Monday, August 06, 2007



What these 3 all have in common isn't good for the rest of us

I don't know about you, but I wasn't a Clinton supporter when he ran for president; way too conservative. But after he won he reached out and tried to be inclusive and I met him a few times and found him charming and bright. His policies were certainly an improvement over Bush I and Reagan's, if not enough of an improvement for my tastes. And then the GOP tried to cut him down and sabotage his presidency for their own vile purposes and, like many Americans-- most in fact-- I was driven into the Clinton camp as a reaction against the reactionaries. That doesn't make Clinton's compromises with the extremists on issue after issue after issue any more palatable.

Yet today we have millions of otherwise reasonable Americans looking at 2 Bush terms and idealizing 2 Clinton terms. Bush is the worst president in the history of the United States. You could idealize Reagan, Nixon, Hoover, Buchanan and Harding in comparison. Clinton's was, all in all, a mediocre presidency-- not terrible, not great... mediocre. Certainly nothing to aspire to. The Republicans are offering "a pathetic bunch of pygmies"™ who would like to be the personification of Bush's third term. Democrats seem set on giving us Clinton III, in the form of Hillary. Yecchhhh.

Why don't any Democrats just lay it out on the table and critique Clinton's presidency? Well, finally someone started. If John Edwards keeps this up I'll cast my symbolic primary vote for him instead of Obama! Edwards ignored the taboo and argued that Clinton "allowed corporate insiders to shape the 1993 North American Free Trade Agreement that has cost U.S. jobs." I mean we all know Rahm Emanuel was Clinton's vicious little pitbull who forced Democrats to vote for this Republican garbage.
And Edwards, rather brilliantly, ties it right into the Clinton Machine penchant for corruption.
Edwards' complaints about the former president beloved by voters in his own party was a defiant move meant to highlight rival Hillary Rodham Clinton's relationship with special interests. It comes two days after Clinton refused Edwards' challenge to stop taking campaign donations from lobbyists, saying many represent good causes.

"It's time that the president stood up and fought for American workers," Edwards told a crowd of about 300 people at a union hall in Cedar Rapids. "It's time to have a president that always puts the interests of the American people first."

While Edwards' speech did not mention the name Clinton, the object of his complaint was obvious. Edwards criticized the presidential leadership during the 1993 passage of NAFTA, which was started by President George H.W. Bush and pushed through by Clinton. He said the trade agreement between the United States, Mexico and Canada was "written by insiders in all three countries."

Edwards said the policies of President George W. Bush have devastated towns and communities all across America, but "this is not just his doing."

"For far too long, presidents from both parties have entered into trade agreements, agreements like NAFTA, promising that they would create millions of new jobs and enrich communities," he said. "Instead, too many of these agreements have cost jobs and devastated towns and communities across this country."

Labels: , , ,


At 10:20 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hillary voted FOR the trumped up Iraqi invasion WITH the advise, i am sure, of a Bill Clinton I also grew to appreciate then.

Hillary's toast. It was a political vote and she had to know in her heart of hearts not to give Dub (short for W) any additional trumped up power grab.

I like Edwards. WHOSE the VP?
Dream team...Colin Powell.

At 1:46 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

If the object is to cast a "protest" vote, then choose anyone--heck, why not Mike Gravel? I like Edwards, but the reality is that his campaign isn't catching on, and we don't have to settle for a protest vote. Hillary doesn't get over 40% in any state, and everyone knows who she is. That means that over 60% of Democrats would like someone else. The only vote that makes sense right now is Barack. Now, if Edwards suddenly catches fire, maybe I'll change my mind, but...


Post a Comment

<< Home