Monday, January 22, 2007

seeds of destruction

Activist liberals need to stay on top of the subliminal propaganda of the wrong-wingers and tirelessly work to counteract it, because they are already pulling out all of the stops. The growing theme of the last couple of weeks has been that it might not be a good idea to elect Hillary Clinton in 2008 because that would mean that if she served for two terms that would mean that Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton was the sequence of presidents for twenty-eight years, and that was just too "dynastic." Funny thing is, I can't seem to recall any of these people objecting to the Bush part of this "dynastic" succession. This is nothing but a subtle play to discourage people from even considering Hillary Clinton for president. Remember, it wasn't until we were presented with the reality of Senator Clinton running that the whole idea struck the people who are pushing this story as unseemly, and of course, we are all supposed to know that they are only thinking of the well-being of the United States.

The flaw in the logic that is being carefully obscured is that of the Bush-Clinton-Bush span, the twelve years under the Bushes were disasters (or will have been) but the eight years of Clinton were a golden period of peace and prosperity. Upon examining the meme, it seems to me the people who are pushing it are doing some very dishonest conflation and that this meme is a close relative of the "Democrats should be bipartisan" whining that has been playing on an infinite loop since the elections.

You see, if you look at it from a slightly different direction it looks like that after the first Bush disaster a Clinton was the best antidote.

Perhaps another Clinton is the best antidote for this Bush as well.

She sure couldn't be any worse.

(Personally, I'd like to see an Ewards/Webb ticket.)


Blogger Mary K. Goddard said...

Hillary is beholding to the same power brokers as the repugnicans. Repugnicans won't vote for her and she's pissed off enough Dems with her wishy-washy behavior the last couple of years that I don't think she can pull it off. I think Arianna Huffington was right when she said the Dems had a death wish if the nominated Hillary.

But you're right, she couldn't be any worse....

11:39 PM  
Blogger Milo Johnson said...

What's particularly interesting about Hillary Clinton is that the opposition has dug up all the dirt that there is on her. They have no surprises left, and despite all the shit they have thrown at her, none of it has really stuck and she has, like her husband, won most of her battles. She's about as unSwift-boatable as a candidate is every likely to be again and has the benefit of the expertise of one of the most skilled politicians that's ever stumped. I think she's a stronger candidate than she really gets credit for being. Which is good. It's a lot easier to beat someone when they underestimate you.

12:01 AM  
Blogger Ronni said...

The fact remains that, even thought I don't really like her, I will support her if she wins the nomination. Still, I'd be happier with a Gore/Clinton ticket. I agree with Mary that she is one of the Skull-and-Bones crowd, just like Kerry.

8:32 AM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home