01 June 2008
Clinton unfit for high office
I was partially surprised to hear about the decision to restore half of the Florida and Michigan delegates to each Clinton and Obama. The committee making this decision is misguided. They allowed the entire party and its rules to be subverted by a vocal and partisan group of people no different to the despised neo-cons.
Both states were long before, warned about the consequences of not toeing the party line but chose to defy the warning anyway. What is the point of having rules if they can be bent to suit a single candidate; particularly one who had herself endorsed the rules?
How is it fair to other candidates who actually obeyed the rules? Why are Florida and Michigan voters sufficiently exceptional that the rules others obeyed, don't apply to them? What message does this send to the broader community? Is the message "if you don't like the way the game is going, change the rules mid-game" a good one to send all over America?
After watching Clinton's antics over the last few months, I've come to the conclusion that she definitely would not make a good leader nor president. She has displayed some disturbing traits:
But all in all, the picture that has emerged of Clinton is of a person who will say and do anything to win office. She wants to have everything every which way to suit her and her alone. She then has the audacity to claim that her self-serving agenda is really selfless sacrifice for the greater good of all!
Let me be clear that I think Obama has much to do to prove he is in fact worthy of being president. It's all very well to talk about the need for change, to restore America's global standing (assuming that's remotely possible), to bring back values-centered government etc.
Duh, you don't need to be Homer Simpson or a nominee for presidential candidate to figure out these things. I mean half the world outside America has been saying this since Herr Bush stole the presidency from Al Gore. What we're all still waiting for with bated breath, is what exactly Obama is going to do to change things and how is he going to do it?
And as for McCain, well his vision for America is 100 years in Iraq (if necessary). I can see that if he's elected, then Paul Kennedy's (in his book, The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers) unanswered question of whether the US will decline gracefully or disgracefully will be surely answered as the latter.
After all, not even the US can continue spending enormous treasure without imploding its own economy one day. That day will only hasten faster if McCain is president. By the way, where I live, McCain is a brand of frozen vegetables.
Oh what a wonderful choice of pretenders to the throne this coming presidential election brings. Not America's best, surely?
Both states were long before, warned about the consequences of not toeing the party line but chose to defy the warning anyway. What is the point of having rules if they can be bent to suit a single candidate; particularly one who had herself endorsed the rules?
How is it fair to other candidates who actually obeyed the rules? Why are Florida and Michigan voters sufficiently exceptional that the rules others obeyed, don't apply to them? What message does this send to the broader community? Is the message "if you don't like the way the game is going, change the rules mid-game" a good one to send all over America?
After watching Clinton's antics over the last few months, I've come to the conclusion that she definitely would not make a good leader nor president. She has displayed some disturbing traits:
- Repeatedly lied through her teeth about her being "under fire" in Bosnia. And when confronted with evidence of her lies, claims that she "mis-spoke." So are we to take everything she says as mis-speaking of mis-truths?
- Gets other people to play the racial card and then hints the same when it suits her; while denying the same when people get the hint and criticise her for it. The imagery her behaviour invokes is that of a snake or eel slipping through your fingers.
- When people criticise her for playing the racial card, she turns around and complains that she's picked upon because she's a woman. She didn't allege Obama was criticised for his friendship with the firebrand pastor because he is black! Memo to Hillary: It isn't about gender or race, it's about character.
- Clinton endorsed the rules resulting in Florida and Michigan being excluded but now wants them included because it helps her. If the shoe was on the other foot, would she have agreed to Obama doing the same? Obama wasn't even on the Michigan ballot so counting them would clearly disadvantage him.
But all in all, the picture that has emerged of Clinton is of a person who will say and do anything to win office. She wants to have everything every which way to suit her and her alone. She then has the audacity to claim that her self-serving agenda is really selfless sacrifice for the greater good of all!
Let me be clear that I think Obama has much to do to prove he is in fact worthy of being president. It's all very well to talk about the need for change, to restore America's global standing (assuming that's remotely possible), to bring back values-centered government etc.
Duh, you don't need to be Homer Simpson or a nominee for presidential candidate to figure out these things. I mean half the world outside America has been saying this since Herr Bush stole the presidency from Al Gore. What we're all still waiting for with bated breath, is what exactly Obama is going to do to change things and how is he going to do it?
And as for McCain, well his vision for America is 100 years in Iraq (if necessary). I can see that if he's elected, then Paul Kennedy's (in his book, The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers) unanswered question of whether the US will decline gracefully or disgracefully will be surely answered as the latter.
After all, not even the US can continue spending enormous treasure without imploding its own economy one day. That day will only hasten faster if McCain is president. By the way, where I live, McCain is a brand of frozen vegetables.
Oh what a wonderful choice of pretenders to the throne this coming presidential election brings. Not America's best, surely?
Labels: al, barack, chalmers johnson, clinton, democrats, gore, hillary, mccain, obama, republicans
