible, but because less fortunate people want free universal healthcare they vote for her without knowing the full economic impact of the concept.
Folks don’t seem to realize Socialism failed in the former U.S.S.R. and brought the Soviet Union’s economy crashing down as they attempted to convert a “somewhat” democratic society. So how does a candidate that favors socialist ideals manage to convince voters she is the candidate of change for the better? Yeah she is definitely a candidate for change, the WRONG kind of change. No matter how you look at it she is still a part of the old guard,(and McCain the real old guard) thus not a candidate for positive change in my own opinion. First she was the “experience” candidate and now she claims to be the “change” candidate adopting whatever the popular concept at the time is. Lest you forget, it was in fact Obama who first touted himself as the candidate of change so i would challenge that Hillary stole his concept.
Now rather than just discuss the Clintons and Obamas, I could make the same argument for voters who follow such candidates as Ron Paul. Somehow people blindly follow this guy because he thinks he can dissolve the IRS, bring everybody home from Iraq and hide the U.S. from the rest of the world. Unfortunately it just isn’t that easy in the grand scheme of things. Paul’s thinking is far too flawed and simple minded to ever capture the majority of intelligent educated voters which is why he hasn’t done so well thus far in the caucuses.
Are people really voting for change? I would venture to say No. People are voting out of frustration. They think either if Hill gets in office, Bill will help her to fix the economy with Clinton-economics, or that John McCain is the best person to resolve the situation in Iraq. While others are stuck on Romney’s perfect hair and presidential appearance, and Obama’s likability. And again, Ron Paul supporters just show us that there are completely clueless individuals out there who obviously have no idea what’s going on in the world and how best to responsibly act accordingly.
Here’s to the coming recession ….. I think I’ll move to Canada for the next 4 years. (kidding, I’m actually imprisoned behind a 1990’s era computer in Nate’s basement, please send food and drink!)
Angry over and out.