Hillary Clinton’s political problem, Part 2…

The GOP are engaging in “guilt by association ads” that tie Senator Obama to his former pastor and of course to any unfortunate Democrat running in states selected by the GOP to use such ads against that political candidate and certainly against the party. Well, the news media only played up Rev. Wright to the hilt. And so the GOP now feel that they can make the Reverend yet another Willie Horton. Why? Because Rev. Wright spoke of this nation’s violent history. Believe it or not, this nation does have a violent history. Because Rev. Wright speaks about this nation being built on the backs of slaves? Up until the 1860s, this nation was indeed built on the backs of slaves. Because this nation might actually have engaged in genocidal activities? Just ask any Native American Indian how the federal government was prepared to treat them. How a people who were certainly here before we Europeans got driven off their lands, denied their culture and etc. Those who survived, at least. Such statements as Rev. Wright gave would hardly be “offensive” to anyone who has an understanding of history.

Did Reverend Wright go off the wall about the government creating AIDS? A little. Would he have gone off the wall by saying that there was a malign neglect by the government in the early days of the AIDS crisis? Not at all. After all, AIDS was, according to the “Christians” at the time, God’s punishment of the gays. And hetero blacks, and drug users, and kids born of AIDS infected parents. So how long did it take before “Christians” could understand compassion as AIDS became an epidemic throughout the world? Decades. Government might indeed have done something for AIDS sufferers if it hadn’t been infused with self-righteous “Christian” bigotry. And yeah, the GOP running the Rev. Wright ads were only too happy to be part of that good ole “Christian” bigotry. As it pertains to Senator Clinton, of course, if her fellow Democrat goes down in defeat because of these “guilt by association” ads, that means she is more electable. Well now, let us examine the ways…

I watched Michael Moore on Larry King Live this evening. He really didn’t have anything good to say about Senator Clinton through out the interview. When it came to the invasion of Iraq, he spoke of the 30% opposed to the war, around 100 million people who had no problem recognizing that the GW administration was “playing us.” Indeed Moore was prepared to argue that anyone we should want as president, ought to even be smarter than than the 100 million people who figured out what GW was really after. Let me consider this thought: That Senator Clinton probably did plan on running for office of the President of the United States. But long before she might announce, she would first have to gain some political experience. Voting for the war would put her in good standing with the hawks. It would give her appeal to the hawks. Tough lady, she doesn’t mind sending young people into a war with no clear plan for actually winning the damn thing. That is one hell of an argument to make some 5 years later. Whereas, a truly good president wouldn’t just put boots on the ground to go after an enemy, he would put boots on the ground with a clear plan of action to actually defeat the enemy! By voting for the war, she was putting a very misplaced faith in the ability of GW to actually manage in war time and as Commander in Chief, what he couldn’t manage as a governor in Texas and as a CEO of his own business. His entire track record has been that of disasters whereby people had to step in, rescue him and clean up after him. No you don’t put your faith in such a guy.

The next issue that certainly popped out at me was what Moore said in his interview about Clinton and the last debate she had with Obama. Applying the same “guilt by association” that she would certainly hope the GOP would use against Obama too. Louis Farrakhan, Hamas, etc.? I don’t call anyone “tough” who has to stomp all over other people to try to “win.” We had 8 years of seeing the Karl Rove’s playbook in action and here Clinton wants to do the same thing. What I would call it, is how dishonorable people can be who engage in this level of ugly. Now, how about applying “offensive” to Senator Clinton:

  1. Isn’t it offensive to dis minorities whom you would want on your side in a general election campaign? By continually dissing Obama on the basis of race, you would.
  2. Isn’t it offensive to make a big deal out of Rev. Wright when even Clinton’s “spiritual adviser” Rev. Billy Graham was shown to have at one point, slammed the Jews of this country? (“The Daily Show with Jon Stewart–30 April 2008”) And here Newt Gingrich was saying that “racist” pastors would have been ostracized. Really?
  3. Isn’t it offensive to appeal to the devils of white humanity? Especially when we all have issues in common?
  4. Isn’t it offensive to call something “elitist” where the person who said what he did, was speaking nothing less than truth?
  5. Isn’t it offensive to no longer believe in one’s own past, the reasons why the Democratic party represents what it does or even the good that one had done years ago?
  6. Wouldn’t Senator Clinton’s own offensive behavior merely put her on par with Rev. Wright?

Think about it. Senator Clinton has been doing and saying outrageous things for some time now. And she is going to be offended by Rev. Wright? She would “walk out” at the first sign of offensive remarks by the Rev. in question? Moore spoke of the fact that he had been a Catholic all of his life. He spoke of the fact that he met plenty of priests who had particular views of the role of women in the church, birth control denounced as a “sin.” He sat through such sermons and hadn’t walked out. And isn’t that really the crux of the matter? Who would listen to Pat Robertson and even more join his Christian Coalition? Why lots of people. Even though Pat Robertson had said such offensive things as how much this country deserved the terrorist attack on 9/11. No one stopped contributing to Robertson. And Robertson continues to be a major influence in the GOP. So is Dr. James Dobson of Focus on the Family. For the GOP to have a generally successful run for their various political offices, they must first have Dobson’s blessings. Well, Dobson’s interpretations of the bible would be called rather off the wall too. His ideas on the family go to the Utopian extremes. How about Rev. Haggee whom Senator McCain actively sought the endorsement of? As I explained to a co-worker, who wanted to fault Obama for sitting in the pews of a highly flamboyant (to say the least) pastor and who “couldn’t figure out” what his pastor believed? Well now, that might be a strike against Obama if it weren’t for the fact that the GOP actively court people who sat in the pews for the last 20 years imbibing the bile, hatred, etc. of guys like Rev. Jerry Falwell. Who’s disdain for people who weren’t 100% in his camp was legendary. And who even regarded a cartoon character as “gay.” A cartoon character? A “gay” teletubbie! Wow. Who was also instrumental in helping to wreck Senator Clinton’s (while first lady) initial health care plan. Who’s followers never had any problem saying the most vile and offensive things about her husband and her. Yeah, millions of people could watch Falwell’s “700 Club” for the last 20 years with no problem. And then go out to vote the way, Falwell wanted them too. Well now, under the circumstances, Falwell and his ilk became the GOP party’s pastors. But suddenly, only Rev. Wright could become “offensive.” And there is some kind of problem with his black congregent who is now running for president, being “that” sort of Christian from “that” sort of church. An intolerance that would have made the Apostle Paul weep with shame. I wouldn’t vote for Hillary as a 54 year old white woman who still doesn’t have a lot of advantages, because she shames me. I want nothing to do with her.

Advertisements

One Response to “Hillary Clinton’s political problem, Part 2…”

  1. Beaches Nature Wallpaper Says:

    Woot this is soooo awesome!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: