Obama '08?

Why We Wish the Clintons Would Just Go Away

Because they surround themselves with people like Mark Penn and James Carville (Rove-like figures, just dumber and more duplicitous than Karl), and rather than making the Clintons look pure by contrast, they make them look even sleazier.

Because they lie more often than they tell the truth, and we can't take it anymore (where to begin? Ah, perhaps, one of Bill's freshest: he was always against the war in Iraq).

Because when they don't lie, they avoid telling the truth, prevaricate and try to laugh it off.

Because they have spun us into complete exhaustion (she, the most famous woman in America, complains that Iowa is difficult because she is less well known than a failed vice presidential candidate and a half-of-one-term senator).

Because they live on another planet, one where attacking a candidate's kindergarten record is appropriate and useful preparation for a general election.

Because he's the first black president as long as it doesn't interfere with their plans for world domination (when it does, they can turn into Jesse Helms and Trent Lott on a dime, from the Sista Souljah absurdity to the suggestion that the first black candidate with a shot at winning the presidency is a drug dealer).

Because she's a feminist until it is her own husband who abuses his power by engaging in sexual relationships with women who are his subalterns. Then she becomes a woman who stands by her man.

Because she's a strong, independent woman until she needs to ride the coattails of her husband's popularity. Then she is two for the price of one.
Because long before New York City taxpayers were subsidizing Rudy Giuliani's extramarital affair, Arkansans were paying for Bill's.

Because when she says there will be no surprises about her past in this campaign, we remember all the scandals we glossed over because it was all a right-wing conspiracy, and realize how little we know about the Clintons.

Because they, the reason why heterosexuals should be banned from getting married (or at the very least should be prosecuted for breach of contract), oppose marriage for gay people.

Because they'd rather die than admit a mistake.
Because Republicans would rather run against her than against Dennis Kucinich.

Because the prospect of 16 years of Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton would make us seriously consider voting for Cynthia McKinney and the Green Party. Or Ron Paul. Or Michael Bloomberg. Or whoever's on the Socialist Party line.

Because the Clintons are angry that America doesn't just roll over and elect her president the way New York rolled over and elected her senator.
Because we don't have to settle for them.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/paul-jenkins/why-we-wish-the-clintons-_b_76930.html

snood wrote:

Because Republicans would rather run against her than against Dennis Kucinich.

mysteryman wrote:

snood wrote:

Because Republicans would rather run against her than against Dennis Kucinich.

Well, thats nonsense for one. I think opinions about who would be easier or more difficult to run against, Hillary or Obama, are pretty evenly divided among Republicans. And with good reasons.

nimh wrote:

mysteryman wrote:

snood wrote:

Because Republicans would rather run against her than against Dennis Kucinich.

Well, thats nonsense for one. I think opinions about who would be easier or more difficult to run against, Hillary or Obama, are pretty evenly divided among Republicans. And with good reasons.

Learn to read!!!
You are crediting me with something I didnt write or post, although I do agree with the sentiments.

It was posted by snood, and was written by Paul Jenkins and published in the Huffington Post.
I am neither of those people, nor am I the Huffington Post.

mysteryman wrote:

nimh wrote:

mysteryman wrote:

snood wrote:

Because Republicans would rather run against her than against Dennis Kucinich.

Well, thats nonsense for one. I think opinions about who would be easier or more difficult to run against, Hillary or Obama, are pretty evenly divided among Republicans. And with good reasons.

Learn to read!!!
You are crediting me with something I didnt write or post, although I do agree with the sentiments.

It was posted by snood, and was written by Paul Jenkins and published in the Huffington Post.
I am neither of those people, nor am I the Huffington Post.

If you look closely, you will note that Nimh did not attribute those words to you at all. One might even be tempted to say 'learn to read!'

Cycloptichorn

But by putting my name on the quote box, it would appear to someone that didnt read the original post that it was my words being quoted.
I dont want credit for something I didnt write.

To the Editor:

Paul Krugman suggests that Senator Barack Obama is being naïve by eschewing John Edwards's anti-corporate populism and offering to create a "big table" in creating a national health care plan.

But historically populism has failed as a unifying national platform in part because Americans tend to dislike "class warfare." Also, policy change is most likely, and most likely to succeed, when it is incremental.

The health care industry employs huge numbers of Americans and accounts for about 15 percent of our gross domestic product. The industry has enormous power and would kill any plan it deemed antagonistic. To hope otherwise would be naïve.

We may not like the profit-based health care system that we inherited, but the best chance for change is bending not breaking. Just ask Hillary Rodham Clinton.

Zachary W. Oberfield

Philadelphia, Dec. 18, 2007

But historically populism has failed as a unifying national platform in part because Americans tend to dislike "class warfare." Also, policy change is most likely, and most likely to succeed, when it is incremental.

sozobe, quoting a letter to the NYT editor, wrote:

But historically populism has failed as a unifying national platform in part because Americans tend to dislike "class warfare." Also, policy change is most likely, and most likely to succeed, when it is incremental.

FDR will find that an interesting piece of news. He somehow missed the memo on this.