Why I don't think a vote for Hillary is a vote for racism..despite what MSNBC says...
| Ok...so I'm watching the post New Hampshire primary coverage on the national news and the cable news stations and I'm astounded that these pundits are trying to spin the fact that they totally screwed up their exit polling that suggested Obama would sweep the NH primary into an argument that New Hampshire voters are a bunch of lying racists. Give me a break! Their argument is that people told the polsters that they voted for Obama when they really voted for Hillary...but isn't it possible that these "so called" scientific polls failed to estimate the number of women voters who came out to vote, or overestimated the number of "college age" voters who would turn out?? (After all, college is not in session right now...all the Dartmouth and UNH kids are home in their home states/towns for another week or two). If I were from New Hampshire and voted for Hillary I would be down right pissed that the national news is suggesting that Obama lost because there is some secret undercurrent of racism in the liberal New England state of New Hampshire (meanwhile white-as-the-driven-snow Iowans don't have a hint of racism amongst them? They voted overwhelmingly for Obama) Isn't it more likely that either the pollsters interviewed a not-so-representative sample? Or maybe people really did lie about who they were voting for...but does that automatically mean people lied because of racism? Couldn't it be possible that people lied because they weren't sure who they were going to vote for until they got into the polling place? Or even more likely, couldn't people have lied because they were embarrassed to admit they were voting for anybody but Obama who has quickly become favored by the news media? Lets face it...it's not popular to admit to supporting Hillary Clinton...well guess what...I'm voting for Hillary Clinton! Don't get me wrong...I really like Obama...but there is something about him that screams "snake oil salesman" to me...I'll admit, the man is one hell of a speaker...his speeches are beyond inspirational...but I am always suspicious of politicians who try to sell themselves as the beacon of ideology...if you remember Bush was a likable guy...he was "a uniter, not a divider"...but when it comes to Obama, I just want to ask...What's the plan, man?...hope is a nice concept...but I don't expect my president to give me hope...I want my president to get shit done! You can try to sell me "hope"and "change" and "Yes We Can" as much as you want...but what the hell does that mean? Are you going to pass a law that we all have to have "hope"? How is that tangible? It's nice to be inspired, but if he walks into the White House that first day...how is "Hope" or "Change" going to fix Iraq, or the Trillions of dollars worth of national debt, or the fact that I probably wont be able to afford to put my kid through college or to retire with the help of social security because the last guy gave it all away? It comes down to this: I don't want to hear "As president I am going to inspire you with my brilliant oratory skills and my artful use of the word "Change""....I want to hear "As president, I am going to bust my ass to fix this mess that we're in...after the work is done, then we can talk about Hope..." I don't know about you guys...but I don't want to go through life knowing I voted for the person Chris Matthews or Keith Olberman told me to vote for...I want to vote for the person whose going to get shit done...so I'm supporting Hillary Clinton, whether you like it or not... ...commence your Clinton bashing now... |
Hillary could be a great president. Her husband was the greatest president since probably FDR, but that's like saying "ok, we're automatically switching back to the Clinton era" and that's not moving us forward. The setting was just right for (Bill) Clinton in 1992; lightning won't strike twice. Change has been the mantra of the Obama camp, and probably a word I'll end up hating after three months from presidential race overload. Is Hillary *really* going to do anything in four years? Probably not much considering even by conservative estimates, it would take at least ten years to undo all the damage Bush has done to the economy and foreign relations. Clinton has been a senator for how long? I don't recall seeing her do a hell of a lot in the senate...she just kind of blends in with the furniture, and sure, you could say the same for Obama probably. I like Obama much better personality wise. He doesn't sell magic, he gives it away for free out of a jewel encrusted unicorn shaped box, and I like it...but that just might be because of the oratory hell that our current president has put me through... Truth be told, the race is far from over. Iowa is just a sample of the country, so is NH, and so will be South Carolina which is John Edwards' home state. I like John, and if you can get past the creepy hair, I think he might just finish ahead of Obama in that primary-hell he won it in 2004. (not to play the race card here, but wasn't South Carolina one of the last states to argue for keeping the Confederate flag flying over their state capital?) If you wan't someone to fix the deficit, Huckabee is your guy. To put an end to this PATRIOT act bullshit and torture, McCain is your guy et cetera Joe, et cetera. No one is really selling the whole package on either side.
|
Well I think we've seen in the past that Clinton's have been able to fix deficits (and messes made by Bushes)...remember that lovely surplus we had back in 2000? What did Bush do with that? Oh yeah, he sent out checks to everyone...what did you do with your check? Spend it on beer? Go to the casino? Perhaps some porn? That surplus was was MUCH better off in the hands of the citizens, right? And those Republicans are so fiscally conservative, right? So what's a few trillion dollars as long as gays can't get married and woman can't have abortions, right? All I know is...the 90s were better...better music, better economy, better outlook...and I know people always talk about "moving forward instead of backward...not reminiscing or looking back"...but we how far have we moved "forward" since 2000? |
|
Ah the 90's...Great economy? Yes. Great music? Yes. Do we tend to see our youth through rose colored glasses? Probably.
As far as outlook goes; aren't we the same people who had that same outlook? Since there's now light at the end of the Bush tunnel, we should dust off that outlook...but I seem to have forgotten what that outlook was...peace? freedom? civil liberties? an economy that isn't always on the brink of recession? P.S. I worked under the table through most of college, so I never got a tax cut check, but I see what you mean. Bush pulled that rabbit out of the hat WAY too soon. It was straight up FDR/Reagan economics that was supposed to jump start the economy. That check would have come in much handier in 2004 when I was unemployed O-o |
I guess my overall point is that I am not prepared for political unknowns...I think we know what the Clinton's were/are and were not/are not capabable of... We took a risk with Bush...I'm voting for reasonable expectations this time...I'm not willing to take a chance on rhetoric and unknowns...not with such high stakes. so that's my case... |
