|
"Progressives"
Whine About Hillary Bashing
Once again boiling it down to arguments about
gender and the false left-right paradigm
Steve Watson
Infowars.net
Monday, January 22, 2007
The announcement that Hillary Clinton is to run for President
has rightfully worried many into debating the problems of political
dynasties in America. Commentators have pointed out that should
Hillary be elected it would mean America being under the control
of either a Bush or a Clinton for a total of at least 32 years.
Some "progressives" out there, however, seem to believe
that such a move would be...well, progressive.
In response to an LA
Times opinion piece entitled Anyone but a Bush
or a Clinton, Lefty website, the Daily Kos today hit back
with a
Sacchariney blurb about how it is "unfair"
to suggest the people should not vote for Hillary because her
last name is Clinton.
It goes on:
Hillary Clinton was on her own a capable,
high-powered lawyer with nearly unlimited potential. She chose
to partner herself with her husband, and worked with him to raise
his profile and possibilities. Would those "she wouldn't
be senator" folks be as comfortable if this was turned on
its head: Bill Clinton would never have been president without
a wife named Hillary. Would someone else have been so competent
and supportive in fighting back against the scandals that plagued
Bill's career long before he reached the White House? Would someone
else have made the connections, raised the money, and been as
effective in forging the coalitions that brought Bill up the political
ladder?
Once again the crux of the issue is being woefully missed by
the "progressives" who seem to become completely detached
from any practical debate when the possibility of having a Democrat
in office is raised, especially if that Democrat is a woman.
Yes, the Daily Kos is right, Hillary was complicit in everything
Bill Clinton did to grease his way up the ladder, and that is
just one reason why she shouldn't become President.
The piece then goes on to make a bizarre reference to Elizabeth
Edwards, the wife of 2004 candidate John Edwards, and suggests
he would never have run if it were not for her support for her
man, thus revealing itself as a thinly veiled "Hillary's
critics are just sexists" rant. The fact that it was reported
that Edwards was
picked by the elites in the Bilderberg group, seems
to matter not.
If the Daily Kos really wants to be "progressive" it
should stop continuously raising the gender issue and telling
everyone that women are less powerful than men. Anyone in the
right mind knows that some of the most powerful people on this
planet are women.
One commenter throws in the opinion the Kos was searching to
shape further down the page:
...It's sexist and whether she is your candidate
or not, it sounds moronic to pretend she would not have been a
senator if she had not married Bill Clinton. Indeed she may have
gone further faster without him.
Indeed a cursory look at more comments from the piece shows just
how a rational debate about the domination of the "chosen
few" in politics can veer off course into a wildly irrelevant,
sexism, left vs right or even rich vs poor argument:
... I think this posturing is a result of
years of rightwing radio and TV assault on the Clintons. People
are prepared to not vote Dem if she wins? This reminds of the
same bullshit that was happening with Nader before the 2000 election.
It's the same tired right wing "Clinton fatigue" &
"everyone hates the Clintons" garbage.
...This has been paraded out ad nauseam for
months now, and is a comment in almost every diary that has anything
to do with Hillary.
Its wrong.
Just because there were two GOP Presidents
in the past two decades who are from the same family is no reason
to "decide" upfront that a Democratic candidate is not
worthy of the office because she is related to a past President.
...that's just a ridiculous comparison. Bill
Clinton came from a poor (maybe not dirt poor but compared to
the Bush's, poor for sure!) family and worked hard for everything
he achieved. He knows what it's like to be middle-class, working-class.
Nothing guaranteed him the presidency except his own hard-work
and political talent. And odds are, he would not have become president
were it not for Hillary. I would also suggest that it is very
likely that Hillary would have been able to run and win for Senate
if she were just Hillary Rodham.
Clinton and the Bushes personally worked together to profit from
massive drug
smuggling operations through Mena, while Clinton
was Governor of Arkansas. His "hard work" consisted
of proving to the elite that he could lick boots and roll over
as good as anyone else. This is not about rich vs poor and any
notion that Bill Clinton represents the working classes is laughable.
He passed virtually all the Republican globalist agenda in the
early nineties signing onto NAFTA and the WTO.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Want to start your own blog or website, get the word out and support
Alex Jones? Infowars.net offers
high-quality webhosting services at very competitive prices, and
most importantly, with
infowars.net, privacy is paramount! We don't sell the names of
our customers to marketing
firms or the government. Click
here for more info.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What has Clinton ever done for the poorer people of America?
He signed the welfare reform Personal Responsibility Act, which
forced millions of working class people off welfare. Not so bad
in itself, but when you consider that the jobs available to them
were purely extremely low wage and slave labor work, it becomes
a different matter. It was EARLY into Clinton's second term in
office that the manufacturing jobs decline started. Manufacturing
employment alone has fallen 3.3 million (19 percent) from its
March 1998 peak under Clinton. This trend is simply continuing
under Bush as more and more jobs are being exported.
...I reject the idea that two Clinton presidencies
make a monarchy and I severely reject ANY comparison of Hillary
to G-Dub.
...Although she can be seen as "friendly"
to big business, she is not a corporatist and does not have a
record of favoring the wealthy over the working person. That is
simply not her record in the Senate.
Hillary is the ultimate elitist and represents the Democrats
supposed base, the poor and downtrodden, about as much as Lindsay
Lohan represents grace and dignity. She was sure to inform the
likes of David Rockefeller and Queen Beatrix of the Netherlands
as to her presidential aspirations during her visit to last year's
Bilderberg
conference in Ottawa Canada.
...I suspect Hillary is why you want the law
[to bar consecutive family members as Presidents]. To bar a scary
smart, effective liberal from running for president.
Talk about abuse of power.
And it makes no sense, though the republicans would love
you for it. Also anti-american...in the america where we're
valued for our individuality and have the (theoretical) freedom
to run for office as we wish to. Barring anyone from
trying to gain public office based on arbitrary characteristics
is patenly offensive.
How is it valuing individuality to have the same
two families in office for three decades? Freedom can never be "theoretical"
as this "progressive" states.
These two families are desperate attention loving power mad elitists and want
to retain control of their respective political parties. They
are using each other to ‘soften' their disapproval in the
opposite party. We have two simultaneous dynasties - the Bushes
and the Clintons. The Bushes are the hand of the Republican arm
and the Clintons the hand of the Democratic arm. The body is of
course controlled by one mind that outranks them all, the corporate
fascist elite.
It is time to stop missing the point of this debate. Though we
are hardly likely to see a rational debate about Hillary from
supposedly "anti-war" websites such as the Daily Kos,
Crooks and Liars and Raw Story, who are all now running Hillary
ads, paid for by her campaign.
The Clintons and the Bushes (or the Bushtons as I shall call
them from now on) are comparable to the Lucchese and Genovese
families: they have their little spats, but at the end of the
day they eat their gnocchi from the same table. The Democans and
the Republicrats are the left and right hands of a single body.
The mind of this body is intent on bare handedly tearing apart
freedom and ripping to shreds the constitutional form of governance
that was created to bring down this elitist rabble.
|
INFOWARS:
BECAUSE THERE'S A WAR ON FOR YOUR MIND
|
Email
